tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post7409735825916568735..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Is Religion the Root of All Evil?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87659650767739657502010-03-20T09:43:13.368-04:002010-03-20T09:43:13.368-04:00religion the root of all evil?! Highly doubt it. I...religion the root of all evil?! Highly doubt it. If anything, the separation we impose on everyone around us and ultimately ourselves, that isn't really there, is the root of all evil.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10688321864148339606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21618826448200002009-03-19T02:11:00.000-04:002009-03-19T02:11:00.000-04:00I would say that Barefoot Bum might consider that ...I would say that Barefoot Bum might consider that both statements have merit. <BR/><BR/>It is the case that more evil has been committed in the name of religion - or, if one prefers, ideology - than any other factor. <BR/><BR/>Let's not ignore that Stalin murdered more than 20 million people in a state that outlawed religion. Hitler murdered about as many, but he was ostensibly Christian, as absurd as that sounds (much like G. W. Bush's claim of Christian faith).<BR/><BR/>That said, all religion is based on lies. I think religion has always been about controlling people, and what better method than instilling fear and retribution, both temporal and in the supposed hereafter?<BR/><BR/>Do you remember what it was like before you were born? That's just how it will be after you die. It may matter to you right now, but in the big scheme of things, it matters not a whit. The universe will go on and spend an eternity in the cold dark once the era of light and heat burns out forever. All life will be gone from it, and anything that mattered to the living with it.<BR/><BR/>While it may be repugnant for us to think, humans will be a small blip in the history of this planet as well as the environment that surrounds it. The planet will go on just fine without us once we're gone, just as it did for several billion years before we arrived. And eventually the sun will expand to scorch this little rock to a cinder and all life here will be extinguished forever.<BR/><BR/>If all this inclines you to think I must be misanthropic, please know that I'm not. I think it's an amazing thing that we can hold the concept of the universe in our minds, and it is my view that that's way more interesting than spurious ideas of God or religion.<BR/><BR/>God is as human an invention as clothing. And just look how the religious adorn themselves in the trappings of costume. From the Pope and the preist to the Dalai Lama to the shamans of tribal societies. I actually think bishops and cardinals look quite ridiculous in their garb.<BR/><BR/>More importantly though - as my my premise began - it does seem evident that more atrocity has been commited in the name of religion over the course of human history than anything else.<BR/><BR/>So, is religion the root of ALL evil? No, but it certainly is one of the primary sources, and the sooner humans discard it, the better. I suppose it's all part of growing up.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10719559956565316359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58215032127198727092008-10-19T04:22:00.000-04:002008-10-19T04:22:00.000-04:00The Horn said, "The problem (with religion)is the ...The Horn said, "The problem (with religion)is the intolerance and fanaticism of so many of its followers."<BR/><BR/>But then he went on to say, "And more people have been killed by atheistic communist governments than any theistic faiths."<BR/><BR/>The first step in dealing with intolerance and fanaticism is to recognize it when you see it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54879487633661123022008-10-16T16:25:00.000-04:002008-10-16T16:25:00.000-04:00Religion per se is not evil; The problem is the in...Religion per se is not evil; <BR/>The problem is the intolerance and fanaticism of so many of its followers. If all the followers of different religions would just live and let live,and none of them tried to impose their beliefs on others or oppressed and killed those with different beliefs, religion would not be a problem.<BR/> And more people have been killed by atheistic communist governments than any theistic faiths.<BR/> With or without religion, people have always found excuses to oppress and slaughter each other.The Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00093506671466742954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18283294218227806822008-10-16T12:07:00.000-04:002008-10-16T12:07:00.000-04:00tigg13,you ask...Jaceppe, let me see if I understa...tigg13,<BR/><BR/>you ask...<BR/><I>Jaceppe, let me see if I understand you correctly. You are laying the blame for these scams on to the victems?</I><BR/><BR/>No... The blame for the scam is clearly on the scammers. The scammers are guilty of vile deception, greed, abuse of trust, theft, you name it... lots of evils... They are the ones who have instigated the situation and will be judged for such crimes. But, I still think that others actions and motives do not exonerate me of attempting to discern what is going on and guarding myself against it if possible (if I had been in such a situation). We, have a group of elders in our church that provide overarching vision, direction, financial decision-making, etc. for our congregation. They in turn meet with other elders in our group of churches which provides a level of accountability amongst all. However, our elders want input from the congregation which I provide them. Sometimes I don't agree with the specific details of those decisions and, if so, I say so. Yet usually this difference is of no concern and as of yet I have not been in a situation where those decisions were in contradiction to biblical mandate. I trust Christ fully, I trust men less cause I know what's in man (because I know aspects of my own heart). The levels of accountability are intended to protect the flock and I need to take advantage of them. I would not want to put myself in a position where one man|women (e.g. pastor) has a high degree of invasive influence on my life in terms granted authority... that seems unwise. I'm not suggesting that I am completely insulated from being susceptible to scams... however, it does seem like the ones you cited have to do with money and I think Scripture is clear that the Kingdom of God is not about money. I don't know whether the persons perpetrating the scams were few (e.g. a single pastor for each congregation), relatively new to the congregation or proven in character, there could be alot of factors. It is evil that these scammers were able to perpetrate this deception and sad that many were taken advantage of ... and the wicked scammers should be punished. Scripture reminds us there will always be wolves in the Church and so we should prove everything to see if it lines up with Scripture.Jaceppehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569840643487354373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26486505131364941432008-10-16T06:10:00.000-04:002008-10-16T06:10:00.000-04:00Jaceppe, let me see if I understand you correctly....Jaceppe, let me see if I understand you correctly. You are laying the blame for these scams on to the victems? If only they had the same understanding of god's word that you have they never would have gotten taken?<BR/><BR/>Weren't they doing what christians are supposed to do; demonstrate unrestricted faith and trust in christ?<BR/><BR/>How could they have questioned the monetary component of these interactions without expressing doubt in their religious leaders - the peopel whom they trust to show them the word of god?<BR/><BR/>Do you think that congregations should be done away with in favor of each person finding enlightenment on their own?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60320868665824868342008-10-15T11:09:00.000-04:002008-10-15T11:09:00.000-04:00Tigg13,I read some articles you alluded to…Interes...Tigg13,<BR/><BR/>I read some articles you alluded to…<BR/>Interesting.... Sad... Tragic... that so many Christians are still looking for their life in God to be revealed in the tangible blessings of this world... Some scriptures on this... "the love of money is the root of all (kinds of) evil", "do not love the world nor anything in the world", "you have not because you ask not and <B>when you ask you ask with wrong motives so you can spend it on yourselves</B>". In my opinion if someone "of the cloth" stands up and begins conflating the will of God with the distribution of wealth to the congregation then they are rapidly losing their credibility. Joel Olsteen may have already lost it. Scripture says there will always be wolves in the fold. We are commanded to test what they say... if they are speaking about worldly wealth as the reward for faith well, they are at best missing the point, at worst talking like a deceiver who is operating in sin. It saddens me that Christians fall prey to such tactics, but it is important to value what Scripture values (lay up treasures in heaven) which helps provide defenses against such deceptions. Wealth is a gift from God, to be shared, enjoyed, utilized to provide for needs of others and self; in general stewarded... Christians (including me) constantly need to be on their guard against "loving" it... If it begins to command us we've got a serious problem... "You cannot serve both God and money."<BR/><BR/><BR/>David,<BR/><BR/>I'll aim at responding to your latest posts this evening...Jaceppehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569840643487354373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35853890601309494092008-10-15T05:47:00.000-04:002008-10-15T05:47:00.000-04:00Jaceppe, check out:John Bowers and the Breakthroug...Jaceppe, check out:<BR/><BR/>John Bowers and the Breakthrough Christian Center of St Petersburg< FL<BR/><BR/>W. Michael Altman and the Grace Christian Ministies of Pittsburg, Penn.<BR/><BR/>Bill Bresnahan and the World Trade Center.<BR/><BR/>Raymond L. Knowles of the Jehovah's Witnesses of Lauderdale Lakes FL.<BR/><BR/>To name a few.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35059838369998104372008-10-15T01:09:00.000-04:002008-10-15T01:09:00.000-04:00Ed,I wanted to respond to your recent post and am ...Ed,<BR/><BR/>I wanted to respond to your recent post and am sorry this took so long…<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><I>You put the blame on "original sin," but an evolutionist would simply admit in parallel fashion that human beings are not necessarily "tame" animals. If provoked we may "show our fangs."</I><BR/><BR/>Would you lay child molestation, serial killing, mass extinction, etc. at the feet of “show our fangs?” And, if so, is there anything morally “wrong” with one “showing his|her fangs?” I would lay them squarely upon human sinfulness (along with other less culturally vile offenses) regardless of their perpetrator.<BR/><BR/>Your recounting of Christian History and U.S. history is a bit condemning (which I imagine may be your intent)… Your account does seem to minimize or ignore beneficial efforts to humanity motivated by Christian intent. I am currently reading some on this so I won’t attempt a point-by-point counter post at this time. However, you do seem to be bringing into question the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Regarding this, and the 45000 denominations and rival missionary organizations: I can only speak to what I know… I personally know Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Lutherans, Church of Christ, Southern Baptists, and Charismatics to name a few. And, yes, there are differences between myself and the friends I have from these traditions. However, in my experience, our differences have not been the focal point of our relationship. Rather, it is the shared experience of personal life in Christ. We may have some differences in belief and tradition but that has not led to our departing from one another or disbanding our friendship.<BR/><BR/>Regarding your 2 questions…<BR/><I>Question, which of the two below is more difficult for a Christian to imagine?<BR/>A) a fellow Christian who lies outrageously<BR/>B) an atheist who tells the truth?<BR/>Explain why?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I believe both are possible. (B) is possible because God has written knowledge of His law on the hearts of men (if Gentiles do the requirements of the law they become a law unto themselves.) Now, I don’t believe anyone can keep this all the time; but I do not believe an atheist who tells the truth is surprising.<BR/><BR/>(A) Is possible because Christians have indwelling sin they are still battling and individuals have different temptations they are more prone to than others. Now, what would be very difficult for me to believe is a Christian who confesses Christ and repeatedly over a lifetime of behavior continues to show no remorse over sin, nor shows any progress whatsoever over sin. There are numerous places in the New Testament where Christians are encouraged to “examine themselves to see if they are in the Faith” or other such instructions. Someone who shows no real fruit of repentance may not be a Christian at all. (Now, I want to be clear on this… I am in no position to know anything at all about either the inner state of their heart or of the ultimate destiny of such a professed Christian. … That is knowledge only God knows.) It is simply that we know trees by their fruit and if there is absolutely no fruit of Christ then such a person does not have much evidence they are actually in Christ. Christians are commanded to encourage one another. Such a person I would continue to encourage and I would also ask them to examine their self as I must also do regularly. The Lord knows I have had my own battles in overcoming indwelling sin and I relish brotherly encouragement when I receive it.<BR/><BR/>Another thought regarding the Christian above is the following: If Christianity is true than it is possible such a believer is actually the target of the “god of this world”. Demonic powers have no reason to trick and deceive, tempt and seduce non-believers into shameful sin. Demons have no axe to grind with them. But, sons and daughters of God are loathed by evil supernatural powers simply because they are in Christ. So, the Christian has to battle on more than one front to overcome sin: His own sin, temptations of the enemy, and temptations of the world.<BR/><BR/>And “no” I have not heard of “religious affinity fraud.”Jaceppehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569840643487354373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20201509066458274502008-10-15T01:02:00.000-04:002008-10-15T01:02:00.000-04:00Damien,Thanks for your answer on natural explanati...Damien,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your answer on natural explanation of religion… I’ve got some comments, but sorry this took so long…<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><I>Religion doesn't have to provide a purpose that is beneficial to humanity. Religion could be completely incidental, arising from a number of advantagious adaptations that do help us survive the real world, but have the added side effect of "tricking" us sometimes.</I><BR/><BR/>So, I take it you are suggesting that religion may provide no useful purpose to humanity, may be a “trick” and may be incidental to other aspects of our species which <I>were</I> selected because they provided a survivability advantage. …<BR/><BR/>Well, it is an opinion; yet one that seems to relegate all the acts of compassion motivated by religious rationale to the dung heap... I wouldn't say it's a very historically accturate opinion... thanks for answering the question.<BR/><BR/>you also said:<BR/><BR/><I>...it's only a matter of time before these side effects of a mechanism that evolved to protect us evolve as memes into...</I><BR/><BR/>I haven't read Dawkins book regarding "memes" so all I know about this concept is things I have read about it not from him. However, I am not aware of emperical evidence demonstrating that either ideas or behavior can be genetically encoded. I am not asking for "just so" stories here but recent, solid, reproducable evidence that demonstrates these possibilities. If you have some, by all means, please provide it...Jaceppehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569840643487354373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76113366468646282352008-10-15T00:20:00.000-04:002008-10-15T00:20:00.000-04:00Scott,I wanted to respond to your comments… thanks...Scott,<BR/><BR/>I wanted to respond to your comments… thanks for your patience.<BR/><BR/>I’ve only being following this site for a couple of months now, but your comment is one I have seen at least twice already… the idea that Christians selectively choose which attributes they want to emphasize and ignore ones that you say do not support their cause. Well, I don’t agree with your assertion here… I think what Christians do is attempt to look at Scripture, see what is stated about God, His character, what has been revealed about His plan, and then comment they best they can on that information. Regarding attributes you think Christians skew to their advantage or ignore to their advantage if you have specific examples I would be interested in your response. You do mention the following in your post:<BR/><BR/><I>His tolerance, patience, power, revealing Himself in a uniform manner, unexpected outcomes, consolation, insistence or temporal justice…</I><BR/><BR/>I don’t know precisely in what way you mean “tolerance” so I’ll wait ‘til you characterize that. However, I believe He is amazingly patient with us; I know He has been with me. Regarding His power it appears you want His power to be manifested in a very specific way; I can’t really comment on your expectations. As far as uniform revelation – I will think on that a while before I offer a response. On unexpected outcomes – see Crucifixion & Resurrection. On consolation – I have experienced phenomenal measures of this. On temporal justice – I will think on that a while but there are few thoughts on that below…<BR/><BR/>One thing I have noticed all 3 times I have seen this particular idea is that none of the posters (including you) have anything to say about His Holiness, righteousness, or justice (albeit you do mention justice in the immediate, temporal sense) which are also attributes Scripture mentions of Him. Your desire for Him to mete out temporal justice can be found at times quite vividly in the Old Testament. But, what is often the accusation by atheists of the Old Testament is that He is being cruel when He acts just… so it can be tiring having to answer conflicting accusations (I’m not accusing you directly here, I’m simply making an observation about general trends). Which is it though?... do you want Him to mete out quick, immediate, temporal justice or do you want Him to demonstrate patience and “pass over” sins giving us 2nd and 3rd and xth chances?... I think He has been revealing His character in Scripture but the ultimate revelation of Himself and His character is in the person of Christ; His life and work. And the ultimate revelation of what He is trying to do is in the events of the Cross and Resurrection. There we see His patience, mercy, grace, kindness, justice, righteousness, hatred of sin, etc… all in those momentous 3 days.<BR/><BR/>So, to wrap up I think the best way to see the character of God is to look at Christ, examine the Cross and Resurrection of Christ and try to understand what God is doing in Christ and His work. I really don’t believe Christians are trying to prop up some attributes and ignore others… I think what they are doing (or should be doing) is pointing to Christ; the Cross & Resurrection, trying to understand what God is doing there, and then moving forward and backward in biblical history to understand what He is revealing about His character and what He is doing in history.Jaceppehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569840643487354373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-394345999303315202008-10-13T13:20:00.000-04:002008-10-13T13:20:00.000-04:00Jaceppe,There is no "dilemma" for the materialist ...Jaceppe,<BR/><BR/>There is no "dilemma" for the materialist when it comes to ethics and morality. Just because the materialist doesn't think there's a universal Standard out there, doesnt mean that the materialist gas to conclude that there's no reason to have morals and standards. <BR/><BR/>The benefits of adhering to moral standards within a society are immediately observable. The existence of a supernatural Judge who expects us to follow Its rules, however, is not. This is how one can accept the concept of morality without accepting a God.Philip R Kreychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13079037983351521346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12974887928558962752008-10-13T11:19:00.000-04:002008-10-13T11:19:00.000-04:00Your question above is irrelevant because whatever...<B><BR/>Your question above is irrelevant because whatever god you are asking me about above, if it exists at all, exists only in the recesses of your mind.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>It is logically possible for an omnipotent omnscient creator of the universe who is malevolent and sadistic to exist.<BR/><BR/>And, on your theory, if he did then sadistic acts would be morally right.<BR/><BR/>Claiming that we don't live in a universe created by such a malevolent God (and, of course, as an atheist I agree on that, if nothing else) does nothing to address the problem above.<BR/><BR/>Are you really willing to endorse the idea that if we DID, hypothetically, live in such a universe, one created by a sadistic Creator, that child torture would be good? That is, after all, what logically follows from your theory. <BR/><BR/><B><BR/>Well, contrary to your objections, the Divine Nature Theory does in fact refute the Euthyphro dilemma because it shows it to be a false one. Since morality is rooted in the character of God then what He commands is of His nature and since His nature is Good and not subject to change (Mal 3:6, Jas 1:17) it is not arbitrary ....<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>The arbitrariness does not result from a changeable character (that is not the only way for something to be arbitrary). It results from the fact that ANYTHING can be morally right by your theory across the set of all logically possible universes---including child torture. <BR/><BR/><B><BR/>If you say that we can’t recognize it as good simply because you want to insert “God” into the sentence.....<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>I don't know how to respond to the claim from which the above comes because the quoted section makes no sense at all that I can see. Could you restate more clearly what you're trying to say here?David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26154514154314079922008-10-13T10:44:00.000-04:002008-10-13T10:44:00.000-04:00Ok, picking up on point #2 from above (i.e. can we...<B><BR/>Ok, picking up on point #2 from above (i.e. can we conceive reality or God to be any different?). Well, let’s explore that. Let’s take your example of child torture which I believe we all find reprehensibly evil. What would it mean to say that you can conceive of a universe where there is proper delight in this thing? (either by God or us).....<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>and <BR/><BR/><B><BR/>When you say you conceive of child torture as a proper thing you have to be able to frame it in a way that it is not dependent upon some other proper entity.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Please pay closer attention to what I said.<BR/><BR/>I never claimed that its logically possible for a universe to exist where child torture was right. My claim was that its logically possible for an omnipotent omniscient Creator who is malevolent to exist.<BR/><BR/>But since, in my views, morality isn't based on the Creator's character (assuming one exists at all) this entails nothing, by my meta-ethical theory, about right and wrong. <BR/><BR/>In other words, I was not claiming that the rightness of child torture is a logical possibility. Rather, I was pointing out that your position entailed the possibility of the rightness of child torture (in all logically possible universes where the creator was a sadist) and, possibily, in our own universe if God exists but you are mistaken about God's character.<BR/><BR/>Which, of course, makes morality arbitrary and shows your meta-ethical theory to entail an absurdity.<BR/><BR/>As to your concluding quote:<BR/><BR/>Atheists can disagree about a whole world of things, including ethics. There are theist thinkers who agree with me that morality is not dependent on God's existence---that it would be wrong to torture children even if it turns out that God doesn't exist. Richard Swinburne, for example. But you are no more obligated to agree with him than I am to agree with Provine.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45844105035784740812008-10-13T02:00:00.000-04:002008-10-13T02:00:00.000-04:00David,Ok, picking up on point #2 from above (i.e. ...David,<BR/><BR/>Ok, picking up on point #2 from above (i.e. can we conceive reality or God to be any different?). Well, let’s explore that. Let’s take your example of child torture which I believe we all find reprehensibly evil. What would it mean to say that you can conceive of a universe where there is proper delight in this thing? (either by God or us) Well, to even discuss this you must first describe proper parenting and caring for children. It is then, and only then, that you can begin to describe this other evil thing. This means that the “proper” entity is greater (a.k.a “necessary”) and it also means that this evil <B>does not</B> exist in its own right; it is dependent upon the proper thing for its existence; it is a perversion (an incredibly wicked one) of proper and good parenting actions. This means that you can’t conceive of the perversion without <I><B>first</B></I> understanding the necessary entity. (And, as an aside it’s why the doctrine of sin being perversions of proper goods makes sense). This is what I mean when discussing proper conceiving. It is of no relevance for you to say you can “imagine” something is so simply because you can “imagine” anything, including pink unicorns too, and that doesn’t make them real. When you say you conceive of child torture as a proper thing you have to be able to frame it in a way that it is not dependent upon some other proper entity. This, I believe, you cannot do in the reality we know with regard to some other reality that has the evil you mentioned above, nor, for that matter, any evils. What you are dabbling in, David, when you suggest that God could delight in the torture of children is vain imaginings; not proper conceiving. Plus, simply attaching “God” to your sentence doesn’t make your sentence carry any more weight; i.e. remove “God” or include “God” and this evil as you have described it is an equally false conception. Adding “God” to your argument doesn’t make it any more credible nor imply that it magically becomes a correctly conceived reality. You simply cannot describe it to me without understanding the proper “good parenting” first. If you persist in saying that you <I><B>can</B></I> properly conceive of such an abhorrent reality what you would <I>actually</I> be revealing is the depravity of your own heart and imagination; not anything at all regarding the character of God.<BR/><BR/>Moving on, I think you really do believe in some real goods as you seem to be clearly implying regarding the intrinsic quality of love, compassion, and kindness. I am proceeding here assuming you believe in their objectiveness and their eternity. You may not, and if not, then that would lead us to a different discussion of them. But, assuming the former, let’s explore this as well. You claim that these things have an intrinsic nature which you immediately recognize as “good”. I agree with you, but I say that because I believe they are an expression of God’s character and nature. It appears you are trying to posit them as their own existent entities|qualities. [[ Speaking from within Materialism, well, we could add honesty and integrity and many others to the list and set up a large collection of things we recognize as “good”. So, let’s say they exist in their own right apart from any God and see where that takes us. This would mean they simply exist and they have always been part of the universe. What you are failing to recognize is the “nature” of these things. <I><B>I.e. they are relational entities!</B></I> They are personal, are celebrated by sentient beings like us, and relate to the ways only of such beings. Given the age of the universe, then these things have existed for billions of years before any sentient creatures happened to emerge which they could be applicable to. And if Stephen Hawking is right then they have existed for eons of years, universe instance after universe instance as time moves around the imaginary time sphere just “hanging out” until something (please something!) emerges that they are applicable to. Clearly love has no relevance to nor governs the behavior of quarks and molecules; it has no bearing on matter, energy, and phenomenon reacting in time. So for the majority of the universe’s existence these things have had no expression anywhere in the actual universe. And in the Hawkings case this majority of time is staggeringly huge compared to the brief amount of time sentient beings such as us can appreciate these “good” entities. This would be a colossally fortunate happenstance for humans! …I.e. that these truths have existed for so long “waiting” to be relished. It would appear they are not connected to the natural universe at all. Yet I imagine you would balk if I suggest to you a Personal God in whom these goods can actually make sense; where these truths don’t exist in futility eon after eon until the right type of sentient life simply happens to emerge. But it is absurd to think that they are eternal yet the object of their expression is purely coincidental to our arrival (or some other sentient being) ]] Again, maybe you don’t think they are eternal, and if not, please say so and I’ll proceed very differently.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, here’s a quote from atheist Dr. William Provine of Cornell University:<BR/><I>Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal -- directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. <B>There is no ultimate foundation for ethics</B>, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.</I><BR/><BR/>It appears he clearly understands the materialistic dilemma with respect to morality.Jaceppehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569840643487354373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1548246454861563072008-10-13T01:48:00.000-04:002008-10-13T01:48:00.000-04:00Well, a lot to say… I’ll break it up into a couple...Well, a lot to say… I’ll break it up into a couple posts so neither of them gets too long…<BR/><BR/>David said:<BR/><I>Do you really want to endorse a meta-ethical theory by which, if we had been born into a world created by a God who delights in the torture of children, the torture of children would be the height of moral goodness?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I’m not basing my faith on a meta-ethical theory. My faith is in a God of love, full of mercy, extending grace and forgiveness to all who come to Him, casting away none who call upon His name, willing to suffer at the hands of sinful men to secure the forgivness of all who come to Him, through the Cross, received through faith; the self-existent, good God of Scripture; the ultimate source of all reality that you and I know. Your question above is irrelevant because whatever god you are asking me about above, if it exists at all, exists only in the recesses of your mind.<BR/><BR/>David again:<BR/><I>But it’s obvious that this doesn't solve the dilemma---it simply falls prey to a slightly modified version of the Euthyphro dilemma:<BR/>If morality is based on God's character then if God were sadistic then sadism would be morally right (and perhaps you're wrong about God's character, perhaps he's indifferent, or cruel or capricious).<BR/>Divine Character Theory makes morality just as arbitrary as Divine Command Theory.<BR/>Under it, if the Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator's character is X then X is the model of moral rightness.<BR/>Insert any X, kindness, or the most extreme sadism, the theory would consider it right.<BR/>Your modification does nothing to solve the dilemma.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, contrary to your objections, the Divine Nature Theory <B>does in fact refute</B> the Euthyphro dilemma because it shows it to be a false one. Since morality is rooted in the character of God then what He commands is of His nature and since His nature is Good and not subject to change (Mal 3:6, Jas 1:17) it is not arbitrary nor capricious. And, like I said previously, this means that the standard does not exist external to Him and it also means that good is not defined solely by some arbitrary command of God… He commands that which is of His good, unchanging nature; defeating both horns of the dilemma. David, you need to remember when Plato wrote of this dialogue between Socrates & Euthyprho the Greeks believed in a pantheon of gods; all possessing base, petty, human frailties and weaknesses. All emerging out of the primordial chaos and none of which was the ultimate source or ground of morality. It’s not surprising the dilemma was a difficult one for Euthyphro; however it is of no moment to the self-existent, good, “I am” of the universe; the “ground” of every created thing.<BR/><BR/>But, what you attempt to raise above about “inserting any X” and “a modified version of Euthyphro” has to do with the 2 problems I previously mentioned which needed answering. Namely, 1) how do we recognize or “know” good? and 2) can we conceive reality or God to be any different? I believe I addressed both of these before but will try again. Well, regarding #1, we recognize good just as you did regarding “love, compassion, kindness” in your earlier post and which I cited. It immediately appeals to you and you recognize the inherent nature of it as an expression of “goodness”. You perceive it directly and it couldn’t be any other way to you as your own reaction demonstrates. If you say that we can’t recognize it as good simply because you want to insert “God” into the sentence then the same accusation boomerangs back on you in your own recognition of good and you have no basis for saying your own recognition of good means anything at all. Regarding #2 I will continue that in a 2nd post ‘cause if I didn’t this post would be too long.Jaceppehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569840643487354373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2703851956258085762008-10-13T01:39:00.000-04:002008-10-13T01:39:00.000-04:00Ed,You mentioned at the end of your last post the ...Ed,<BR/>You mentioned at the end of your last post the following:<BR/><I>So my primary reason for leaving the fold had more to do with studying the Bible and recognizing I had more questions than answers concerning its contents.</I><BR/>I appreciate your comment here. In fact, one of the primary reasons I was drawn to this particular blog was that you all claim to have been in Christianity at one time. So I am curious to learn more about your stories, dialogue with you, and discover what your issues were in departing from Christ. So, thanks for sharing that.<BR/>Regarding the bulk of your post, I’ll get to that but I’ve got some other responses I need to post first…Jaceppehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569840643487354373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65464451142834610822008-10-12T10:49:00.000-04:002008-10-12T10:49:00.000-04:00Jaceppe, You put the blame on "original sin,&...Jaceppe, <BR/><BR/>You put the blame on "original sin," but an evolutionist would simply admit in parallel fashion that human beings are not necessarily "tame" animals. If provoked we may "show our fangs." Like apes, humans have both an aggressive and altruistic side. See Franz de Waals books, though he admits he's amazed that a million humans can live together in a huge city in relative peace, something he can't imagine apes being able to do.<BR/><BR/>Also, even with "original sin," don't Christians claim to have a new heart inside them, Jesus living inside them, a book written by God himself to guide them, and a Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth? But for the Popes as well as Luther and Calvin, the "truth" they came up with included teaching that it was necessary for civil magistrates in Christian countries to hunt down, punish, even execute, unrepentant "heretics." One half of Christianity denounced and/or excommunicated the other half with the utmost derision, even rioting and warring against each other from the 4th century till the Catholic Orthodox split till todays 45,000 different denominations and rival missionary organizations. A thousand years ago the whole Christianized Roman Empire was split when one half excommunicated the other, the Catholic-Orthodox split, and then 500 years after that, just within Catholicism it experienced another major division upon the rise of Protestantism, followed by the Thirty Years War, that some call Europe's First World War. The only thing that has kept Christians at relative peace with one another has been the evolution of liberal secular laws, and an instinctual appreciation of the value of living in peace even with people whose views differ concerning "who is going to heaven or hell and why." <BR/><BR/>Question, which of the two below is more difficult for a Christian to imagine?<BR/><BR/>A) a fellow Christian who lies outrageously -- for example:<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-HKRtoUrP0&feature=related<BR/>http://rachelrowell.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/healer-songwriter-confesses/<BR/><BR/>or <BR/><BR/>B) an atheist who tells the truth?<BR/><BR/>Explain why.<BR/><BR/><BR/>~~~~~~<BR/> <BR/><BR/>Also, have you heard about “religious affinity fraud” and how successful it is? <BR/> <BR/>Lastly, if an entire nation starts to “believe” it’s being “led by God,” imagine what trouble that nation can get into. It's not like Christianized Europeans were very kind to the native inhabitants of the Americas. <BR/><BR/>And even U.S. religionists with the same Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth, still couldn't agree whether or not ministers ought to own slaves, which lead to southern and northern religious denominations splitting, followed soon by political secession (with southern ministers among the loudest crying in favor of secession), then came the Civil War, which led to more U.S. soldiers dying than during both World Wars and Korea, a bitter protracted war, probably made longer and more bitter by cultural pride and prejudice being tied closely with religiosity. In fact some historians have called the Civil War a type of religious war. <BR/><BR/>As I said, religion is not the root of ALL evil, but it seems to fall into the same dirty ditches as other positive-thinking, blindly-hero-worshiping ideologies and utopian ideas.<BR/><BR/>So I don't argue that religion is necessarily "evil" or the root of "all evil," I only point out that it's a sort of utopian ideal that can add to bitterness and rivalries, not merely relieve them. <BR/><BR/>So my primary reason for leaving the fold had more to do with studying the Bible and recognizing I had more questions than answers concerning its contents.Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91892020683456987452008-10-11T14:47:00.000-04:002008-10-11T14:47:00.000-04:00No time to read and respond to your responses thor...No time to read and respond to your responses thoroughly now due to family responsibilities... I aim to start responding sometime Sunday evening...<BR/><BR/>Later...Jaceppehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569840643487354373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5481245169206854812008-10-11T10:52:00.000-04:002008-10-11T10:52:00.000-04:00It is not in and of itself the source of ANY evil,...<B><BR/>It is not in and of itself the source of ANY evil, except for that of willful ignorance in exchange for a false feeling of security....<BR/></B><BR/><BR/><BR/>You don't think some religions are sources of evils other than that?<BR/><BR/>The suffering of Christian Science believers (and their children) due to lack of medical attention isn't an evil with its source in their religion?<BR/><BR/>The suffering of a homosexual teenager rejected by his or her christian fundamentalist parents due to their religiously based views about homosexuality.<BR/><BR/>Neither of these, or many other evils associated with religions, are the product of politics. The same is true of many other evils religion produces. And even when religion and politics mix its often as much the religious tenets as the politics that are contributing to the problem.<BR/><BR/>Of course religion is the source of many evils (and, equally obviously, the amount and kind of evils any particular religion produces depends largely on the tenets of that religion---some are far worse offenders than others).David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55595754392477480692008-10-10T22:27:00.000-04:002008-10-10T22:27:00.000-04:00Reposting my comment from the secular philosophy s...Reposting my comment from the secular philosophy site:<BR/><BR/>"Karl Marx claimed that religion is the opium of the working-class people. It is funded and pushed by the rich class in order to numb the working class from trying to right the injustices put on them by the rich class."<BR/><BR/>The correct quote is: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. "<BR/><BR/>He is referring to opium as a pain killer, not as a narcotic drug. It is not something employed by the oppressor, but rather taken willingly by the oppressed in order to dull the pain of his existence.<BR/><BR/>Religion, at the core, is something that the people WANT. It is something they will invent if it is not there. It is not in and of itself the source of ANY evil, except for that of willful ignorance in exchange for a false feeling of security (much like a pain killer can allow you to pretend you are not injured).<BR/><BR/>The politics that inevitably creep into religion (as they creep into all human endeavors) is the source of all kinds of evil.<BR/>Religion, like money, is a tool. A tool cannot be evil; only the user can be evil.Wolterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15099002911138835539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52716810478044015232008-10-10T19:50:00.000-04:002008-10-10T19:50:00.000-04:00Jaceppe,I think David covered a lot of what you qu...Jaceppe,<BR/><BR/>I think David covered a lot of what you questioned pretty nicely, so I'll try to touch on the naturalism thing a tiny bit.<BR/><BR/><B>"It is Naturalism (and not Theism, obviously) which must provide both a natural explanation for religion and the purpose it has provided to humanity in the Evolutionary process."</B><BR/><BR/>I did try to give an explanation for this before, but I'll go into a little more detail this time.<BR/><BR/>Religion doesn't have to provide a purpose that is beneficial to humanity. Religion could be completely incidental, arising from a number of advantagious adaptations that do help us survive the real world, but have the added side effect of "tricking" us sometimes.<BR/><BR/>I mentioned agency detection in my last post. For thousands of years, human beings thought that disease was caused by unseen spirits or demons. Even today, we manifest the idea of "good luck" and "bad luck" to explain our woes and fortunes. We imagine that there are forces at work in our lives that cause things to happen to us. In a way, this can be a good thing. It's an adaptation that gives us a "better safe than sorry" attitude. Even though we avoid imaginary demons, it also helps us avoid very real predators. Better to mistake a stick for a snake than the other way around, right?<BR/><BR/>So once we have this idea of "boogeymen", a fear of the dark, a belief in spirits that guide, protect, or attack us, it's only a matter of time before these side effects of a mechanism that evolved to protect us evolve as memes into something you see today, like Christianity, with a grand powerful spirit that watches everything you do.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08481216009948063890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90935221390076171962008-10-10T18:52:00.000-04:002008-10-10T18:52:00.000-04:00I'm a big fan of the old writers in the weird tale...I'm a big fan of the old writers in the weird tales genre. Lovecraft and, even more so, Clark Ashton Smith.<BR/><BR/>Ever read any Charles Stross? A couple of his books, THE ATROCITY ARCHIVES and THE JENNIFER MORGUE, play with Lovecraftian ideas in a modern setting. <BR/><BR/>Pretty terrific stuff.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45218654350517688632008-10-10T17:55:00.000-04:002008-10-10T17:55:00.000-04:00David B. Ellis said:"We have no difficulty conceiv...David B. Ellis said:<BR/><BR/><I>"We have no difficulty conceiving of an omnipotent omniscient creator of the universe who is cruel, or indifferent, or of just as mixed a character as the Gods of Greek myth."<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>The horror writer H.P. Lovecraft (who identified himself as a materialist and atheist) has changed our sensibilities about the intentions of "all-powerful" beings towards humanity.Mark Plushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03859046131830902921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75185979678219055472008-10-10T13:04:00.000-04:002008-10-10T13:04:00.000-04:00Asking this question is essentially asking “Can ul...<B><BR/>Asking this question is essentially asking “Can ultimate reality be other than what ultimate reality is?” We cannot properly conceive of any other reality.<BR/><BR/></B><BR/><BR/>We have no difficulty conceiving of an omnipotent omniscient creator of the universe who is cruel, or indifferent, or of just as mixed a character as the Gods of Greek myth. In fact, such a hypothesis suffers from less intellectual problems than the traditional Christian God (no messy problem of evil to explain away).<BR/><BR/>The dilemma cannot be sidestepped so easily.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.com