Pascal's Wager, Biblical Contradition

[JamesM]

It's inborn.

 

So, if this conscience is inborn, then at what point did we start having it? I know, you don't really know..nor do I. It is kind of a "take a guess" question.

 

And if we all have an inborn moral code, then how is it that we all have the same one?

 

And if someone is a murderer or thief, did he/she go against his/her conscience or did that person not get one?

 

Please take none of this as attacks. Personally, I enjoy thinking and when people bring up questions I cannot answer I research to see if I can find one or simply agree. Too often we have our own viewpoints for whatever reason, and we never try to challenge them and strengthen them. As I get older, I find that this is great mental stimulation. My goal is not to win a debate...it is to become more educated.

[disgracian]

I think the meaning here is that when one assumes/believes that there is no Higher Being, he or she then may/must consider himself or herself the Higher Being.

Why insist on the need for a higher being? Why try to place everything on a heirarchy? There are beings that exist, and that is enough for me. I'm not about to place myself above a cat because, in the grand scheme of the universe, we're both equally insignificant.

 

There is a quote that springs to mind about now: "Remember that, apart from one trifling exception, the universe consists of everyone and everything besides you."

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

Why insist on the need for a higher being? Why try to place everything on a heirarchy? There are beings that exist, and that is enough for me. I'm not about to place myself above a cat because, in the grand scheme of the universe, we're both equally insignificant.

 

There is a quote that springs to mind about now: "Remember that, apart from one trifling exception, the universe consists of everyone and everything besides you."

 

Cheers,

D.

 

 

Ummm....please read my comments on this. I was simply restating what someone else said.

 

I will quote it for you...

 

I guess the meaning is misunderstood. I am not saying that someone who believes there is no God is proud and and not humble. And I was interpreting the statement...not necessarily agreeing with it. But if one believes there is no Deity, then he believes that there is no Being who reigns over him. Hence, he is a god.

 

I for one second do not believe that this makes an atheist less humble than an individual who believes in any sort of Higher Being.

 

I am not going to make any broad statement that those who do not believe in a Higher Being do think that they themselves are a god. Some do, but certainly not all.

[disgracian]

Where does this Moral Law originate? Who decided that it is wrong to do something? Since right and wrong is relative, from where do morals without a God originate?

People who ascribe to Capitalised Moral Law sometimes have difficulty accepting that there is a middle ground between absolute and the free-for-all of relativism.

 

The basis for morality, as far as I understand it, is the social nature of humans. For the most part, we aren't solitary beings. We form tribes, communities, societies, nations, and so on. Morality is the protocol for human interaction, so that chaos does not ensue. It changes according to our needs, and there is nothing wrong with this. We have the capacity for empathy, to understand how our actions might affect others. We know how we would like to be treated by others, so it stands to reason that others have their own ideas and that we should seek to find a common ground.

 

Those who believe in absolute law or morality need fixed and immovable standards that are beyond question, so they don't have to think about it. "Do this, don't do that, etc." They are distrustful of intellectual freedom because they don't have it themselves, and people are usually afraid of what they don't understand.

 

It's more reassuring because they know where they stand, and it's all familiar. It runs less risk of being perverted or corrupted, but that makes the wild assumption that it's perfect from the get-go, which, being a human invention, it isn't.

 

The difference is in the flexibility and the capacity for improvement. The first model has it; the second model doesn't. That's why "today's" religions (which are thousands of years old) are full of absurdities like stoning people to death for some trivial transgression. Society has made a lot of progress over the last 2,000 years and that's why religious law is becoming increasingly irrelevant and unable to deal with the challenges that lay ahead. "Be fruitful and multiply" is an absurd idea in the face of overpopulation and overstretching of natural resources.

 

In summing up, morality is based on empathy and reason. As the capacity for these grow, we can conceive new ideas on morality to better serve us. As they diminish by ignorance, we slide backwards. None of the new ideas are coming from religion, in fact they are usually condemned. Therefore, we have to look elsewhere.

 

Cheers,

D.

[VIP]

And if we all have an inborn moral code, then how is it that we all have the same one?

 

It's not the same for everybody. There are some highly evolved individuals and others, who are not quite developed spiritually.

[disgracian]

It's also written that man will not have the ignorance card to play either. One of the main points I always try to make is that God reveals Himself to every man, woman and even child at an age of accountability.

If that is so, then the Great Commission is completely unnecessary. Why expend so much time, money and energy into flooding the world with Christianity if God is already going to do it better and more efficiently?

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

 

There is a quote that springs to mind about now: "Remember that, apart from one trifling exception, the universe consists of everyone and everything besides you."

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Perhaps you meant this quote?

 

It is well to remember that the universe, with one trifling exception; is composed of others. -John Holmes

 

And what brought that to mind?

 

For me when I get into discussions of religion and politics, I think of this one that we learned from Russell (I am sure he would love to know that I remember something HE said! )....

 

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

[norajane]

So, if this conscience is inborn, then at what point did we start having it? I know, you don't really know..nor do I. It is kind of a "take a guess" question.

 

And if we all have an inborn moral code, then how is it that we all have the same one?

 

And if someone is a murderer or thief, did he/she go against his/her conscience or did that person not get one?

 

Some 'morality' is inborn, such as the urge or instinct to care for babies and children...we see it in the animal kingdom, and most people feel protective of children even if they aren't our own.

 

Other 'morals' are taught and learned, from parents, teachers, and society. We have the legal system if parents and teachers aren't able to get through (or if parents never learned it well enough to teach their own kids), but even way back when, Ogg would get hit over the head by Ugg if he was getting cozy with Ugg's babe in the cave while Ugg was out hunting. That's why there are differences in morals - societies make their own rules about certain things, such as polygamy among the Mormons and Muslims.

 

I don't see a need to have a belief in God in order to develop those morals, though. You can use other frames of reference...love, for example. It's not loving to take something that belongs to someone else. It's not loving to kill people. It's not loving toward your neighbor to screw his wife. It's not loving to treat women as male's property. It's not loving to be prejudiced against other races, religions, sexes, etc. It is loving to honor your parents. It is loving to treat others as you would yourself. It's not loving to lie.

 

Or, you don't even need a frame of reference or guiding force. If you steal, murder, lie, treat people like crap, then Ugg (i.e., the people you harmed, or society on their behalf) will hit you over the head when he catches up with you.

[disgracian]

Sure He did/does. It's the, "atheist" who, CHOOSES, not to see Him.

You cannot possibly know what goes on in other peoples' minds. You are making this up out of thin air.

Ask anyone who's been in a dire situation. Have you heard the term, "There are no atheists in a fox hole". This rings true, in EVERY impossible situation.

Again, you're claiming to know how everybody thinks in all dire situations. Result: epic fail.

Our problem, (in human form), is that when bad things happen to us, or things don't go the way WE want them to go, we blame God for our/those trangressions.

I am living proof to the contrary. I don't blame god for anything. As for atheists, why on earth would they blame a being they don't believe in? No adult blames Santa Clause for a lousy Christmas, so perhaps you could explain why everybody else has to buy into your particular fantasy?

We don't understand that anything and everything happens for God's ultimate purpose. It's not our place to understand why or what, it is our place, (if you are one of His children), to trust that He knows what He's doing.

By your admission you don't understand, so what puts you in the position to tell others what they should believe?

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

 

In summing up, morality is based on empathy and reason. As the capacity for these grow, we can conceive new ideas on morality to better serve us. As they diminish by ignorance, we slide backwards. None of the new ideas are coming from religion, in fact they are usually condemned. Therefore, we have to look elsewhere.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

So, moral codes change? Again, who decides them? Who decided that murder was wrong? Some group way back whenever?

 

The thing is the original question is not about our laws and codes that we have. It is that "inborn" knowledge that is known as a conscience.

 

Religion includes all religions such as Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. No new ideas come from them? Should there be new ideas of morality? Should morality be something that changes every few years?

 

Yes, if there is no God, then morality has no foundation to be based on. It is going to be based on whatever empathy and reason is available.

 

And you are right. There are rights and wrongs. As much as we want to debate what is right and wrong, there is one.

 

morality is based on empathy and reason.

 

For you this is quite a statement. I actually admire your intelligence in knowing what you believe...this statement doesn't fit that picture. But maybe I misunderstood you. Are you saying that man has enough reason an empathy for his fellow men to make laws that respect every one? Can you look around and say that reason and empathy is flourishing in the world or is the world full of suffering?

 

None of the new ideas are coming from religion, in fact they are usually condemned.

 

New ideas are definitely not always better ideas. And that is especially when they keep coming back every few years as a "new idea." I don't know of any new ideas of morality around these days. And please don't start talking about liberal sexual mores, etc, These are not new.

 

Yes, all world religions "condemn" those new ideas that go against the Law that they believe were given by God. If there is no God, then why have laws?

[JamesM]

You cannot possibly know what goes on in other peoples' minds. You are making this up out of thin air.

 

Again, you're claiming to know how everybody thinks in all dire situations. Result: epic fail.

 

I am living proof to the contrary. I don't blame god for anything. As for atheists, why on earth would they blame a being they don't believe in? No adult blames Santa Clause for a lousy Christmas, so perhaps you could explain why everybody else has to buy into your particular fantasy?

 

By your admission you don't understand, so what puts you in the position to tell others what they should believe?

 

Cheers,

D.

 

And yet you sit here and say that he is wrong in what he says. Who gave you the position to do that?

[disgracian]

And yet you sit here and say that he is wrong in what he says. Who gave you the position to do that?

Because, as I already said, I'm living proof that his assertion is wrong.

 

If somebody made a generalisation about Christians that you knew to be false because it didn't apply to you, you'd be pretty confident in speaking out and correcting them.

 

As am I.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

Those who believe in absolute law or morality need fixed and immovable standards that are beyond question, so they don't have to think about it. "Do this, don't do that, etc." They are distrustful of intellectual freedom because they don't have it themselves, and people are usually afraid of what they don't understand.

 

It's more reassuring because they know where they stand, and it's all familiar. It runs less risk of being perverted or corrupted, but that makes the wild assumption that it's perfect from the get-go, which, being a human invention, it isn't.

 

so when someone believes in absolutes, he or she is ignorant? And since ignorance is the basis of all suffering, then we need to get rid of absolutes? Seems logical.

 

Maybe I read this wrong, but by your own admission, you have stated that those who believe that murder is wrong and stealing is wrong...since these have been immovable standards...are ignorant? If we cannot be flexible enough to change these absolutes, then we are afraid of what we don't understand? What is amazing is how someone who has lived on this earth for less than three decades and has not acquired any sort of advanced degree in a university can say that millions of men for many years who have believed in "immovable" standards, are afraid of intellectual freedom.

 

Personally, I think when someone has such a closed mind, then he or she cannot be open to learning. Kinda brings up that statement by Bertrand Russell.

[JamesM]

Because, as I already said, I'm living proof that his assertion is wrong.

 

If somebody made a generalisation about Christians that you knew to be false because it didn't apply to you, you'd be pretty confident in speaking out and correcting them.

 

As am I.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Nah, you are living proof that ONE assertion is wrong. And you have just convinced yourself that it doesn't apply.

[VIP]

Once upon a time there was a centipede that was amazingly good at dancing

w/ all hundred legs. All the creatures of the forest gathered to watch

everytime the centipede danced, and they were all duly impressed by the

exquisite dance. But there was one creature that didn't like watching the

centipede dance-that was a tortoise.

"'How can I get the centipede to stop dancing?' thought the tortoise. He

couldn't just say he didn't like the dance. Neither could he say he danced

better himself, that would be obviously untrue. So he devised a fiendish

plan.

"He sat down and wrote a letter to the centipede. 'O imcomparable

centipede,' he wrote, 'I am a devoted admirer of your exquisite dancing. I

must know how you go about it when you dance. Is it that you lift your left

leg number 28 and then your right number 39? Ordo lyou begin by lifting your

right leg number 17 before you lift your left leg number 44? I await your

answer in breathless anticipation. Yours truely, Tortoise.'

"When the centipede read the letter, she immediately began to think about

what she actually did when she danced. Which leg did she lift first? And

which leg next? What do you think happened in the end?"

"The centipede never danced again?"

"That's exactly what happened. AND THAT'S THE WAY IT GOES WHEN IMAGINATION

GETS STRANGLED BY REASONED DELIBERATION.

[disgracian]

So, moral codes change? Again, who decides them? Who decided that murder was wrong? Some group way back whenever?

I'm not sure what you want. Their names and postal address? As I said, it's based on a protocol for social interaction. Few people would like to be murdered or be stolen from, so it's not too big of a leap to recognise that others probably feel the same way. This "Golden Rule" predates any religion I'm aware of. So I doubt that it was decided by a committee or something.

Religion includes all religions such as Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. No new ideas come from them? Should there be new ideas of morality? Should morality be something that changes every few years?

Religion can at times be the biggest instigator for change as well as the biggest opponent of it. Life's funny like that. Various churches were on the forefront of both sides of the chatel slavery issue in America. The pattern is usualy cyclical: new movements form and usurp the old ways, then gradually become exactly what they raged against in the first place, and then something else will replace them. So it goes. Christianity emerged as a counterpoint to the corruption of Judaism, so too did Buddhism from Hinduism. Now the wheel has very much turned full circle.

 

New ideas on morality is forced upon us by new developments in the world. Stem cell research, genetic modification are two ideas that immediately spring to mind. It's also a good idea to revise certain ides from time to time. The Bible offers no objection whatsoever to slavery, an idea we now consider repugnant. In fact it even goes so far as to lay down rules that permit the master to beat the slave so long as the beating is not fatal. So the answer to your question is "yes". There should definitely be new ideas on morality.

 

New ideas can be tested based on many different methodologies. The principle of least harm, utilitarianism, altruism, practicality, and so on. All ideas are not equal. The idea that morality can change scares some people, but progress should not be anything to fear, unless you cannot somehow see that we have it better now than we did in, say, the Dark Ages for instance. Any time you argue in favour of one idea on morality against another (treatment of prisoners in war, capital punishment, prohibition, gay marriage, whatever) you are proving my point that there is a way to reliably test ideas. You can play the game of infinite regress and demand that we measure them with microscopic precision which isn't possible, but it would be disingenuous to do so.

Yes, if there is no God, then morality has no foundation to be based on. It is going to be based on whatever empathy and reason is available.

Of course it has a foundation; I've just spent the last two posts describing it to you. It isn't set in stone, but it doesn't have to be. Absolute morality is extremely restrictive and sells us short because it's limited to whatever knowledge we have at the time. Life is change; nothing stays the same from one moment to the next. If you want to box yourself in and confine god to what you think you know based on a book, that's your perogative, but alternative models are not wrong simply because they differ from yours.

 

Empathy, reason, debate, testing and experience are a fine basis for morality: it ensures that, over time, problems generally iron themselves out and even problems that are introduced are not irrevocable. It offers unlimited potential and hope. A bullet point list of "Thou shall nots" does not.

Are you saying that man has enough reason an empathy for his fellow men to make laws that respect every one? Can you look around and say that reason and empathy is flourishing in the world or is the world full of suffering?

The world is full of both; it is not one or the other. Suffering exists, so too does beauty. Problems and shortcomings do not prove that we have to look a god to fix all our problems. If anything, it suggests we are doing too much of that already and it isn't working. Atheists are very much the minority across the world, and some of the most heavily religious countries in the world have the worst problems with violence and immorality. Some of the most secular countries such as Sweden and Norway have the best healthcare system, the lowest violence rates and so on. Compare that to America or the Middle-East.

 

How do you explain this?

New ideas are definitely not always better ideas. And that is especially when they keep coming back every few years as a "new idea." I don't know of any new ideas of morality around these days.

Sometimes they are. As I said before, when you expose an idea to scrutiny it will either hold up or it won't. Better ideas resist this critical analysis whereas weaker ideas don't. It's not rocket science.

If there is no God, then why have laws?

Why do you keep asking questions to which the answers have already been given? If you truly can't see this, then I may as well stop now.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

Once upon a time there was a centipede that was amazingly good at dancing

w/ all hundred legs. All the creatures of the forest gathered to watch

everytime the centipede danced, and they were all duly impressed by the

exquisite dance. But there was one creature that didn't like watching the

centipede dance-that was a tortoise.

"'How can I get the centipede to stop dancing?' thought the tortoise. He

couldn't just say he didn't like the dance. Neither could he say he danced

better himself, that would be obviously untrue. So he devised a fiendish

plan.

"He sat down and wrote a letter to the centipede. 'O imcomparable

centipede,' he wrote, 'I am a devoted admirer of your exquisite dancing. I

must know how you go about it when you dance. Is it that you lift your left

leg number 28 and then your right number 39? Ordo lyou begin by lifting your

right leg number 17 before you lift your left leg number 44? I await your

answer in breathless anticipation. Yours truely, Tortoise.'

"When the centipede read the letter, she immediately began to think about

what she actually did when she danced. Which leg did she lift first? And

which leg next? What do you think happened in the end?"

"The centipede never danced again?"

"That's exactly what happened. AND THAT'S THE WAY IT GOES WHEN IMAGINATION

GETS STRANGLED BY REASONED DELIBERATION.

 

And what is the moral of this story?

[disgracian]

Maybe I read this wrong, but by your own admission, you have stated that those who believe that murder is wrong and stealing is wrong...since these have been immovable standards...are ignorant?

Indeed you did. There is always room for healthy debate. Is stealing wrong if you do so to feed your family? Which is the greater evil? Is murder wrong if it is to prevent the murder of another? Or 10, or 100, or 1,000,000? If murder is wrong, is captial punishment itself wrong as well?

 

Morality doesn't often lend itself keenly to binary right/wrong conclusions. The lines always blur around the edges of even the most commonly held standards.

If we cannot be flexible enough to change these absolutes, then we are afraid of what we don't understand?

So you go from one extreme to the other, absolute to free-for-all. Stop thinking in black and white.

What is amazing is how someone who has lived on this earth for less than three decades and has not acquired any sort of advanced degree in a university can say that millions of men for many years who have believed in "immovable" standards, are afraid of intellectual freedom.

Ahh, here we go. The inevitable onset of ad hominems. Please don't go down that path because I would not like to lose all respect for you.

Personally, I think when someone has such a closed mind, then he or she cannot be open to learning. Kinda brings up that statement by Bertrand Russell.

Ahh, I'm close-minded to oppose close-mindedness on the part of others. I wonder if being tolerant is to be intolerant of intolerance also? I hope you don't buy into that sort of intellectual swill as well.

 

Cheers,

D.

[sb129]

 

I don't see a need to have a belief in God in order to develop those morals, though. You can use other frames of reference...love, for example. It's not loving to take something that belongs to someone else. It's not loving to kill people. It's not loving toward your neighbor to screw his wife. It's not loving to treat women as male's property. It's not loving to be prejudiced against other races, religions, sexes, etc. It is loving to honor your parents. It is loving to treat others as you would yourself. It's not loving to lie.

 

Or, you don't even need a frame of reference or guiding force. If you steal, murder, lie, treat people like crap, then Ugg (i.e., the people you harmed, or society on their behalf) will hit you over the head when he catches up with you.

Thanks NJ, well put.

 

Someone a few pages back mentioned 'survival of the fittest'.

Some Darwinism can be applied to morals. If you murder each other for no reason, your species isn't going to last long, is it?

If some individual keeps stealing the food source, then others lose out, etc.

However, if you punish or discourage wrongdoings, your species will be more harmonious and therefore survive longer. This is very general though, and the human race is very complex.

Many animal species have instinctive morality such as nurturing, hunting other species, sharing and social hierarchies which encourage their survival.

 

s What is amazing is how someone who has lived on this earth for less than three decades and has not acquired any sort of advanced degree in a university can say that millions of men for many years who have believed in "immovable" standards, are afraid of intellectual freedom.

 

Ouch. How facetious is that statement? Having a university degree doesn't give you exclusive permission to comment on these topics.

In fact, in this day and age, having a degree isn't necessarily an indication that the holder is a free thinker or even particularly intelligent.

 

Not to criticise those on here who DO have degrees, I have one myself. However, I would never assume that just because someone didn't have one that one wasn't a critical thinker or didn't have valuable things to say, or that they were less intelligent than I am.

 

You don't need to go to university to read widely, or educate yourself.

[VIP]

And what is the moral of this story?

 

The answer to your questions?

Ask your own heart.

[disgracian]

Having a university degree doesn't give you exclusive permission to comment on these topics. In fact, in this day and age, having a degree isn't necessarily an indication that the holder is a free thinker or even particularly intelligent.

I'm in my second year at university and I can echo that sentiment. Years before, somebody I knew majored in philosophy and, ironically, lost his ability to think for himself more each year. By the time I drifted away completely, he was unable to make any kind of life decision without consulting his lecturers or a textbook.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

Sometimes they are. As I said before, when you expose an idea to scrutiny it will either hold up or it won't. Better ideas resist this critical analysis whereas weaker ideas don't. It's not rocket science.

 

Why do you keep asking questions to which the answers have already been given? If you truly can't see this, then I may as well stop now.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

I am not going to take up space and requote all of this, but I think we agree here more than disagree. How laws and rules are made in our society is about as you have said. My original question was how did we get a conscience. And you have answered that based on your world view as well. Morality will change to some degree. There are gray areas. And despite what you may think, I do not think life is all black and white.

 

I think the quote you used was taken out of context. But when I went back, I see why you did. My intention was not to ask the question...why have laws without God. My intention was a rhetorical one asked by those who believe that God should be the basis of those laws. I am well aware of what your beliefs are...I was not asking for them again. My apologies.

[JamesM]

Those who believe in absolute law or morality need fixed and immovable standards that are beyond question, so they don't have to think about it. "Do this, don't do that, etc." They are distrustful of intellectual freedom because they don't have it themselves, and people are usually afraid of what they don't understand.

 

Having an absolute law or morality does not mean one has no intellectual freedom. New ideas do come along and need to have laws made. Take stem cell research, abortion, capital punishment, etc. These all have to do with the taking of a life. Take war and murder...these also take lives. None should be allowable. Whether capital punishment should be used against one who has taken a life is up for debate, but in my own mind, I cannot see how taking one life justifies taking another. Yet if that person has such a disregard for human life, should he be allowed to continue with his own? I cannot sit back and make that judgment.

 

I am not sure how that causes the loss of intellectual freedom. Again, I think we agree here in many ways...it is on what basis these laws should be made that we disagree.

 

So you go from one extreme to the other, absolute to free-for-all. Stop thinking in black and white.

 

No, the quote you took from out of my post was a question. I was asking if this is the logical conclusion. Personally, I do not feel that it is. Absolutes...such as it is wrong to steal, kill, etc....are correct. But each situation may be different. Is it wrong to steal to feed your family? Yes. Many thieves do their "career" for a living. The end does not justify the means. Does that mean that this person gets the same "punishment" as the one who steals because there is no food in the house and he or she is desperate? I highly doubt that anyone would say so. Does that make either of them right by the law?

 

Ahh, here we go. The inevitable onset of ad hominems. Please don't go down that path because I would not like to lose all respect for you.

 

I am not sure why you thought this was inevitable. I agree as I read this now that it comes off as rude and unnecessary. For that I apologize. (For those that wonder...ad hominem is when one attacks the person and not his argument. I should not have done that). That was not my intention. My interpretation of your statement was that those that believe in absolutes and standards as a way to make laws handling new ideas and situations (ie. stem cell research on embryos is using live individuals to possibly heal sick individuals) have no intellectual freedom or intelligence. When one looks back over time, there have been many well educated people who have done so. They have been intelligent and have not been any less of a fee and critical thinker.

 

Again, I always attempt to stay away from attacking the person. This is wrong. Even though I may have thought you were generalizing regarding those who did not believe as you did...this does not give me the right to attack your credentials compared to theirs.

 

Not to criticise those on here who DO have degrees, I have one myself. However, I would never assume that just because someone didn't have one that one wasn't a critical thinker or didn't have valuable things to say, or that they were less intelligent than I am.

 

I also have a degree...but not in any area related to science. But I will never assume that I have more answers than someone who has been educated in an area in which I have not. So, when I disagree with someone who has a degree in evolutionary biology or physics etc., I will always respect them for what they know. Many critical thinkers have no degrees, but they also give answers based on what they know at the time.

 

Either way, I see that this statement made by me comes off harsher by far than intended...so again I apologize.

 

Ahh, I'm close-minded to oppose close-mindedness on the part of others. I wonder if being tolerant is to be intolerant of intolerance also? I hope you don't buy into that sort of intellectual swill as well.

 

No, the statement by Russell said that the wise have doubts. This is why they stay wise...they keep searching for answers. Calling someone close minded by definition does label you close minded for not being open to their close mindedness. And being intolerant of intolerance is not being tolerant of others by definition. But that is semantics...not swill. And it actually is not common sense either. Opposing something does not mean you embrace the opposite view.

 

So I respect your level of intelligence. You have a great command of using logic to argue your points. They may not all be correct, but you argue them well. You give me many things to research and think about. That is why I enjoy "tangling" with you.

Cheers...

[Trimmer]

But if one believes there is no Deity, then he believes that there is no Being who reigns over him. Hence, he is a god.

I think someone else already offered a counterpoint to this, but maybe this is one significant disconnect between "believers" and "atheists"... It seems like believers have trouble conceiving that anyone could imagine a universe without at least some god, therefore if you don't believe in the one true God, then you must be putting someone, something into that "god" position, therefore it must be yourself. But it's not that way. If I don't believe in "the" God, it is still possible for me not to believe in "a" god, or "any" god, and believe me, I certainly don't consider myself to be the pinnacle of spiritual development and divinity, so I certainly don't put myself in that position, either. Having no Being reigning over me wouldn't put me in the position of power over anything myself...

 

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, our profession of faith talks about Christ descending into Hell, “to free the just who had gone before Him” because (according to 1 Peter 4:6), “the Gospel was preached even to the dead that, though condemned in the flesh in human estimation, they might live in the spirit of the estimation of God.” So Jesus brings to every man throughout the ages the hope of the salvation:

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. – (No. 1260, the Catechism of the Catholic Church)

The bold highlight is mine, because then we hear from Moose:

It's written that if they don't know Christ, they will be eternally seperated from God. Simple as that. And yes, that means an enternity in Hell. It's also written that man will not have the ignorance card to play either.

Simple as that.

 

Moose, meet James. Discuss...

 

I see sarcasm in this question, so I won't spend too much time answering it, but, yes... the only way to Heaven is through Christ. Everyone has heard of Jesus Christ. God can make his decision on anyone who hasn't. Why don't you ask him since you are the one who wants to know?

And sticking out your tongue at then end of an otherwise straightforward answer is not sarcastic? I apologize for my own sarcasm - my question was genuine, albeit encased within a slightly sour wrapping. It was unconscious, but I admit, wholly unwarranted.

 

So who speaks for the "ignorant?" If you don't know Christ, are you eternally separated, as it is written in Moose's gospel, or is there hope for the ignorant, according to the catechism of the Catholic church? Does the Pope have the final word on all of this?

 

Incidentally, I appreciate you guys - Moose, Jinnah, and JamesM especially - for the information in this discussion. I know that your beliefs are heartfelt, genuine, and deep, and I appreciate your sharing them.

[JamesM]

Simple as that.

 

Moose, meet James. Discuss...

 

 

 

 

Incidentally, I appreciate you guys - Moose, Jinnah, and JamesM especially - for the information in this discussion. I know that your beliefs are heartfelt, genuine, and deep, and I appreciate your sharing them.

 

 

Thank you for introducing us, but I am guessing that you meant: "Moose meet quankanne."

 

I think someone else already offered a counterpoint to this, but maybe this is one significant disconnect between "believers" and "atheists"... It seems like believers have trouble conceiving that anyone could imagine a universe without at least some god, therefore if you don't believe in the one true God, then you must be putting someone, something into that "god" position, therefore it must be yourself.

 

I think I responded to this as well, but you deserve the respect of a response. My point is not that someone puts himself on level as a god, but that some/many people who do not believe that there is a God believe that Man is the god of the universe. This is not in the sense that "I am the ultimate one," but in the sense that "I am in charge of my destiny." But I think my last response indicated that this is not meant as an either/or supposition.

 

And Trimmer, I also admire your intelligence and respect for your fellow posters. It is always a pleasure to debate someone like you.