What’s this? reasonable discourse? on MY internet?

i don’t think so.

Mark, Cameron, you are my new favorite people.

Why does stumbleupon take me to year-old articles?

as an agnostic (leaning theist, on the basis that it intrigues me) going to a jesuit university taking coures in theology, i’m astonished how well my theo professor and i get along, considering he has some very fundamentalist beliefs.

I remember debating with him one day after class, and he said to me:

“you know, anyone, especially any christian, worth his salt should know that no matter what you do, you’ll never be sure your beliefs are true.”

I just wish more people- for pete’s sake, the internet needs a double shot of this- would take the time to stop giving a damn what other people believe or don’t believe and let everyone else well enough alone.

Except for on Youtube. People arguing about religion and politics on youtube should be encouraged like we encourage the participants in the special olympics. Because bless them, they just put so much heart into it!

Either way, i lol’d (but perhaps not rofl’d- an issue you should adress)

Ben: so true.

That is this athiest right here!

Common? Really?

Man, I guess I grew up more liberal than I thought.

Cameron: I am ‘good’ and moral due to my evolution. An organism that lives only for itself is not ‘designed’ (not implying a creator) to survive.
Consider, if evolution is true it is an explanation on why we survive. Humans that do not work with other humans will not pass on their genes. Therefore if it is in their nature to be unco-operative this nature will die out. If it is because of nurture, then these ways of nurturing (most likely learned from their parents) will not survive either. Therefor we survive because we are built to survive. Everyone on the earth today is the result of the co-operation of two (or more) people. Can’t dispute that.
Now, the reason why I am good is because you need to be to interact with other humans. If you are not productive for the community, you will most likely me expelled. So an ‘evil’ man who might harm others will not be able to pass on his genes if it runs counter to the wants of the community (In most cases).
So I am the prduct of good conduct, due either to nature or nuture, and these teaching will usually be passed on, allowing the community to live on.
When bees attack they must sacrifice their lives. And it takes something like 1000 bees (killer variety) to kill an animal as large as a man.
But if all bees were selfish, the hive wouldnt survive. The bees sacrifice themselves for the greater good, but I think all experts would agree that it is not a consious choice on the part of the bee. Its an instinct. In most our or moral codes, the bees have preformed a selfless and good act. They are moral creatures. Yet can they really be called so? For it is not a choice they make, it is a reaction.
I think the same could be said for us. Ethics and morals are just a name put to these instincts. No-one ever told me rape was wrong. Never seen it, had it, know some one affected by it. Yet I do not like it, without any teaching on the subject matter. My parents never raised me with a moral code, yet I have one. The only rules pertained to fighting with my siblings and my bed time.
I went to a multi-donominational school (you may have guessed already that I cant spell) and learned about all different world religions, yet I wasnt tought the moral code they follow.
Obviously, my morals come from somewhere else.

I accept the Big-Bang ‘Theory’ (That word again!) as there is evidence to support it (Read the book by Simon Singh) and it has the exact same flaw as the god hypothesis has, the start.

Also, if I knew the chrisitian god to exist, I wouldnt worship him. How can you love something you dont know? Or cant understand?
Also, as for respecting god, or religion, I cant do that. Respect, as far as I can determine, is the assumption of good faith on the part of the respected.
The only assumption I deal with is that most of the data from my senses is correct.

“what do you believe about life after this life?”
Surely the whole notion of infinte life after this one totally reduces the value of our time now. Why cry over death, when you will meet the person in a couple of decades? Why does god need to test us?
Im gonna donate my body to science, if it is in a fit condition. It will provide a use!

“if god is omniscient, then he has a purpose”
This is a unexplained leap in logic.
And surely he would know the outcome of any actions, thus he wouldnt need to do them.

I now understand your reticence to use the words “ethics” or “morality” because they have an “ethical” or a “moral” meaning behind them In general, here at MoF, we assume ethics & morality to be non-theist unless specifically noted.

My beliefs are many & varied but probably lean more toward “less structured” than toward “reincarnation”. Reincarnation is a system of thought that is familiar, so it can be useful when discussing my beliefs broadly. But I don’t believe that I’ve ever spiritually been any of the Cleopatras except in the fashion that I may ever have physically been any of them (I’m sure some of my groceries come from Egypt).

“Very harmonious.” Thank you I try.

I always recommend Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics when asked, since I think it’s the clearest form of deist ethics, one of his more accessible works, and is my favorite. But any of Averroes’ commentaries on Aristotle are also worth it. He brings a monotheistic angle to Aristotle’s teachings that many Christians are very comfortable with.

Ah, life, the universe, & everything. Never as a more redundant phrase been repeated so oft. Thomas Aquinas’ “proofs” for God have always confused me since they are only “proofs” for people who already have a (mono)theistic world-view. My favorite, and one I have co-opted to define my own belief about time, goes (broadly) as follows: the universe exists; either it has always existed (infinity) or it was begun/created; since infinity does not exist, it was begun/created; it can only have been created by god; therefore God. I get lost in the argument “since infinity does not exist”, since it is a concept I have always been comfortable with. It is also a concept that is believed in by everyone, theist or non-theist alike (how much love does God embody? what is the biggest number?). I simply apply it to time/the universe. I do not believe it was created or begun. The Big Bang, which is a useful tool, cannot have been the beginning: else what Banged? I could get into here my beliefs about hourglasses, which fits in nicely with Big Bang & Universal Expansion, but won’t, since it’s not real relevant except to prove the waste of concerning oneself with the Beginning, whether from a theistic or scientific standpoint.

And please be disabused of the notion that I am frequently similar to the spongy inside of a plant stem. Although comments posted from work tend to be shorter I enjoy your comments, of any length.

Cameron: please be disabused of the notion that I am often continuously spongy like the interior of a stem. I just as often ramble on for no reason. But thank you (Although comments made from work tend to be shorter.)

My beliefs are many and varied but probably fall into the “less structured” than “along the lines of reincarnation”. I don’t believe that I’ve ever been any of the Cleopatras, but I’m sure that part of me was part of her, either physically or spiritually (some of my favorite veggies likely came from Egypt).

My recommendation for works of Aristotle is either his Nicomachean Ethics or just about any of Averroes’ commentaries. He was a very astute scholar of Aristotle & brought a monotheistic bent to some of Aristotle’s teachings that still appeals to many Christians.

Finally: the universe. The everything. In the same class that I met Aristotle & Ibn Rushd, I encountered Aquinas’ “proofs” of God. I call them quote-proofs-unquote because they’re only likely to make sense to someone already in a monotheistic world-view. My favorite was: “the universe exists; either it began or it has always existed; since it can never have always existed, it must have begun; it must have been begun by God; therefore, God.” Thomas lost me at “since it can never have always existed”, especially since this is antithetical to one of his proofs of God (that He always existed). Infinity just makes sense to me. More so than an actual beginning and an actual end. Infinity exists, this is something that theists and non-theists alike can agree on (how high can you count? how much love does God embody?). I just apply it to existence.

BTW, outside the USA and perhaps Canada the “Baby Back Ribs” thing with Fat Bastard just made people go: “Huh?” ;o))

And as to words having power, Brian, that’s a very Jewish (and therefore xian) concept. It’s exactly why YWHW is spelled in such a manner as to keep it from being pronounceable. It’s exactly why Adam named the animals (and Eve). It’s part of why I desperately want to change my middle name.

Although I do have problems with biblical scholars who say that the bible makes as much sense now as then because god is all knowing about past, present, and far future. If we accept that some of the commandments (don’t eat pork) really did make sense millennia ago but really don’t right now, we might see a sharp decline in religious violence (esp. against non-religious and women).

House, my favorite television atheist, took on a pair of Hasidic Jews in a recent episode and described the commandments as follows (possibly paraphrased, but to the best of my ability to remember): “You follow all 600 of God’s commandments, right? [613] Do you understand them all? [It takes years of study...] But you follow the ones that you don’t understand because the ones that you do understand make sense and they were all written by the same god.” Which of course brings to mind the sheer number of authors of the bible when you get right down to it. Perhaps the pork one was written by an unsuccessful beef farmer who wanted a larger share of business (perhaps the milk-and-beef one was written by the disgruntled pig farmer).

Finally, Wendy: thank you for those quotes, I shall have to steal some of them for use in future arguments.