What is sin? - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-28-2007, 07:55 PM   #166
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Shart, we told you over and over that we, even as we don't belief in God (which doesn't mean that no one herer

doesn't believe in a higher power at all, there I can't speak for the others), developed morals, and these morals

are as high as yours, believing in God.
We see it as unmoral to kill someone, and we value life as high as you do. We just don't need a higher being.

You come with your exact same analogies over and over, but they don't get more right because of that. Like I said,

it's like explaining a blind person the color blue.
For you it's inevitable that a God exists, because as you say, and you say so, we only matter because there is a God

we matter to.

For me it's not a God I matter to. It's myself, I know, bloody egoist, and my loved ones. Oh yes, you excluded this in the beginning.

Quote:
Whenever I bring this point up I usually get the same response. Something like "but it's bad because it hurt

my friend!!".
Sorry, but that is one reason, and it is legitimate.

You speak of the material world, and that this is all just material, over and over. You equate us with worms. But I say it again: That is your misconception.

I am asking myself what my purpose is. I don't know the answer. Maybe there is none. Maybe there is one. That doesn't mean I see no value (and if you looked hard at your reasoning you would see that you are implying exactly that.

So you want to matter because there is a God? Or: You matter because there is a God?
Why don't you matter because you are, you are a thinking being, you have loved ones. You have the abilities for social behaviour, and make friends. You have the ability to matter to another person.

Why is killing bad? The answer is God? Not for me. But if I didn't care, because this is just a material world, and we are like worms, the reason must have been that I wasn't able for grievance, for sympathy, and for valueing another one's life.
But I am able to do so. And I do so. I don't need to believe in any higher power for that.
Why do you value killing as a bad thing? It would be a sad state of affairs if the only reason you gave for that was because there is a God, and it's written in the Bible.

And it would be nice if you answered some of the questions you were asked by now, instead of repeating over and over again your faulty logic about how an atheist thinks.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-28-2007, 08:27 PM   #167
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,699
Local Time: 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Shart, we told you over and over that we, even as we don't belief in God (which doesn't mean that no one herer

doesn't believe in a higher power at all, there I can't speak for the others), developed morals, and these morals

are as high as yours, believing in God.
I had a conversation with a wall once that went about as smoothly as this one is...

Some people just aren't going to get it.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-28-2007, 10:15 PM   #168
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LJT
Why does God need people? He is omnipotent...why does he need us to worship him, follow him etc? That need seems so human...why bother giving us a corporeal body, why bother make us at all when he knows full well that he will make some of us cease to exist or go to hell? Why does he need us to stroke his ego....The Christian God seems too human for his own good...why does having a creator make more sense than not having one?
I once stated in a thread here that Christianity seems too mired in a "medieval" mindset, and this is probably an example of that. Why would He "need" us to "worship" Him? Go back 500...1000...2000+ years ago, and you have whole civilizations based around a very rigid hierarchy of nobility on top and regular people on the bottom. The fact that some of these civilizations embodied their leaders to be "gods," such as in emperors of the Roman Empire or emperors of Japan up until the end of World War II, to me, is certainly no coincidence. "God," as you've described above, is the personification of a classical tyrant; one who's every whim is to be carried out, no questions asked, and whose public is to obey, no matter how inconsistent or incoherent those "commands" seem to be--and death to those who deviate from those edicts.

As shown all the way from Roman Emperor Nero to Spanish dictator, Francisco Franco, tyrannical, authoritarian despotism, as it has turned out, is a complete failure as a system of government; and, as such, I do not view God in the way that you have described above. I also do not believe that the New Testament proscribes this view of God either, but that has not stopped some very imaginative "Christians" from doing so.

This ends up reminding me of the debate between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity 2,000 years ago, where the former, led by apostles St. Peter and St. James, believed that you had to observe the entirety of Mosaic Law to be a Christian (including dietary restrictions and circumcision rituals), while the latter, led by St. Paul, believed that Jesus had come to free us of the burden of those laws.

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:8-10

As time goes on, I continue to admire the revolutionary and liberating nature of that statement; one that is still not fully appreciated 2,000 years later. I can certainly see why St. Paul was Jesus' loudest cheerleader of his day.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 07-29-2007, 01:39 AM   #169
War Child
 
Inner El Guapo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 609
Local Time: 03:13 PM
Quote:
love is the fulfillment of the law
That puts a crimp in my business plans.

Do you think I could just use some Leviticus and not have to deal with your "reasoning", Nancy?
__________________
Inner El Guapo is offline  
Old 07-29-2007, 01:50 AM   #170
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780


When I act at my most faithful I see results in my life. I don't see God float down on a cloud and Give me what I want. What you're basically telling me is that I should only ever worship an idol. Without the need fo faith, that's all God would be anyways.


perhaps all worship is, ultimately, to an idol.

perhaps there is nothing there to worship, or nothing deserving of worship.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-29-2007, 08:39 AM   #171
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780


You say we don't matter outside of our species, but you still have yet to legitimize why our species matters. I never said God had to exist for us to evolve and have emotions, I'm saying that if there is no god and we have no souls it doesn't matter if we evolved the feelings, because they'd still mean nothing.

In a godless universe humans could create their own laws as a means to protect the species. It makes sense of course, because the goal is to preserve the species, but what's the point, really? We'd still be insignificant. For our feelings to mater we'd have to matter in a larger way than just because we feel like it. he implications of Us not mattering outside of our species are dangerous to me. You could never truly judge a person on a moral level. Why would it be wrong to kill someone? It's just killing a worthless animal (I'm speaking hypothetically of course). We'd be no better than worms. I don't care if I felt better than a wom, I'd still be a worm. If I died it wouldn't matter. You might feel bad, but the universe doesn't recognise feelings It doesn't understand good or bad. So what does it matter what we do? No one would care besides us, and since we're worthless worms what does it really matter? Again, I'm not saying you feel this way. I'm saying that when you imply that there is nothing greater out there, or in us, you're open to the argument that none of our actions matter, and neither do our lives. If the entire human race died out the universe would be no worse off. And why would wanting to matter mean a thing? Does wanting someting make it so? No.

OK, so let's say you agree with my philosophy (which you obviously don't). Let's say you acknowledge that there is no God (because there isn't) and that you choose to live a "good" life because your brain tells you that's what makes you happy, and happy is "good". Alright. That's all cool. But what if someone does something "bad"? What really makes him bad? Maybe he's just a heartless bastard that believes in my philosohy. He accepts the fact that We don't matter. That being mean isn't a bad thing to do, because there is no bad. He sees things for what they really are. He knows that besides this insignificant swarm of bugs on Earth, no one cares what he does to hurt others. He should just live his life how he wants. And no one should judge him because he just lacks the feelings you feel, and he doesn't feel the need to be nice. He sees the big picture. We're all governed by physics. We're all just objects colliding. Is he wrong? No Are you wrong if you get pissed for being meand and kill him right there? No. No one is ever truly wrong.

I'll post more later because I have to go to work.

I think I've said (over and over again) I don't think our species matters beyond this planet. And in a practical manner, we do objectively matter because of our vast influence on this planet. OUR influence. In the same way a queen bee matters in a hive, the alpha dog matters to the pack.

My death does not matter except to a small amount of people. And even then, it does not matter in a metaphysical way. They miss my physical presence. So in that way, in a wider spectrum, I am no more than a worm. Actually when I'm dead, I'm less than a worm because I am now wormfood. When I die, I no longer matter because I cannot influence in any way. I cannot cause you pleasure or pain or laughter. I don't cause a ripple.

We are social animals. Many of the sanctions against moral "sins" were pragmatic. Rampant killing hurts the tribe.
Killing is wrong, because I don't want to get killed, I don't want those I love to get killed and it's really messing with the tribe's sense of security. Same with stealing. You've made a leap of logic by saying we would have to matter outside of our species.
Why would we need that outside validation? You're saying that without that there is no objective standard of good and bad. And your point? You are asking me why in the absence of god we would choose to behave in ways other than purely animal. To me that is the absolute non-sequitur.

We have chosen to define good and bad in purely a human way.
We could as easily replace the words good and bad with beneficial and destructive--purely practical words with no moral connotation--and it would mean the same thing. So if you prefer, I will defer to your definition and use the pragmatic words instead. WE have determined the species is important within itself. The species is made up of individual members--taking into account our social nature and our self-aware nature. WE have determined that what is destructive to the individual is often destructive to the society and what is beneficial to the individual is often beneficial to the society.

If you take the 10 commandments:

You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
(You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.)
You shall honor your mother and father.

These are the ones people remember. And it didn't take god to determine these actions were destructive.

We blow off the others. As a species, we honor the ones that are beneficial to humanity. We blow off the ones that are neutral to humanity or just beneficial to god. Why? Because they make no practical sense. Hell, it was like 10 minutes after the Ten Commandments supposedly come down, the people were out worshipping other gods because they believed the other gods were more beneficial than theirs.

I'm deciding whether or not to respond to your last paragraph because I find the tone of it patronizing. But I will. Regardless of any sense of moral right and wrong, people care about consequences and there are social consequences to our actions.
So if this person desires to continue to be a part of society, he will conform to at least part of the mores. And he likely will care, because that insignificant swarm of bugs will punish him.

There are social mores and sanctions within the animal world, among lesser functioning animals. Do they sin? Why do they act on these mores? Do they need to philosophically matter to do so?

If one had never been a part of a social order, if he had spent his entire life alone on a desert island, would there even be an issue of moral behavior? Would he have a concept of right and wrong and would it be relevant? What we deem good and bad deals with our interrelationships, the dynamic within the species. Can you think of many "sins" that do not deal purely within the species? Can you prove to me there is "sin" outside the species? Because if you can, you will move closer to making me finetune my thinking. (PS Tossing out angels because of mutiny does not constitute proof). Because you will have to take me outside the species to prove to me that the idea of sin didn't originate with the species.

I accept that you choose to believe in God and that God, to you, justifies your mattering. But that is your logic, that is your feeling. Perhaps you "feel" god.

You said earlier you feel happy when you do God's will. Would you continue to do what you perceive to be pleasing to god if it didn't make you happy, but you still believed it was right? Why should you care whether it made you happy or not? Does happiness determine whether you are on the right track? Who is depending on feelings now? You have chosen to accept these rules--many of them no different than the rules I accept.

("There are a lot of laws even in the New Testement I find myself questioning a lot, but I find that the more I follow them the happier I am. A lot of it is a huge mystery to me. I guess that's why it's hard to keep the faith sometimes. But when I manage to keep it I'm extremely satisfied and happy")

If you are using the Bible as a reference:

"For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same? "And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? "

Even Jesus recognized that to love those who please you and to
care about what befalls them is human condition, not moral condition. One does not need a sense of a bigger picture to do so. We value order of some type or of some degree or another.

In all honesty, if god were proven not to exist, would you personally stop loving your wife, your friends? Would you devolve into anarchy? Would you not grieve when your loved ones died? Would love stop giving you pleasure, would death not still cause you pain? Would you stop because you no longer believed it mattered or would you find a new way to make it matter whether it did or not? You personally. Not the abstract.

I understand your logic. I don't accept your premise.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 07-29-2007, 08:56 AM   #172
LJT
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
LJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Belfast
Posts: 5,039
Local Time: 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


I once stated in a thread here that Christianity seems too mired in a "medieval" mindset, and this is probably an example of that. Why would He "need" us to "worship" Him? Go back 500...1000...2000+ years ago, and you have whole civilizations based around a very rigid hierarchy of nobility on top and regular people on the bottom. The fact that some of these civilizations embodied their leaders to be "gods," such as in emperors of the Roman Empire or emperors of Japan up until the end of World War II, to me, is certainly no coincidence. "God," as you've described above, is the personification of a classical tyrant; one who's every whim is to be carried out, no questions asked, and whose public is to obey, no matter how inconsistent or incoherent those "commands" seem to be--and death to those who deviate from those edicts.

As shown all the way from Roman Emperor Nero to Spanish dictator, Francisco Franco, tyrannical, authoritarian despotism, as it has turned out, is a complete failure as a system of government; and, as such, I do not view God in the way that you have described above. I also do not believe that the New Testament proscribes this view of God either, but that has not stopped some very imaginative "Christians" from doing so.

This ends up reminding me of the debate between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity 2,000 years ago, where the former, led by apostles St. Peter and St. James, believed that you had to observe the entirety of Mosaic Law to be a Christian (including dietary restrictions and circumcision rituals), while the latter, led by St. Paul, believed that Jesus had come to free us of the burden of those laws.

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:8-10

As time goes on, I continue to admire the revolutionary and liberating nature of that statement; one that is still not fully appreciated 2,000 years later. I can certainly see why St. Paul was Jesus' loudest cheerleader of his day.
I always find it striking how different God is between the Old Testament and the New Testament...in the old he is described as you say as being very much a tyrannical despot.....previously for our 'sins' God tended to not think twice about wiping out whole cities or the world....Then we have the New Testament where he actually sacrifices his son for us...what changed? It is extremely incongruous.

I'm not sure what my view of God is anymore, I still believe as such, but certainly not in the same way many Evangelicals do, or how still many Catholics believe...even though I ranted a bit about why so many believe God needs us to worship him, I still enjoy the traditional Catholic form of worship...I like old churches and quite traditional masses etc Just the next time I hear a priest utter the phrase 'culture of death' I will not be responsible for my actions
__________________
LJT is offline  
Old 07-29-2007, 09:02 AM   #173
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 05:13 PM
I found your questions interesting. I read an intriguing book by Jack Miles ("God, A Biography") dealing with the psychological attributes and psychological change of God throughout the Old Testament and going into the New. ie, God changes as a result of interaction with humanity, humanity does not change as result of God.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 07-29-2007, 09:51 AM   #174
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint


Can you prove to me there is "sin" outside the species? Because if you can, you will move closer to making me finetune my thinking. (PS Tossing out angels because of mutiny does not constitute proof). Because you will have to take me outside the species to prove to me that the idea of sin didn't originate with the species.
I realize that is kind of an unfair challenge since it would be impossible to prove a moral imperative outside of the species when any source would only be acknowledged by me as a human derivative and angels (mutinous or not) as myth. So I withdraw that. Although, hey, if you can provide....
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 07-29-2007, 11:04 AM   #175
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LJT
I always find it striking how different God is between the Old Testament and the New Testament...in the old he is described as you say as being very much a tyrannical despot.....previously for our 'sins' God tended to not think twice about wiping out whole cities or the world....Then we have the New Testament where he actually sacrifices his son for us...what changed? It is extremely incongruous.
What changed? This is probably the least romantic answer I can give, but it's probably the correct one: different external cultural influences.

A study of early Semitic religion (the Israelites being a Semitic tribe that speak a Semitic language) uncovers a series of tribal gods with very "tribal" demands. Unquestioning obedience. Sacrifices--including human sacrifices. The "God" of the Old Testament is precisely the kind of god you'd expect from this historical era.

The benevolent "God" of the later Old Testament and New Testament likely arose out of the Persian religious influences, due to the Exile, as mentioned in the Old Testament. "God" was transformed from a run-of-the-mill tribal deity to one that has a remarkable similarity to the Zoroastrian supreme god, Ahura Mazda (Zoroastrianism being the state religion of the Persian Empire and a dominant religion in the region until the Islamic conquest of Iran in the 7th century A.D.). This connection between the two religions was possibly known even during the time of the New Testament, due to the story of the "Three Wise Men" or "Magi," as the magi were Zoroastrian priests. The intention, at the time, was possibly to state that Jesus was not only the "Jewish Messiah," but also the fulfillment of the "Zoroastrian Messiah," as expected through their own prophecies.

Christian thinkers like C.S. Lewis, who was well-versed in mythology, interpreted the various mythological connections to Christianity to mean that God, for reasons unknown to mankind, had chosen to express Himself through our mythology:

Quote:
"Now as myth transcends thought, Incarnation transcends myth. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens—at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle. I suspect that men have sometimes derived more spiritual sustenance from myths they did not believe than from the religion they professed. To be truly Christian we must both assent to the historical fact and also receive the myth (fact though it has become) with the same imaginative embrace which we accord to all myths. The one is hardly more necessary than the other.

A man who disbelieved the Christian story as fact but continually fed on it as myth would, perhaps, be more spiritually alive than one who assented and did not think much about it. The modernist—the extreme modernist, infidel in all but name—need not be called a fool or hypocrite because he obstinately retains, even in the midst of his intellectual atheism, the language, rites, sacraments, and story of the Christians. The poor man may be clinging (with a wisdom he himself by no means understands) to that which is his life…

Those who do not know that this great myth became Fact when the Virgin conceived are, indeed, to be pitied. But Christians also need to be reminded…that what became Fact was a Myth, that it carries with it into the world of Fact all the properties of a myth. God is more than a god, not less; Christ is more than Balder, not less. We must not be ashamed of the mythical radiance resting on our theology. We must not be nervous about ‘parallels’ and ‘Pagan Christs’: they ought to be there—it would be a stumbling block, if they weren’t. We must not, in false spirituality, withhold our imaginative welcome. If God chooses to be mythopoeic—and is not the sky itself a myth—shall we refuse to be mythopathic? For this is the marriage of heaven and earth: Perfect Myth and Perfect Fact: claiming not only our love and our obedience, but also our wonder and delight, addressed to the savage, the chilled, and the poet in each one of us no less than to the moralist, the scholar, and the philosopher." - C.S. Lewis, "God in the Dock"
A faith-predicated position that I find to be not all that unreasonable.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 07-29-2007, 04:08 PM   #176
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:13 PM
Sin is anything that separates me from having a relationship with God.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-30-2007, 01:19 AM   #177
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LJT


I always find it striking how different God is between the Old Testament and the New Testament...in the old he is described as you say as being very much a tyrannical despot.....previously for our 'sins' God tended to not think twice about wiping out whole cities or the world....Then we have the New Testament where he actually sacrifices his son for us...what changed? It is extremely incongruous.

I'm still in flux on this issue, but at the moment I explain the contrast between the God of the Old and the New as having more to do with the way the writers of the Bible saw God than the nature of God Himself. The earlier writers had, perhaps a much harsher picture of God than later writers did. And it seems likely that there may not have been any knowledge of an evil entity (i.e. Satan) so God was responsible for both good and evil. Of course being a Christian, I view Jesus Christ as the fullest, clearest picture of the true nature of God.

Yolland, I wanted to ask you to comment on this. How do you view how God is portrayed in the Bible (minus the NT, I would assume)? Is this view of the angry OT God unique to Christians, do you think? Not asking you to speak on behalf of "the Jewish community" of course Just curious as to how you feel God is portrayed as you read Scripture?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-30-2007, 01:23 AM   #178
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint


I do not believe that we matter outside of our species. We have chosen to matter within our species for a variety of reasons, ego being part of it. And you would have to explain to me why God would be necessary for an intellectually complex, emotionally complex, creatively complex species to come up with a philosophy that says we matter among ourselves (or even beyond ourselves). So, are you questioning the ability of a Godless existence to create such a philosophy? You haven't explained to me why such a member of a self-aware species would not be capable of behaving as if he matters and extending that behavior toward others like him.

Or are you saying that said self-aware creature doesn't have the right to behave "as if". And if not, who determined that right? I believe that humanity can create the rules and varying philosophies under which it functions. And it really doesn't matter if we really matter. You've called such an intraspecies philosphy illogical but have not explained to me why it is illogical when it only relates between species members. I've already allowed that I don't think we matter outside of the species. Whether we matter in some kind of philosphical/again cosmic/outside of species way is a matter of indifference to me, although I don't expect it to be a matter of indifference to everyone.

If there is a God, then he chose that we matter to him for no logical reason. Why would it be beyond us to claim the same prerogative? We do not need God to choose to matter among ourselves.

A quote of yours to Vincent Vega: "The only reason an insignificant, soulless being would tell themself they matter is because they want to mater. They want to believe they mean something? Why do you mean anything if you don't even have a soul? Everything would be action and reaction. Nothing more. It's all about living organisms with meaningless feelings colliding and thinking it means something."

I think you missed a few human capabilities in your analysis.
Human beings, in addition to being subject to action and reaction, are capable of reflection, awareness of consequences,
creation, destruction, forethought, etc. I do believe that the prime reason for believing one matters is because one wants to matter. No argument there.

-----"It's all about living organisms with meaningless feelings colliding and thinking it means something." Maybe. Ultimately.

To you, things only make sense if there is a God. To me, it makes no difference if there is a God or not. I allow for the existence of god. You do not allow for no existence of god. I think your premise is a little shaky. If god exists, my world doesn't come crashing down. The way I look at things allows me to adjust. Oops. Wrong there. How does this fit in now? If god doesn't exist, your worldview may crumble. Both of us are choosing to believe in something we cannot prove--I choose to believe we matter or should behave as if we do whether or not god exists and you choose to believe in god. Objective logic doesn't come in to play for either of them, really. Perhaps we are depending on subjective logic. Perhaps we are both relying on faith. I'm not saying you're wrong about the existence of God. How the hell should I know?

I am a humanist. I see humanity as the holy grail. Not in its perfection (I'm not an idiot) but because of its complexity and ability and potential and its glimmerings of brilliance. I also see it as primal, selfish, nonthinking, cruel and immensely capable of every degradation under the sun. Humanity is not a single organism but an aggregate of the organisms and the influence they have had for better or worse. It is not monolithic. Therefore, the individual has influence, even if small, on the course humanity takes. The individual (or individuals) creates a tool, creates a language, creates a base philosophy, makes a discovery. The dynamic of the species is that it will feed off these elements and humanity changes based on the influences/experiences it is exposed to. The individual can also degrade humanity through the same tools. Individuals created the Constitution and works that have influenced thought (and they were influenced by previous thought). Even if one does not believe in physical evolution, I would assume one would believe in the evolution of thought and culture. I believe that is a fully human construct and I've yet to be given any satisfactory evidence contrary to that.

I recognize the limits of philosophy and science and even logic when based on a faulty or unclear premise. I know scientists are often wrong but scientific process understands that. But you are asking me to take on faith something you cannot begin to prove and to accept its logic. You cannot tell me that believing we matter is illogical and leave it at that. To me, it is no more illogical than believing we matter because God believes we matter (and probably no less illogical, but man -- even agnostic/atheist man does not live by logic alone). But I can see and taste and hear and feel and smell and perceive the influence we as a species have had even if only within the species and on the planet in which we exist. You can tell me you perceive the same with god. But I know humanity exists and I can perceive its dynamic. You have faith to believe god exists. I do not need faith to believe humanity exists and I am willing to work within its limitations.

I'm not trying to convince you there is no God. I am merely saying that we are capable of constructing thought and moral philosophy and even the concept that we matter without the concept of god because we have found it to be beneficial and we have the intellectual capability to do so. I'm not trying to prove we matter. You are trying to convince me that things do not make sense without god. Burden's on you. And you're not there yet.
This is what you call a tour de force.

Excellent, excellent post with a lot of food for thought. There is something really rewarding about reading a well-thought out, well-written argument. Thanks!
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-30-2007, 01:34 AM   #179
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780


You say we don't matter outside of our species, but you still have yet to legitimize why our species matters. I never said God had to exist for us to evolve and have emotions, I'm saying that if there is no god and we have no souls it doesn't matter if we evolved the feelings, because they'd still mean nothing.

Shart, I think your best bet would be to start building a case for why God brings meaning to YOUR life. Because a couple of things are crystal clear so far (or should be, I would hope):

1. There are many people, (several of them have posted here) that have managed to find a reason and purpose for life without the existence of God. In fact, some have found their lives MORE meaningful AFTER abandoning faith. You can argue the "irrationality" of such godless purpose, but the irrefutable fact remains that it exists.

2. IIt's clear that YOU would have trouble finding a reason for existence apart from God but you have not yet made an adequate case for why the existence of God automatically creates meaning. It's assumed for you (and for me) but not for a lot of other people so you need to explain it. (I have my ideas on this, but I think it would be worthwhile for you to make the case, since this is an issue that you're more concerned with than I am).

3. Trying to convince people of the strength of your position by trying to highlight how "ridiculuous" and "pointless" someone else's views must be is not very effective. Nobody wants to hear that they are "irrational" or "ridiculous." And regardless, of whether you believe it to be true or not, you're unlikely to get anyone to agree with you, when you take that approach.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-30-2007, 01:36 AM   #180
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:13 PM
Ormus, that quote from C.S. Lewis was sublime.

I really appreciate the thought everyone is putting into their posts here.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com