....or he just knows what he's talking about. Like every other discussion in this thread, it depends on what lens you're looking at it through....
I'd say that's debatable, there are objective thruths and standards for honesty I think I've witnessesed Stroble violate. Have you met NaturalBornHawk yet? When you cross paths with him next you should have a Stroble pow wow, he's another big fan.
You obviously heard the wrong message scottie....or someone is pulling your leg.
That would require a bit of research as it was an opionon I formed in a discussion with NBH some time ago when reviewing videos he linked. He linked a number of them and I'm afraid it's beyond my recollection skills to articulate exactly what the specific errors were. But my memory is that he plays fast and loose with historical facts about Herod and Alexander the Great and misrepresents scientific positions mostly about evolution.
That's interesting, because I'd consider him, along with guys like Lennox, to be a pre-eminent Christian apologist.
I'm not sure what I accuse him of diminishes that status. It probably enhances it.
Please let me know what I am fearful of, I want to be the first to know. Cru, you said yourself that you don't like to read anything that doesn't further your belief. That doesn't make you a seeker at least not in an intellectual sense. My eyes are open all the time. I continue to read about religion regularly. I would love to believe that there is a place like heaven and there is a omniscient, omnipotent loving God, but unfortunately the more I examine that possibility, the more remote it becomes. There just simply is no evidence for it. I may be a lot of things, but fearful of learning is not one of them. In fact, I think it took a heck of a lot of courage to confront my doubts and walk down a new enlightened path. It would be much easier to go through life as a sheep, never asking myself the tough questions and having faith in the unbelievable.
" It would be much easier to go through life as a sheep, never asking myself the tough questions and having faith in the unbelievable"
Interesting. For me, at least, in some ways, it would be much easier for me to go through life with no belief in a higher power. As a Christian, I believe we suffer from the concupiscence to sin (thanks to original sin). So, if I didn't believe in God and wanting to please him, it would be make life much easier to give into those desires and do my own thing (and not be sorry for these actions). Just live life as I choose fit with no one to answer to for my actions (as long as I"m not breaking any laws).
BTW, don't take the above as me saying atheists can't be moral or live moral lives (ie. to be good people and live good lives). That's not the point I'm making.
Anyways, interesting.
This. It certainly would be easier to go through life with no one to answer to but...you. After all, without an external standard, anyone's choices, morality, etc, are as good as the next person's.
I don't think it takes religion to understand morality. All it takes is empathy and most people have it. It boils down to the Golden Rule. We all know what it feels like to be treated unfairly. Understating that feeling and realizing that you don't want to make others feel that way is all it takes to have morality. If everyone, religious or not, lived life by the golden rule the world would be a much better place.
Do you think your daily actions are more driven by God or your family and friends? For instance, do you not cheat on your wife because God said it's bad or are you afraid that it would hurt your wife, destroy your family and make your kids think you are a jerk? Are you civil to strangers because God says it's good to be kind to strangers or because you want people to like you and don't want to go through life picking fights?
As a Christian, you also have the greatest "get out of jail free" card ever invented. Even if you do cheat on your wife, are a jerk to strangers, rape your neighbor's wife, etc., all you have to do is believe in Jesus and ask for forgiveness and you go to a place of eternal bliss. How easy is that? The 80 years you have on this life pales in comparison to eternal bliss, right? Since I don't believe in eternal life, I feel pretty motivated to live this one the right way and pass on some good things to my kids and make the world a better place.
I really can't think of any reason why an atheist's life is easier than that of a religious person.
I disagree. The fact of the matter is that whether one is religious or not there are consequences to the choices we make. Christianity doesn't own morality, but making moral choices leads to better outcomes. Hence, an easier life. Living a life to satisfy biological impulses leads to short-term relief and long term dissatisfaction. I tell my daughters that whether you believe or not, live your life as if somebody that loves you is always watching.
Note that I never made the claim "it takes religion to understand morality", in fact, I specifically said otherwise so you wouldn't misinterpret what I was saying. So much for that attempt.
To answer your questions. God. I don't have a wife but I'd still say God. God. Both of them because each person is made in the image of God. Your questions are easy ones to answer for you and I since as you say the golden rule applies. However, what about your enemy? What about the person who's harmed you, done something terrible to you? God says vengeance is his, not ours. We are to love our enemies. Plus what really is the golden rule for the atheist? Couldn't you argue that all it really means is we serve our own self interest? The problem is self interest can lead us to do things that aren't moral. How does power play a role when considering self interest?
Finally, in theory it's easy to say "do unto others" but what about those gray areas? I don't know about you but it's awful easy for me to convince my conscious that it's moral to wrong. I appreciate having God's guidance/instruction instead of my conscious. Also, where do you think your concept of right and wrong came from. You owe at least some of your formation of conscious to your Christian upbringing which has to have some influence on what you think is moral. The atheists have been influenced by centuries of religion impacting societal influence of what is moral/immoral. Put it this way. Would you be more moral if you were born and raised on an isolated island, populated only by atheists born and raised on the island and having no outside influence from the outside religious world? I think don't think so but maybe I'm wrong, however, your moral values would most certainly be different that what they are today.
When God is absent in the equation then the law of the jungle can occur. Look at Baltimore and Katrina during the riots. People acting in their own self interest, not worrying about their neighbor.
Again, I'm not claiming atheists aren't moral people and can't do very good things. On the contrary. However, at least speaking for myself I believe I'm a better person than if I believed my conscious ruled my morality or that I was the final arbiter on what I consider moral behavior.
Here's a link to Peter Hitchen's critique of Christopher's book, "God is Not Great", in which he touches on some of these issues because it's one of his major disagreements with Christopher. Obviously, he does a much better job articulating these points than I do.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459427/Hitchens-vs-Hitchens.html
Finally, believing in Jesus and saying some words is no magic card. We aren't guaranteed anything. Are we sincere in our contrition or are our hearts hardened. Only God knows, and only God knows if we are worthy to enter his kingdom. We hope, we have faith and hope, but we don't know. What if you didn't have a wife or kids? What if you have a distorted view on the things you are doing with your wife or kids. You could be going along thinking you are doing great by your wife and kids, yet to a neutral observer you've treated them terribly. You went to your death whistling dixie and your family lived in a living hell because of your actions. Do you really think Hitler, Mao, Stalin, thought they were doing evil? I'm sure they were acting in accordance with their conscience. They may have thought of themselves as great and loving spouses.
We'll have to disagree on the "who's got it easier". I don't totally discount what you are saying, I'm just not sure it's as obvious as you are making it out.
Oh, and I don't want to leave you with the impression that I suspect you are a horrible father and husband. My comments were meant as a hypothetical, not reality. I'm sure you are a great husband and father so I hope you took no offense at the comments, as they weren't meant to be taken literally.
Not necessarily. In most cases there may be consequences for our choices, but not always. I never claimed Christianity owned morality, in fact I specifically said it didn't. To further add, I didn't even use the term Christianity as each religion has their own set of moral values.
I don't agree with the premise (although I don't totally reject it out of hand), however, we'd have to define what we mean by "easier life". Nice advice for your daughters but what if you daughters rejected that statement. What if they said, "I loved dad but he was really whacked on crack with that comment. We believe it's silly to live your life as if someone is watching over you. Our conscience is enough to lead us to make moral decisions"?
No, my reference to Christianity and morals wasn't in reference to you or anything you've stated. I meant it strictly in reference to an easier life w/ or w/out that faith.
My daughter could think I'm whack for any number of reasons.
Good post phantom, but why would the golden rule have a different meaning for an atheist. Reciprocity isn't inherently a religious philosophy.
Additionally the Jehovah witnesses are after me again. What should I ask them to have some fun?
Additionally the Jehovah witnesses are after me again. What should I ask them to have some fun?
Ask 'em how come their faith kept growing after several failed predictions of armageddon.
Note that I never made the claim "it takes religion to understand morality", in fact, I specifically said otherwise so you wouldn't misinterpret what I was saying. So much for that attempt.
To answer your questions. God. I don't have a wife but I'd still say God. God. Both of them because each person is made in the image of God. Your questions are easy ones to answer for you and I since as you say the golden rule applies. However, what about your enemy? What about the person who's harmed you, done something terrible to you? God says vengeance is his, not ours. We are to love our enemies. Plus what really is the golden rule for the atheist? Couldn't you argue that all it really means is we serve our own self interest? The problem is self interest can lead us to do things that aren't moral. How does power play a role when considering self interest?
Finally, in theory it's easy to say "do unto others" but what about those gray areas? I don't know about you but it's awful easy for me to convince my conscious that it's moral to wrong. I appreciate having God's guidance/instruction instead of my conscious. Also, where do you think your concept of right and wrong came from. You owe at least some of your formation of conscious to your Christian upbringing which has to have some influence on what you think is moral. The atheists have been influenced by centuries of religion impacting societal influence of what is moral/immoral. Put it this way. Would you be more moral if you were born and raised on an isolated island, populated only by atheists born and raised on the island and having no outside influence from the outside religious world? I think don't think so but maybe I'm wrong, however, your moral values would most certainly be different that what they are today.
When God is absent in the equation then the law of the jungle can occur. Look at Baltimore and Katrina during the riots. People acting in their own self interest, not worrying about their neighbor.
Again, I'm not claiming atheists aren't moral people and can't do very good things. On the contrary. However, at least speaking for myself I believe I'm a better person than if I believed my conscious ruled my morality or that I was the final arbiter on what I consider moral behavior.
Here's a link to Peter Hitchen's critique of Christopher's book, "God is Not Great", in which he touches on some of these issues because it's one of his major disagreements with Christopher. Obviously, he does a much better job articulating these points than I do.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459427/Hitchens-vs-Hitchens.html
Finally, believing in Jesus and saying some words is no magic card. We aren't guaranteed anything. Are we sincere in our contrition or are our hearts hardened. Only God knows, and only God knows if we are worthy to enter his kingdom. We hope, we have faith and hope, but we don't know. What if you didn't have a wife or kids? What if you have a distorted view on the things you are doing with your wife or kids. You could be going along thinking you are doing great by your wife and kids, yet to a neutral observer you've treated them terribly. You went to your death whistling dixie and your family lived in a living hell because of your actions. Do you really think Hitler, Mao, Stalin, thought they were doing evil? I'm sure they were acting in accordance with their conscience. They may have thought of themselves as great and loving spouses.
We'll have to disagree on the "who's got it easier". I don't totally discount what you are saying, I'm just not sure it's as obvious as you are making it out.
Oh, and I don't want to leave you with the impression that I suspect you are a horrible father and husband. My comments were meant as a hypothetical, not reality. I'm sure you are a great husband and father so I hope you took no offense at the comments, as they weren't meant to be taken literally.
Wow! I should have said "you don't have to have God to ACT in a moral fashion." You obviously feel differently. Yes, I believe that all people with a higher level of functioning can and do act morally without the influence of god. In fact, many groups of people have been doing exactly that for thousands of years. The golden rule means exactly what it says. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It applies very nicely in most situations. For instance, if I committed a crime, I would want a just punishment.
By your "love your enemies" and "vengeance is God's, not mine" reasoning, why would you even punish murderers, rapists or other criminals? If someone harmed me, I would want them punished, just like our justice system is designed to do. It's not a complicated thing. I wouldn't want to wait around for God to judge them and do something about it. That makes ZERO sense.
Also, the Bible isn't really clear on morality now is it? Do you believe in public stonings? Do you think mass genocide is just? God killed off damn near the entire planet for crying out loud! Let's face it, there are some horrible atrocities against man committed in the Bible by that God of yours.
If you are so mentally weak that it takes belief in god to prevent you from raping, murdering, stealing, molesting goats, etc. then please don't abandon your religion. In reference to Stalin, Hitler, Polpot and other a-holes in history, I think they knew what they were doing was wrong, they just didn't care. They are horrible people and mentally ill. There are great people who do great things, there are horrible people that do horrible things. There are also good people who do horrible things and for that to happen it usually involves religion or some other form of brainwashing. Don't take that personally.
Your extensive argument loses any credibility with me at the mention of reading Dawkins & Hitchens. IMHO, they are laughable. Cru is doing a great job of representing a clear view of real Christianity is in the midst of the haters and misguided spewing their venom on this post.
It doesn't and didn't mean to imply it does. My point was dealing more with the application of that rule and it getting warped by a misguided conscience.
If we reach a high enough state do we get to rule our own planet? Is it when you reach the 33rd level or something like that? Or is that a Mormon thing? I get them confused.
Did I gain credibility when I said I read D'Souza, Craig and Zacharias? Just want to know where I stand with you.
"Yes, I believe that all people with a higher level of functioning can and do act morally without the influence of god."
In fact, many groups of people have been doing exactly that for thousands of years.
Agree. So do I and haven't claimed otherwise. Either I'm doing a poor job of communicating my point or you're misunderstanding my point.
Vengeance =/= Justice
The latter is fine, the former is wrong.
I'm not God, you aren't God. There are horrible atrocities against atrocities against man committed by men who didn't believe in God. What is the point? You think human beings, left alone to their own conscience have a good track record of holding the brakes on committing evil?
Why the need to mock people of faith with the "mentally weak" comments. You realize that leading a moral life is more than abstaining from raping, murdering, stealing, etc. I agree, I probably wouldn't need religion to be against those, but what about other things like lying ("white lies"), cheating on a test, etc. You seem to confidently state that you would be against these and don't need religion to know these are immoral. How do you know? You haven't lived in a bubble. You were raised in a Christian home, live in a predominantly Christian country, probably have friends who are religious, etc. You're moral compass has been at least particially influenced by religion, whether you care to admit it or not. Religion has been central to societal life for centuries, yet you can claim with certainty that your moral views wouldn't be different if raised in the scenario I brought up. If you are being intellectually honest, you don't know.
How do you know they knew they were doing wrong according to their conscience? Sure, they knew others thought it was wrong, but that's not the point since their individual conscious is the guide to moral action for the atheist. Or am I wrong on that? Your last sentence just isn't true. It suggests that if there were more atheists throughout history there would have been less "horrible things". LOL. Uh, no. Both are human and as human quite capable of doing horrible things whether claiming to be guided by God or self. Why is this because humans act in their self interest. "What they (atheists and believers) have in common is that they are human, and capable of the sin of pride. "
"Faith and belief can be and often are restraints on this arrogance of power. They offer the possibility of justice where human society fails to provide it – as it almost always does fail."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459427/Hitchens-vs-Hitchens.html#ixzz3ZaDE02Td
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
So is capital punishment vengeance or justice? Is life in prison vengeance or justice? What about solitary confinement? Where does vengeance end and justice begin? Somebody is judging somebody else and doling out the punishment. Isn't that god's domain?
You are right, I don't know exactly what Stalin was thinking and neither do you. Maybe he thought it was fun to kill people, maybe Hitler took it as a challenge. Who knows. They were evil men doing evil things. Period. I'm not even sure what your point is. Are you claiming that bad people exist in the world. No argument here.
By the way, if you were born on an island inhabited by militant Muslims that think all non-muslims must die, do you think you would be a Christian? If so, why? If not, why?
Yes, I think you are mentally weak if you aren't able to understand that lying and cheating are wrong and need to have that pointed out to you. You are right I was raised Catholic with the Catholic guilt doled out in spades. My kids aren't raised that way and they are good people. How did that happen? They have never seen the inside of a bible. I have to run, have a good weekend.
It could be either.
It could be either.
No. God's domain is judging people after we die.
Why would you think anyone is evil or does evil things? Isn't good and evil a religious concept? Maybe Stalin was doing exactly what the universe programmed for him via random chance. He's just doing what the universe set in order, so he had no choice. Just to be clear, I don't agree with this argument but some atheists do.
Who knows, it would depend on how I was raised. Your point? It's clear you missed mine with the example.
LOL. You still aren't getting the point. You don't think your kids are being influenced by people of faith? Teachers? Friends? Culture? They maybe haven't seen the inside of a bible, but they also haven't lived inside an atheist bubble. When have I said your kids, or any atheists, can't be good because they are atheists. I haven't, in fact I've said the opposite. The fact you keep bringing this point up (and I've conceded it from my very first post) means we are talking past each other and no reason to continue this discussion.
Ok, this thread has officially reached the "why go on point?" Have a nice weekend, I'm moving on to other things.
You are right, I am missing your point. Probably because it seems you are making two very different, if not opposite points. On one hand you say that you don't have to be religious to be a good person. (Agree). On the other hand you seem to feel that without religion the world would be much worse place because if people didn't have religion they would be horrible people. At least that is how I interpreted this quote "... if there were more atheists throughout history there would have been less "horrible things". LOL. Uh, no". (Disagree). You argue that my kids are good people because they are influenced by people of faith. I think that is condescending, arrogant and complete BS. You seem to have a VERY narrow view of the world since there are plenty of societies where there is absolutely no religion and they function just fine.
Also, how do you feel about other religions? Do you think it just takes a belief in any higher power to "put the brakes on people doing evil"? Or is Christianity the only religion that helps people live moral lives? Again, there are plenty of societies without religion that essentially have lived in an atheist bubble and they do just fine. Your argument also seems to suggest that religious societies would have better records than non-religious societies in terms of crime and war and abuse of human rights. Has that been the case? I certainly don't think so and the world we live in today offers none of that evidence.
The discussion begs an interesting question, though. Would the world be a better place without religion? Honestly, I don't know. I am obviously in the camp that believes that you don't have to have any religious influence to be a good person. I'm not sure our world would be worse without religion. There would still be horrible things happening and wonderful things happening. However, there seems to be a lot of people (yourself, by your own admission) that may not be able to see right from wrong or prevent themselves from acting like total a-holes without fearing retribution from a vengeful god. Maybe we aren't ready for that. When your religion helps you do good things, that's a positive thing. When your religion teaches you to kill infidels, gives justification for invading other countries and is the basis for discriminating against gays, then you have a problem. I think the pendulum is on the second side of the equation.
By the way, religion doesn't hold authority over what is good and what is evil. I believe that falls quite squarely into the domain of common sense and rational behavior. You know, that good old golden rule.
