What message do you get when a drunken Noah, who was considered a righteous man by God, curses his grandson because his son saw him naked?!?!?!

Just a quick note on this, although it was posted several weeks ago.  This is an excellent example of a bible criticism founded on ignorance.  Honestly, if you want to critique the bible, you should first learn something about it, right?

What did it mean for Ham to “uncover his father’s nakedness”?  It’s a Hebreism.  It means, quite bluntly, that Ham engaged in incest with Noah’s wife, his own mother.  In fact, if you have an original King James version Bible, you will note that most of the sexual laws in Exodus 20 and 28, and Leviticus 18 are written in the same way.  The specific precept which Ham violated is written of in Leviticus 18,8: The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it [is] thy father’s nakedness.  When the Hebrews spoke of “uncovering his father’s nakedness”, it didn’t mean stumbling by while he was bathing.  They were talking about intercourse.

Many newer translations make this clear for the benefit of people unfamiliar with Hebrew idioms.  The same verse (Lev 18,8) in the New American Bible: You shall not have intercourse with your father’s wife, for that would be a disgrace to your father.  Here they’ve made clear the meaning of the Hebrew scripture.  The problem is that many translations don’t clarify what happened in Genesis chapter 9, and so a modern reader is left wondering what Noah is so angry about.

It should be clear, at this point, why Noah expelled Canaan from the camp and from the tribe: he was the product of Ham’s incest with his own mother.  Noah didn’t want him around as a constant reminder of his own and his wife’s disgrace.

Daryl

I truly hope you are pulling my leg!  I believe it was my comment you called �ignorant�.  Here are the lines in Genesis I referred to:

21: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22: And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23: And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
24: And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

Where does that say Ham �uncovered his father�s nakedness�???  Where in any way does this describe incest between Ham and his mother?  And Canaan was the offspring of this incest?  Do you honestly believe that?  I am incredulous!  I suppose these passages in Genesis are talking about intercourse:

Because I was naked; and I hid myself

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

I�m certainly glad that we have the Bible around to tell us not to have sex with our mothers Bro Daryl…what would I do without Leviticus?  I might smite the wrong person or something.  I suppose when it said Noah was drunk, that really meant he was playing checkers and when it says he was in his tent that really meant he was out shopping?  It must be a burden to be so knowledgeable (translation: terribly confused). 

I did search the Web a bit and I found other equally interesting �translations�.  One said that Ham sodomized his own darling daddy and another says he castrated him�you are in good company!

And I believe it�s called a Hebraism oh wise one, not a Hebreism.  It would be best to use Bill Gates� spell checker when you are trying to school us unenlightened, �ignorant� folks.  It goes without saying that no passage in any language can be translated without considering idioms and the sense of it, but where you�re getting that incest stuff…

if god does exist he puts a lot of nice people through a lot of shit,and all the lieing backstabing people keep geting away with it,a god of justice my arse,have faith my little sheep and come on up for another shafting.I do know as fact non human beings exist and angles.It is I think a big play ground this life thing and those who give out kickings do so because they think no one is watching,thus they show themselves for what they are (bastards)I do believe however that something is watching, yorkshire in the uk over and out:)

Sir,
I write this not out of hate for what you say but to just let you know I’m your friend.  You say you are an atheist but some how I believe deep down inside you really wanting to believe.  I once was a angnostic prior to Oct. 21 1972.  I was a hippie strung out on drugs and playing rock music. I had had it with the world and was going to kill myself.  But I had a praying mom & dad that prayed for me but have gone on to be with the Lord.  One night in a little holiness church in Buena Vista Va. God spoke to me and told me He loved me and that He did not want me to be lost and go to hell.  I had always said if God would speak to me I would believe and I did.  I ask Jesus to heal my mind from all the flashbacks I had from LSD and I wanted to serve him for the rest of my life.  Brother I got the real thing.  No it has hot been easy!  I have been in the hospital over 17 times, almost died four times and while I was in the ER in Dec. 1996 I came out of my body for a little while.  I know you don’t have to believe me but I have medical records showing that I should not be alive.  I don’t know how I come upon you web site but it was not by accident.  If you just think about all the evil in the world and then go looking for love!  It is here you can’t see the ungodly evil in peoples hearts but it’s there.  It is manifest itself when little children get raped and killed.  When those who are rich refuse to help those that have very little or even enough food!  But then look at all the people that give to help the hungry and homeless who are they?  Most of the time they are poor people themself or those who have very little to spare!  Man can’t you see that if there wasn’t a God evil men and women would totally destroy any thing that is good!  I know I can’t make you believe but I know that God loves you and sent his son Jesus Christ that you might have everlasting life.  I don’t have a degree in theology but I have a certificate in religion but that does’t matter when it comes to be a servant of the Lord.  I am a soldier in the Army of the Lord and I just want to let you know that I really care about you. I don’t have a lot of money and I don’t live in a big fine home but all my needs are meet and I have a wonderful wife and 3 kids that are grown.  I am a musician and I love to play music for my Lord.  I hope this letter will cheer you up and maybe put a spark of God’s love in your heart

In the Army of the Lord
Prophet Bobby Presnell

Some of Spelling was wrong but hey I never said I was a english major!  I read some of the comments you get and Melvin said that God put a lot of good people through some bad stuff.  Friend it is not God that does it.  Yes He may allow it but it’s just like basic training.  Jesus said that He suffered and that the disciple was not above the master.  You tell me why people hate me for spreading God’s love?  Why am I the stupid Christian when all I want to do is preach the Gospel of peace?  I have the answer.  Satan is the God of this world or the system it goes by and He hates anything good or that comes from God.

May His love shine on you
In the Masters army
Prophet Bobby Presnell

Why argue about it? Let’s just see when the end comes huh? If God doesn’t exist, when you die, you’ll just rot and decay and that’s it. If God does exist, and you follow His plan, you’ll be fine, if not, you’ll burn in hell. Like it or not

I love how you omit yet a third possibility: God exists, but Christians got it all wrong about the whole heaven/hell thing and what the rules actually were. Oops.

Just wanna give my two pennies worth to this discussion:
Your last entry was actually my first step towards fullblown atheism.
Because if there is a god who says the christians got it right?
Every religion has it own holy (book of) stories,which are the word of god(s).
If you ask the respective believers they all come forth with a list of miracles (past and present) to proof that they are right.So obviously miracles do not prove anything.This also debunks the numbers argument i.e. if the few hundred million christians are right (they have to be, so many can’t be wrong) then one billion chinese (not quite sure what they believe),850 million hindus,a few hundred million muslims,hundred-odd million shintoists (? shinto religion of Japan) and millions and millions of Sikhs,Jews and others would have to be wrong.
And under closer scrutiny the main message is pretty similar for most religions:
Worship regularly in the prescribed manner;
Do not sleep with neighbours wife or relatives;
Do not steal from others in your community;
Be nice to weaker members of said community;etc.
And last but not least :
All other religions are the source of all evil and (if he exists in your believe) in league with the devil.
So what I am saying is that, if you strip away the specific propaganda all religions are pretty much the same as each other.
I think the purpose of religion is twofold:
1) to allow a species of hunters and gatherers living in small family groups to settle down in large societies without it turning into murder and mayhem by giving them rules of behaviour which cannot be questioned (godgiven)
2) neatly explaining everything which is not easily explainable by invoking divine workings.
This might all sound pretty cynical and I could
go on for hours but there you go.
In the end being a christian (muslim,atheist ,jew,....) doesn’t make you a good person, only being a good person makes you one.
Anyway after contemplating on all this (and much more,it’s an ongoing process I started over twenty years ago) I would have still considered myself agnostic.The last step came when I was in Hospital and had two near-death-experiences (the bright light type).Since then I somehow know that there isn’t anything else,no creator and no divine plan.
This “knowledge” condems me to take full responsibility of my actions (no Devil made me do it) but also to claim all credit for myself
(God did NOT help me).Now there’s a double edged sword but that is, I believe, what they call the human condition.
Lastly I am a firm believer in understanding the other point of view in any argument and with that in mind would like to recommend the book “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins to Alex Miller.

I don’t know any one who is “good”! What is “good”? I guess it depends on who you ask! “Good” is defined the same way as God…..therefore i’m not so sure about it! Being a good person makes a good person? I want to hear the argument for the existence of this thing called a “good” person! I’m not sure their is such a thing! I guess it’s based on ....faith….like many things.

Can only a “good” person define what it is to be “good”? I define what is “good” by what I was taught and by my own personal experiences! I never asked for proof…..but, now I do! The day someone provides proof of that which is “good”, is the day your proof of God will be before you! Good Luck!

Hey Les…I’m not sure snowman indicated he was a Christian. Maybe Christians are’nt the only ones who has it all wrong!

The fact that you singled out Christianity….is revealing. lol

Bart, is there some reason you keep coming back to this topic? The absence of any kind of a response to your two previous comments in the past 15 days wasn’t enough of a clue that they weren’t really worth responding to? Obviously you’re desperate for attention so I suppose I’ll toss you a bone.

Hey Les�I�m not sure snowman indicated he was a Christian.

Snowman made reference to Hell which is pretty much solely a Christian concept so one could argue that it’s a safe assumption that he’s Christian. Regardless, my reply to him isn’t dependent on assuming that he is a Christian and, in fact, I wasn’t making that assumption at the time.

Maybe Christians are�nt the only ones who has it all wrong!

Obviously. As an atheist I think anyone who believes in some form of religion has it all wrong. I would’ve thought that to be self-evident, but apparently I need to spell it out for you.

The fact that you singled out Christianity… is revealing. lol

If you say so. There, you’ve gotten some of the attention you were looking for.

Firstly, on the comment made by Alex Miller a long while back: while most of his points have already been addressed, I’d like to point out that, according to quantum physics, something can be created from nothing. By Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, you can, essentially, ‘borrow’ energy from spacetime, for an amount of time which depends upon the amount of energy borrowed. Now, potential energy has a negative sign convention, and the amount of potential and kinetic energy in the Universe appears to be equal, so, since we would be borrowing zero total energy, we can borrow it for indefinitely long. So much for the first cause argument - it’s inconsistent both logically and physically.

Secondly, to Mild Bill about Evolution.

1. Billions of years ago, inorganic material formed into the first rudimentary cell

Well, the current theory is basically organic materials—-> protocell—-> heterotrophic prokaryotic cell. Now, it’s been shown that given the right conditions, you can take simple organic compounds and convert them to amino acids and other building blocks of life. While I will admit this is not a complete explanation, there are various theories that offer more complete (though still not perfect) explanations, though there is not quite enough evidence, as far as I know, to determine which is correct.

2. This singled-celled organism then built complex organelles; mitochondria, Golgi Bodies, endoplastic reticulum, etc.

There is, in fact, an explanation for the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts - I can’t remember it’s name at the moment, however. Basically, into an early eukaryotic cell swam a prokaryote which produced a lot of energy. Now, this relationship proved beneficial for both the eukaryote and the prokaryote, so they basically merged into one organism. While this doesn’t quite explain exactly how mitochondria originated, it does help, and it is backed up by quite a bit of evidence: for example, mitochondria carry their own genetic material, and also have two membranes (which would be explained from them having both their own prokaryotic membrane as well as a piece of membrane that enveloped them as they swam in).

3. This single-celled organism then figured out how to sustain itself through protein synthesis
4. This single-celled organism then figured out replicate itself through mitosis

5. Single-celled organism decided to construct themselves into even more complex structures.

Well, I wouldn’t exactly say “figured out” - evolution isn’t a conscious process - but I admit for these problems I have no explanation. This doesn’t mean there is no explanation yet produced, nor that there never will be one; I simply don’t know of one.

6. Multi-celled organisms become animals

Could you explain a bit further here? Do you mean that you can’t understand the variation of cells into animals and plants (plus all the other kingdoms)? Or do you mean something different?

7. Animals decide it would be more productive and efficient to use meiosis (sexual reproduction) to reproduce

I would guess that the transition from mitosis->meiosis was not a one-step process. However, I have no explanation for this, nor for your last point about male-female differentiation.

However, I would like to say that while Science cannot provide complete explanations for everything in the Universe yet, it is a work in progress - new things are being discovered all the time, and as they are, scientists make new conjectures and test them, learning more about the world around them, and revising the current theories to explain more. Compare this to religion, which is a rather static set of beliefs; most of the time, instead of revising itself to fit the facts, it revises the facts to fit its belief system. Now, while there have been changes in religion, very rarely have they been based on outside evidence, and when they have been, it’s mostly been because of huge amounts of pressure from science (the changes due to Copernicus’ heliocentric theory, for example) and even then only with reluctance. Science, on the other hand, does change and always tries to fit itself to the data. While it is obviously not perfect, at least it acknowledges this, and strives further.

Finally, to Bob Presnell:
Most of your argument is an argument based on morality. This is quite obviously flawed - why does God need to exist for good to exist? Furthermore, the existence of evil does not necessitate a God to prevent it - this is called wishful thinking.

Man can’t you see that if there wasn’t a God evil men and women would totally destroy any thing that is good!

How so? I am an atheist, and I have a quite strong set of morals. Also, if religion is such a requirement for morality, why do you think that separation of Church and State has been instituted in quite a few of the first-world countries of the world? If non-Christians are all so immoral, why did people ever think that Church and State should be separate? I would think such people would form easily identifiable classes, too - the ‘good’ Christians and the ‘evil’ atheists living totally different lifestyles - yet this is not so, either. In fact, I’ve met just as many Christians who do immoral things as I have met atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions who are immoral.

About youre question of immorality, non-Christians as well as Christians are both people created by God.  Because of this, they are both given a “conscience” if you want to call it that.  Well just say a basic knowledge of good and evil.  Non-Christians as well as Christians both sin, both fall.  Christians are not the only people created in the image of God.  The difference is, Christians (and I hate to throw myself in this category, some awefull things have been done in the name of “Christianity”) realize why it is wrong, through the laws given in the Bible.  Why is it wrong for you to kill someone if they are just another bunch of cells, dna, and electrical impulses thrown together due to a scientific process.  So is a housefly.

I like this discussion on “evolution” of species, first of all, not all Christians discredit evolution as we understand it.  I am one that beleives it, and also believes in Christ.  You see, one theme of the Bible, God is a God of order fits perfectly with evolution.  God used the processes he created (evolution) to design the being he wanted in communion with him (people).  People are the end result, the only being posessing a soul that is more than their physical being.  And you know, I obviously dont have all the answers, this is just how I understand it, and try as I might (and I have), I cannot dissmiss the idea of an intelligent creator.  I am an engineer, I think scientifically and mathematically, but yet I realize that that is not all there is, and following my presuppositions about science, I have to come to the conclusion of a creator and sustainer.  I dont know if anyone is still monitoring this post, but Id like to hear any comments.

Hmmm. This should be interesting…

About youre question of immorality, non-Christians as well as Christians are both people created by God. Because of this, they are both given a “conscience” if you want to call it that. Well just say a basic knowledge of good and evil. Non-Christians as well as Christians both sin, both fall. Christians are not the only people created in the image of God. The difference is, Christians (and I hate to throw myself in this category, some awefull things have been done in the name of “Christianity” realize why it is wrong, through the laws given in the Bible. Why is it wrong for you to kill someone if they are just another bunch of cells, dna, and electrical impulses thrown together due to a scientific process. So is a housefly.

Your query here is a little confusing. You spend several sentences laying down a foundation that makes several claims, which are debatable in their own right, to ask what appears to be a simple question. You also seem to go from a very broad perspective to a very narrow one by the end of the paragraph. It seems to me your basic question is: “Without God why is killing wrong?” But the amount of effort you put into stating the reason why Christians (in particular) realize why killing is wrong along with the housefly comparison leads me to think I may be missing part of the point you’re trying to make or that you don’t realize how much you’re trying to squeeze into a single question. There are a couple of implied points in that paragraph so let’s break it down and tackle them as we go along:

The first implied point appears to be as follows: God created everybody with a basic knowledge of good and evil in the form of a “conscience” and everyone does bad things from time to time, but Christians understand why something is wrong because of the laws written in the Bible.

Assuming for the moment that God does exist, the point you’re raising here dismisses all of the other religious beliefs outside of Christianity on the assumption that only the Christians “got it right” about God. Most of the major world religions have rules with regards to what is right and wrong that vary from religion to religion and they’re all just as likely be the word of God as any of the rules written in the Bible. Given that, I could ask why you seem to think that all non-Christians (believers or otherwise) lack an understanding of why something is right or wrong? As a non-believer why should I assume your religion’s rules on right and wrong are any more valid than some other religion’s rules on right and wrong?

The next implied point is a little trickier to determine as I can see a couple of possibilities such as “without a God to establish what is right and wrong there aren’t any valid reasons to declare anything right or wrong or “without a God to define the relative value of life there are no reasons to value a human life over that of a housefly. The problem with both of these points is that they’re perfect examples of lazy thinking. The assumption that there aren’t any reasonable arguments to be made outside of God just means you haven’t put enough thought into it. I’ve covered this before in other entries, but one of the first reasons I can think of to establish right and wrong or the relative worth of various forms of life is the simple issue of survival. I’m sure if you put some thought into it you’d be able to come up with all manner of reasonable and logical reasons for establishing what is right and wrong and relative worth just on that single issue alone without any help from me, though I can provide examples of such reasoning if you need them.

Lastly there is a problem with your question that you don’t seem to have considered and that’s the rather black and white nature of it. Most versions of the Bible read “thou shalt not kill” and if you’re a literalist then that leaves no room for exceptions. Yet many Christians do believe there are exceptions to that rule (e.g. in self-defense) and Christianity throughout history has often killed in the name of God. In fact the Bible is full of killing under direct orders from God as well as rules on how people should be killed for various offenses. For such an “absolute wrong” it sure does seem kinda flexible. This is why many modern Bibles have changed the word from “kill” to “murder” as that helps smooth out that troublesome wrinkle, though not completely. Like most things in life the issue of whether it is right or wrong to kill is largely dependent on the reasons behind it and the context in which it is taking place.

I like this discussion on “evolution” of species, first of all, not all Christians discredit evolution as we understand it. I am one that beleives it, and also believes in Christ. You see, one theme of the Bible, God is a God of order fits perfectly with evolution. God used the processes he created (evolution) to design the being he wanted in communion with him (people). People are the end result, the only being posessing a soul that is more than their physical being.

We’re aware that there are plenty of Christians (and believers from other religions) out there who accept evolution as simply being one of the processes behind how God makes things happen and that’s not an unreasonable viewpoint to take. Plenty also think the “Big Bang” was God creating the universe and establishing the rules for how it would function and that’s not unreasonable either. There is certainly no shortage of scientists who reconcile their religious beliefs with their occupation as scientists by using that same bit of logic. At the least it makes those folks seem much more reasonable than the literalist Fundamentalists to us non-believers.

And you know, I obviously dont have all the answers, this is just how I understand it, and try as I might (and I have), I cannot dissmiss the idea of an intelligent creator. I am an engineer, I think scientifically and mathematically, but yet I realize that that is not all there is, and following my presuppositions about science, I have to come to the conclusion of a creator and sustainer. I dont know if anyone is still monitoring this post, but Id like to hear any comments.

As I noted above you’re not alone in that regard. Some people just seem to have a need to believe in things like God(s) and those reasons vary. It’s been my experience that people such as yourself are at least open to reasonable debate on various issues and while you may not agree in whole or part with every idea you come across you’re at least willing to consider the opposing viewpoint and you don’t tend to try and force everyone to live by the beliefs you follow. By comparison the Fundamentalist believers are generally closed-minded and unwilling to consider viewpoints that contradict their rigid beliefs and want everyone else to abide by their views on how things should be.

You can believe the Universe and Evolution are the results of Super-Intelligent Inter-Dimensional Space Guppies for all I care if it makes you feel better about yourself and lets you sleep at night. As long as you remain open-minded to other possibilities and ideas it doesn’t really matter much what you believe to most of us non-believers.

I think you took my question about the housefly and killing the wrong way.  I wasnt trying to cram all of morality into killing, I was trying to give an example (and yes, I should have stated it better, called it a hate crime or something so it would be obvious that it was wrong to do, I can see that now).  Lets see if this works:  I have the means to go and murder the man running a business in competition with mine.  A lion sees another lion trying to take some of the zebra he just caught.  He kills him without a second thought.  Why dont I?  We are under the laws of the survival of the fittest, right?  It isnt going to hurt me to kill the owner of the rival business, Ill be the only business of my kind in town, I can do it carefully and not go to prison.

About other religions, of course they have rules on right and wrong, their creators also have a conscience.  And no, Christians arent the ones who “got it right”, God got it right in the first place, and his followers hope to carry out those laws the best they can.  Many other religions are human perversions of the true God in order to benefit their creators.  Mormanism, Islam, Jehovahs witnesses.  Muhammad was a god in his own right when he established his religion and sought his “family” of believers.  Now he has a legacy no one will forget.  Read about the early days of Islam, Muhammad’s followers split because of fighting about who would take over for him.  Everyone wanted that sort of power.

And seriously, what was up with your last comment.  Reason be damned!  This is great stuff:

“You can believe the Universe and Evolution are the results of Super-Intelligent Inter-Dimensional Space Guppies for all I care if it makes you feel better about yourself and lets you sleep at night. As long as you remain open-minded to other possibilities and ideas it doesn’t really matter much what you believe to most of us non-believers.”

First of all, you pull out the great non-believer war-cry “makes you feel better about youreself and lets you sleep at night”.  Wow, thats deep, but you know what, Id be sleeping a lot easier if I knew that I wouldnt be held accountable for every sin ive committed, in the open, or in secret.  It would be really easy for me to say; you know what, there is no god to worry about, I’m going to live my life how I want to.  I will finish my existence in a way that benefits myself, and be happy to know that when I die, thats it, I am accountable to no one but myself.  I also love how you hide behind other non believers, “most of them think like this”. Can you think for yourself?  Do you speak for the group?  Thanks, but I’ll get my opinion on how most non-believers think from them.  Im sorry Les, thats just “lazy thinking”.  I just hope you dont get it stuck so deep in your mind that there is no God, that any arguments for it you just brush away without giving thought to.  Alright, its your turn, go ahead and lay down some logical arguments laced with petty insults and small thinking.  Or just the logical arguments this time.

I’m sorry you feel that I laced my reply with “petty insults” as that wasn’t my intent. Usually when I lace my replies with insults it’s done in as obvious a manner as possible as subtlety is often lost on some of the people I respond to. Let’s see what we have to work with this time.

I think you took my question about the housefly and killing the wrong way. I wasnt trying to cram all of morality into killing, I was trying to give an example (and yes, I should have stated it better, called it a hate crime or something so it would be obvious that it was wrong to do, I can see that now). Lets see if this works: I have the means to go and murder the man running a business in competition with mine. A lion sees another lion trying to take some of the zebra he just caught. He kills him without a second thought. Why dont I? We are under the laws of the survival of the fittest, right? It isnt going to hurt me to kill the owner of the rival business, Ill be the only business of my kind in town, I can do it carefully and not go to prison.

First off the use of lions makes for a bad analogy as they don’t commonly exhibit the behavior you’re attributing to them. Like most things in life, lion behavior is much more complex than and nowhere near as simplistic as you’re describing. They form social groups, called prides, and work together to increase the likelihood of survival, though some do strike out on their own and become nomadic. Most fights among lions are over territory or to become part of a pride and only occasionally escalate to a fight to the death. For that matter, it’s the lionesses that do most of the hunting with the dominate lions in a pride acting more like babysitters who keep an eye on and protect the cubs that follow along behind their mothers. The lions also help to ensure the cubs get some of the food as the lionesses are less than generous with their offspring. Finally, zebras are too large for a single lion or lioness to take down single handedly whereas they’re little problem for a coordinated pride. Rather than kill each other over a zebra, they tend to work together to get one and that implies they give such matters more thought than you attribute to them.

Still, assuming for the sake of argument that lions act as simplistically as you’re suggesting, your analogy is still comparing apples to oranges. In the case of the lions it’s a fight to the death over one of the most basic needs, food, whereas your conflict with the rival business owner is not. A more appropriate analogy would be if you and your rival were stranded on a desert island with a limited food resource. It would be interesting to see how well your Biblical morals would stand up to that situation.

Your question also suggests that there is nothing to lose and everything to gain in killing your business rival which ignores the fact that your business exists within the context of a society. Even if you could avoid prison in your undertaking there are other possible negative results you haven’t considered such as the effect of conjecture and rumor. If it’s suspected that you had some hand in the death of your rival then your business may suffer regardless of whether it’s the only one of its kind in the town. There are other towns and people who distrust your business may be inclined to travel the distance necessary to patronize a similar business elsewhere. It also ignores the possibility that someone may see this as an opportunity to launch their own similar business and thus fill the void left behind by the murdered rival. This new businessman may even be better at competing than the person he replaced. Certainly you could also murder this newcomer, but with every murder you undertake you increase the risk of being caught and tried for your crimes or just stirring up suspicion and damaging your reputation and, thusly, your income.

Again the problem with your question is the fact that it’s too simplistic and tries to boil the issue down to a black and white situation, which real life rarely is.

About other religions, of course they have rules on right and wrong, their creators also have a conscience. And no, Christians arent the ones who �got it right�, God got it right in the first place, and his followers hope to carry out those laws the best they can. Many other religions are human perversions of the true God in order to benefit their creators. Mormanism, Islam, Jehovahs witnesses. Muhammad was a god in his own right when he established his religion and sought his �family� of believers. Now he has a legacy no one will forget. Read about the early days of Islam, Muhammad�s followers split because of fighting about who would take over for him. Everyone wanted that sort of power.

I’m not sure what your point here is as it’s a very confusing paragraph. So Muhammad’s followers split. What of it? Jesus’ followers split as well. Or are you not aware that there are over 34,000 different Christian denominations in the world? Seems just about any major religion has multiple factions that disagree on what the message is supposed to be or what the rules supposedly are. If there was a point in that paragraph then I must admit that I missed it.

And seriously, what was up with your last comment. Reason be damned! This is great stuff:

�You can believe the Universe and Evolution are the results of Super-Intelligent Inter-Dimensional Space Guppies for all I care if it makes you feel better about yourself and lets you sleep at night. As long as you remain open-minded to other possibilities and ideas it doesn�t really matter much what you believe to most of us non-believers.�

Ah, seems this is the statement that offended you. I find that somewhat amusing as it’s the last thing I would’ve suspected and was certainly not meant as an insult, just a statement of my feelings on the issue. You cover a lot of ground in the next paragraph so I’m going to break it down and address the points raised.

First of all, you pull out the great non-believer war-cry �makes you feel better about youreself and lets you sleep at night�. Wow, thats deep, but you know what, Id be sleeping a lot easier if I knew that I wouldnt be held accountable for every sin ive committed, in the open, or in secret. It would be really easy for me to say; you know what, there is no god to worry about, I�m going to live my life how I want to. I will finish my existence in a way that benefits myself, and be happy to know that when I die, thats it, I am accountable to no one but myself.

I didn’t realize non-believers had a war-cry. I must have missed that particular meeting of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy Movement I’m a member of. Seriously though, if you’ve studied your Bible then I don’t see why you should be all that worried about being held accountable for your sins. You need merely sincerely and truly repent for them and accept Christ as your savior and you’ll be just fine. As long as you can honestly and sincerely express regret for your sins you’ll be in God’s good graces so what is there to worry about?

Is it easy to say there is no god? For some people it may be, but a lot of the atheists I know went through the same long struggle I did in reaching that decision. It’s not as easy as you’d like to think as it involves giving up a lot of very attractive beliefs. The idea of an afterlife where the good are rewarded and the bad are punished can make a lot of injustices during life a lot easier to live with. The idea that there’s a place where we’ll be reunited with loved ones who have long since left this world is also a very attractive idea that isn’t easy to let go of.

Giving up belief in a god watching over us is neither easy nor comforting. Nor does it absolve us of accountability or responsibility. Rather than being accountable to some make-believe father-figure I am instead accountable to all of mankind. At the end of my life my worth won’t be judged by some invisible super being with an inferiority complex, but by those whose lives I’ve touched and impacted along the way. If there is to be any justice in this universe it is my responsibility to try and work to ensure it happens as I can’t rely on some outside influence to ensure it’ll happen for me.

Personally, I’m insulted by your suggestion that non-believers are inherently selfish, self-centered and only out for their own benefit because we’re supposedly so shallow that without a god to threaten us with eternity in hell we’ve got no good reason to care about anyone outside of ourselves. Perhaps what you describe above is how you would behave without a belief in god, but that says more about your character than it does about the average non-believer. If you’re likely to become that much of an asshole if you gave up belief in god then, by all means, please continue to be a believer. Some of us, however, are capable of grasping that there are plenty of good reasons not to live such a lifestyle without having to believe we’ll go to some nebulous “bad place” when we die.

I also love how you hide behind other non believers, �most of them think like this�. Can you think for yourself? Do you speak for the group? Thanks, but I�ll get my opinion on how most non-believers think from them. Im sorry Les, thats just �lazy thinking�. I just hope you dont get it stuck so deep in your mind that there is no God, that any arguments for it you just brush away without giving thought to. Alright, its your turn, go ahead and lay down some logical arguments laced with petty insults and small thinking. Or just the logical arguments this time.

I’m not hiding behind other non-believers; my statement comes from my personal experiences in dealing with them. Being an atheist who maintains a website that promotes that viewpoint tends to bring me in contact with a lot of atheists and my opinion was formed by my interactions with them. Can I think for myself? Show me where I haven’t! Do I speak for the group? Show me where I ever claimed to. Please explain to me how my stating an opinion based on my interactions with fellow non-believers is in anyway “lazy thinking.” Lazy thinking is trying to break your argument down into simple black and white concepts that have no bearing on reality. Lazy thinking is employing piss-poor analogies to try and support a questionable belief.

I’m open to listening to any arguments anyone may have in support of the idea of a god, but unfortunately it’s been a long time since I’ve heard anything original from most of the believers who come to this website. Nothing you’ve proposed in your responses to date is any different than the dozens of other people who proposed the same arguments a long time ago. You want to talk about thinking for yourself? Try not using the same tired arguments everyone else uses ‘cause I’ve already thought about those several times over. At least offer some new twist on the argument that would make it worth revisiting. As for getting your opinion on how most non-believers think directly from them, well, I couldn’t be happier if you were to try and engage as many non-believers as possible. By all means talk to as many as you can and that can tolerate your trite attempts at debate. The more the merrier as far as I’m concerned.

Hey les, no excuses about the last post, it was late, and I made an ass out of myself.  Id like to know why you feel responsible to all of mankind. 

“I am instead accountable to all of mankind. At the end of my life my worth won�t be judged by some invisible super being with an inferiority complex, but by those whose lives I�ve touched and impacted along the way.”

What is the value of a human being that you should try to impact their lives?  Im just wondering where you get the idea that people have worth.  I get it from the fact that they are creatures created in the image of God, and therefore have worth intrinsically. Without God, in a purely science-based system, what makes some matter more worthy than other?  Is it just because of the complex social structure that has emerged from our evolution to the premier intelligent being?  Just so we can maintain the “order” of society?

Im still not giving up on the lions-flies-death-people-business argument (even though I probably should).  I have a feeling you understand where I am going whatever you may say about the social structure of a lion community.  It was supposed to be two animals fighting over something in their natural habitat.  Lions, beetles, ants, ospreys, whatever.  The point of the issue was, why are we separated from the rest of the animal kingdom.  Two deer will fight to the death over a doe.  No one thinks anything is wrong with that.  You’ll go to jail or worse if you kill someone over a girl.  Where does your sense of “morality” come from?  Just because we’re smarter, we inherited the responsibility of not acting on animal instincts?  In many situations, it doesnt help you to act morally.  Or do you think its just our survival instinct to congregate into groups with law codes that protect us all?  But then again comes the issue you brought up about responsibility to human kind.  It cant just be survival instinct.  A deer doesnt feel responsible to all of his species.  And preemptively, no, this is not apples and oranges, I am working on the presupposition that you believe people to be simply a higher form of animal.  This is what all non-believers I have talked to have thought.  Tell me if I’m wrong.

I absolutely did not wish to say that all non-believers are self-centered and malicious to all that is not themselves.  My heart is just as evil as the worst believer or non-believer.  I was trying to make the point that if God does not give you a moral code, who does?  Everyone is endowed with a conscience, being creatures of God, this is why non-believers as well as believers care for others as well as themselves.  My question was-  what principles are you following?  If there is no absolute, morality becomes relative.  People cant live in a society with relative morality.  Where is the accountability?  Everyone becomes accountable to their own ideas of morality.

Sorry for the hundreds of questions, I just want to know what you think about this, because this has to be a basis for all beliefs about society; the worth of a person. 

I dont have any idea what arguments for Christianity youve heard, and likewise, ive heard all of your arguments for athiesm as well, that doesnt make them good or bad, just annoying if they are repeated too often.

Hey, it’s the objective morality debate!  I recognize this one! 

Damn, I’ve been looking for the old postings re: CS Lewis, and they seem to have fallen off the forum.

if God does not give you a moral code, who does? Everyone is endowed with a conscience, being creatures of God, this is why non-believers as well as believers care for others as well as themselves.

Actually, there’s quite a few equally (in my opinion MORE) plausible explanations.  If I could only find the thread where we were talking about CS Lewis and objective morality. . .

Damn, I’m way too lazy to do that again.

Daedalus wrote

Firstly, on the comment made by Alex Miller a long while back: while most of his points have already been addressed, I�d like to point out that, according to quantum physics, something can be created from nothing. By Heisenberg�s Uncertainty Principle, you can, essentially, �borrow� energy from spacetime, for an amount of time which depends upon the amount of energy borrowed. Now, potential energy has a negative sign convention, and the amount of potential and kinetic energy in the Universe appears to be equal, so, since we would be borrowing zero total energy, we can borrow it for indefinitely long. So much for the first cause argument - it�s inconsistent both logically and physically.

I love it when someone takes HS physics and thinks he can unlock the secrets of the universe. No, really, that isn�t sarcasm. It�s great to see young minds develop, it�s why I volunteer to teach young teens. If only Daedalus would use his energy for good instead of evil…

OK, I�ve taken an actual grad level course in quantum mechanics (It was titled Physical Biochemistry, but trust me, it was all QM). But I don�t even need that, HS physics can easily come to the rescue. E=MC(squared). The energy is constant, it cannot be created or destroyed, it can be converted to matter. So, yeah, suddenly matter (a truly small amount) may pop into existence at a particular place, but at the same time an equal amount pops out somewhere else, which is exactly how the theory Daedalus misquotes actually reads. The total amount of matter/energy in the universe stays constant. If you�d like to disagree, I�ll detonate a nuclear device while you hold onto it, and you can believe that the matter is simply going to wink out of existence instead of convert to energy for as long as you like.

I believe Alex�s original argument was the existence of all matter and energy. And I have to agree with Alex: If there is no God, why is there something instead of nothing? This kinda leaves the rest of your comments blowing in the wind, since your argument requires it�s foundation, but I�ll just take a quick stab at the second one as well.

Well, the current theory is basically organic materials �-> protocell �-> heterotrophic prokaryotic cell. Now, it�s been shown that given the right conditions, you can take simple organic compounds and convert them to amino acids and other building blocks of life. While I will admit this is not a complete explanation, there are various theories that offer more complete (though still not perfect) explanations, though there is not quite enough evidence, as far as I know, to determine which is correct.

Yup, my wife used to do this all the time. How do you think they make synthetic vaccines? The problem is, the conditions to do it in nature don�t exist. And while you can make the AA polymer, you can�t get it to reproduce. However, you can convince a fruit (like a banana) to produce the vaccine (I know what you�re thinking, but dosage becomes a bit of a problem). But while you�re doing all this, you�re acting out the form/design argument (which Les fails once again to definitively defeat, although at least he tried this time). Which is to say, yes this stuff could have happened, but it�s so very unlikely that it did by itself. And when I take that in combination with the first idea (the creation of matter & energy), I�m left with the thought that it�s far more likely that there is a active intelligent creator at work than this all just happened on it�s own.

PS Les, my Declaration of Independence states that the US is specifically built upon the idea that there is just such a creator. It�s a comment I meant to put on another thread, but can�t find it now.

Hey les, no excuses about the last post, it was late, and I made an ass out of myself. Id like to know why you feel responsible to all of mankind.

Why? I would think the answer to that question would be obvious. Because I don’t believe there are any gods watching over us. All we have is each other. That’s why.

What is the value of a human being that you should try to impact their lives? Im just wondering where you get the idea that people have worth. I get it from the fact that they are creatures created in the image of God, and therefore have worth intrinsically. Without God, in a purely science-based system, what makes some matter more worthy than other? Is it just because of the complex social structure that has emerged from our evolution to the premier intelligent being? Just so we can maintain the �order� of society?

“Worth” and “value” are subjective and contextual comparative concepts that can vary relative to the person making the judgment. Science is an endeavor to establish objective facts about the natural universe and attempts to tell you the what, when, how and why, but it doesn’t attempt to establish whether any particular thing is “good” or “bad.” Which isn’t to say that one can’t use scientific facts as justification for a subjective viewpoint, just that science itself doesn’t make such judgments so I’m not entirely sure I understand what you would think a “purely science-based system” would be. It appears to me that what you’re basically saying is “I believe in god and god says that humans have worth and that’s good enough for me. If you don’t believe in god then what’s your reason for thinking humans have worth?”

To which I would answer: Because they add value to my life in a variety of ways both tangible and intangible. The difference between your answer and my answer is that I’m not relying on some outside source to form my subjective opinion for me.

Im still not giving up on the lions-flies-death-people-business argument (even though I probably should). I have a feeling you understand where I am going whatever you may say about the social structure of a lion community. It was supposed to be two animals fighting over something in their natural habitat. Lions, beetles, ants, ospreys, whatever. The point of the issue was, why are we separated from the rest of the animal kingdom. Two deer will fight to the death over a doe. No one thinks anything is wrong with that. You�ll go to jail or worse if you kill someone over a girl. Where does your sense of �morality� come from? Just because we�re smarter, we inherited the responsibility of not acting on animal instincts? In many situations, it doesnt help you to act morally. Or do you think its just our survival instinct to congregate into groups with law codes that protect us all? But then again comes the issue you brought up about responsibility to human kind. It cant just be survival instinct. A deer doesnt feel responsible to all of his species. And preemptively, no, this is not apples and oranges, I am working on the presupposition that you believe people to be simply a higher form of animal. This is what all non-believers I have talked to have thought. Tell me if I�m wrong.

You are correct that I view humans as just another form of animal (whether they’re “higher” or not is debatable) and you’re also correct that you should probably drop this line of argument as it seems clear you’re using an over-simplified concept of Darwinian Evolution to try and make your point. The problem with the above paragraph is that the assertions on animal behavior you are laying down as groundwork for the question are faulty as is your conclusion about man in relation to it.

Contrary to the popular misconception “fighting to the death” between members of the same species is not common behavior in most animals. The primary reasons animals of the same species will fight include access to a limited resource (food, shelter), for potential mates, to determine hierarchy in a social group (for social animals), and/or for control of territory (which can include control over limited resources and mates). While some fights do result in death it tends to be the exception rather than the rule. In the case of your aforementioned bucks fighting over a doe, death will sometimes occur if the two males get their horns locked during the dispute and end up starving to death as a result, not because one or the other managed to gore his opponent to death. Both deer die and neither benefit, clearly not conducive to the continuation of the species. Fighting risks injury, exposes both parties to predators, uses a lot of energy and wastes time that could be spent feeding or mating which makes it beneficial to both parties to avoid physical combat as much as possible and most animals will fight in a manner that doesn’t involve contact at all relying instead of threat displays, postures, vocalizations and other various signals that vary from species to species. Physical combat tends to occur when the opponents are so closely matched that there’s no way for either animal to readily discern it’s chances without actually engaging in combat and even then the combat is usually short with one side or the other conceding defeat before things get out of hand. Obviously the scarcity of the resource being fought over is also a factor in determining how likely any particular fight is to escalate to physical combat.

Now let’s compare this to man and his supposed morals which prevent him from acting in such a manner. Or does it? I seem to recall as I was growing up that I got into my fair share of fights with other males, whether I wanted to or not, as they attempted to establish their dominance in the social setting known as “school.” I’m willing to bet you had your fair share of tussles as well, most folks do. While I’ve personally not been in a physical fight in decades, I know several adults who still occasionally get into brawls with others from time to time to prove their manhood. I know people who have gotten in fights over potential mates. On a larger scale mankind has fought wars over territory and control of limited resources (Iraqi oil anyone?). Hell, turn on the news on any given day and you’ll see all sorts of stories about people fighting, sometimes to the death (more often than most animals anyway), over various limited resources or for social dominance for all manner of reasons large and small. For all of mankind’s supposedly religious inspired “morals” we don’t seem to be acting all that differently from the animals as you would suggest. Sure, we have societies with laws that may or may not punish individuals or a group for getting into a fight depending on the reasons and the scale, but that doesn’t stop the fighting from happening. It’s also not all that different from some social animals that will force the loser of a fight for dominance to leave the group in exile or be killed for his attempt at seizing control. Is it wrong that mankind fights in a manner not unlike the other animals? That’s a value judgment that will depend on the observer, but whether you think it’s right or wrong doesn’t change the fact that it happens among men just as it does among other animals and for similar reasons. As a result, the premise for your argument is flawed.

You asked me where my sense of morality comes from. In part it comes from my parents and in part it comes from my own reasoning on the issues. For example, I agree in general with the idea that “it is wrong to kill” other people and I probably won’t ever intentionally kill another human being unless I have no other choice. My reasons for this are as follows: I don’t wish to have anyone kill me and most people won’t unless they feel I am a threat to their own existence. If I go around killing others for no apparent reason I become a threat to their existence and thusly more likely to be killed myself. Also while I can do most of the things I need to do in order to survive on my own, it’s demonstrably easier to survive with the assistance of others especially during periods when I am ill or otherwise incapacitated. If I am perceived as a potential threat to the lives of those around me then the likelihood of others being willing to assist me in day-to-day survival is diminished and my life will be much more difficult, if not drastically shortened. In corollary anyone whom I perceive as a threat to my survival is someone I will be unlikely to assist in day-to-day survival and, if the perceived threat is made manifest, is someone I would have no compunctions killing if they threatened my own life or the life of my family. Is this particular moral right or wrong? Depends on whom you’re asking, but most folks I know would tend to agree that it’s at least a fair stance to take.

When I said your comparison was apples to oranges I meant in terms of the fact that you were describing a lion killing another lion over a basic necessity versus a man killing another man over an issue that is not a basic necessity. 

I absolutely did not wish to say that all non-believers are self-centered and malicious to all that is not themselves. My heart is just as evil as the worst believer or non-believer. I was trying to make the point that if God does not give you a moral code, who does? Everyone is endowed with a conscience, being creatures of God, this is why non-believers as well as believers care for others as well as themselves. My question was- what principles are you following? If there is no absolute, morality becomes relative. People cant live in a society with relative morality. Where is the accountability? Everyone becomes accountable to their own ideas of morality.

Morality has always been relative and the idea that people can’t live in a society with relative morality is patently false as the United States of America clearly demonstrates by itself. In the U.S. there are all sorts of competing moral standards along with the people that follow them and this has been the case ever since the country was first founded and it’s managed to survive for over 200 years. Yes, living together does require cooperation and compromise and while there are various moral ideas that any particular society may agree in general on (e.g. killing is bad with certain exceptions), there is no single society that agrees completely on a particular set of moral standards and even on the moral standards they do agree on there is often much disagreement on the details of those standards. Com’on, there are “morals” dictated by the Bible that are no longer followed because the rules changed when Christ came along. Have you eaten any pork lately? Stoned a child to death for bad-mouthing his or her parents? No? Why not? It’s in the friggin’ Bible as a rule from god’s mouth itself! Most of the proclamations from god in the Old Testament are no longer followed as Jesus supposedly brought in a new covenant, except where the Old Testament supports an idea (e.g. homosexuality is bad) that folks still want to ban. Don’t try to tell me morality isn’t relative when your own holy book is filled with rules you probably don’t follow.

Sorry for the hundreds of questions, I just want to know what you think about this, because this has to be a basis for all beliefs about society; the worth of a person.

I disagree. I think history is full of examples of societies where the basis was something other than the worth of an individual. In fact, the U.S. is somewhat unique in that it was one of the first to codify the worth of the individual right in the founding documents that established the government.

I dont have any idea what arguments for Christianity youve heard, and likewise, ive heard all of your arguments for athiesm as well, that doesnt make them good or bad, just annoying if they are repeated too often.

If you’ve heard my arguments before then one has to wonder why you’re asking the questions.

Actually les, many species of animal will fight to the death with their own kind over food, a mate, or territory, mostly occuring with insects, fish and reptiles.  And oh, yeah, deer fighting will often force each other to a body of water and one will end up drowning another by pushing the other under.

The point was that people do these sort of things, for example, slaughter thousands of Iraqis with dollar signs in their eyes, just like animals do.  But for some reason you think that is wrong.  Why?  This is an argument that is detatched from you.  President Bush does not threaten you, nor will he ever threaten you.  This action in Iraq does not, or will not ever hurt you.  So why are you against it?  Because people are being unjustly slaugtered.  Its not that they are your friends, or they benefit you now, youre pissed off because PEOPLE HAVE VALUE IN AND OF THEMSELVES.  This is a value that animals do not have.  As for leaving people alone because they will consider you a threat, and so lessen your chance of survival, many people, when threatened will do what they can to please you so you do not hurt them as well.  Think Germany in 1939.  Its just overall a grim argument you give.  Sucks to be the girl on a date with you “Well honey, I just want to say that this relationship has proven to benefit me.  I dont love you, I just care that you survive so that you can continue to make my life better.”  So pretty much anyone who is not connected with benefiting you, who cares about them.  And if this is not true, then where does their worth come from, if it is not from helping you?

Morality.  This really came into question in Nuremburg after the war.  A few of the Nazi leaders claimed that just because the outside world thought that their extermination of the Jews was wrong, it didnt mean shit, because it was just that, their ideas.  And really, why, in your sense, would one people group care if another that wasnt their own was to be exterminated.  Why should the US have acted in Rwanda to stop the slaughter there instead of sitting on our asses, or don’t you think we should have?  It didnt hurt us in the least.  Maybe thats just their view of morality over there, it doesnt affect us, so lets not push our views on them.

You were right, Jesus did bring in a new covonant, that is why old testament laws must be evaluated in conjunction with the new testament.  And yes, homosexuality is also spoken against in the new testament.  You should know this.  Rules like not eating pork was for the Israelites own good, if pork isnt cooked properly it can be a health risk with worms and bacteria.  Its much harder to tell if pork is cooked well than foul or beef.  Better cooking methods came along, so there was no need not to eat pork any more.  As for the stoning of the children, it is a case law.  Im assuming you are referring to Deuteronomy 21:18-21.  The son it speaks of is not a little kid, his sins are drunkeness and gluttony, as well as cursing his parents.  These sins are also refered to in the present tense as habitual, and ongoing.  It also shows that the son has the ability to take his case before the authorities. These things must be taken into context, especially of the need to keep Israel in a tight family structure at that time. This sort of thing could not be tolerated, and by the context, it appears that it had been tolerated for some time.  Law in context and relative law are two totally different ideas.  Relative means everyone has his own idea of law, in context means that law can change depending on the circumstances, but it is still over everyone.  You can most certainly take anything out of context in the Bible, and make the Bible sound awefull, or rather, make true things that the Bible doesnt say.  Youre smarter than this, Les.  I know you say you read the Bible 4 times, but really, when you go and just throw random ideas out there, it occurs to me that you really didnt try to understand it, and were more focused on saying “Yup, read the Bible 4 times.  That means I completely understand it, and have a strong basis for my reasons against it.”  I could read it a thousand times through and not understand a word.  I dont tell non-believers to go and read through the whole Bible, because they havent had the 20 some years of instruction and training I have.  They wont see the forest for the trees.

This really is very similar to the discussion we had with Hires. 

Tommy, I think you might want to take a gander at that.  It’s under the forums sections, and you -can- actually get to it (I had trouble finding it, initially) under “what motivates people to be unselfish.”

You have to select “from the beginning” from the scroll box at the bottom, though, as it’s a fairly old discussion.

I thought that old “inherent value” of humans argument had been put to bed a long time ago, but apparently it’s up, and it wants a glass of water.

I can’t get over the way these guys like Hires, David and Tommy basically seem to be looking down their noses at anyone who doesn’t accept what they believe to be immutable truths. They don’t seem to be here to discuss and consider, but to bash the silly atheist.

It’s all opinion anyway and should be couched in wordage that admits as much.
I don’t care if you’ve had 1000 years of “instruction and training” Tommy, as what you regurgitate has the appearance of poorly chewed food for thought, to me.

Stop the petty put downs and self-proud posturing and try to say something we haven’t heard before - Something that suggests you’ve actually thought about this stuff and have gotten somewhere with it. 

Oh for a Christian who could actually make me think!

Actually les, many species of animal will fight to the death with their own kind over food, a mate, or territory, mostly occuring with insects, fish and reptiles. And oh, yeah, deer fighting will often force each other to a body of water and one will end up drowning another by pushing the other under.

I didn’t say it doesn’t happen I said it’s the exception and not the rule and is dependent on various factors such as the scarcity of the resource being fought over. Are there some species that will always fight to the death with members of their own species? I can’t say for certain that there aren’t, but it’s not common in general and especially uncommon among mammals. There’s not a lot of benefit for the risk involved most of the time and as such Evolution has resulted in animals that tend to settle their differences with members of their own species with as little physical combat as possible more often than not. I’m not sure where you’re getting your info on deer behavior, but I’ve yet to read any studies that indicate they “often” try to drown each other when fighting. I can go into what I have read on deer behavior if you wish to continue to argue the point or I’d be happy to take a look at any info you can provide which supports your assertion, but as I said before even if this were the case it’s still largely irrelevant as your comparison was apples to oranges.

The point was that people do these sort of things, for example, slaughter thousands of Iraqis with dollar signs in their eyes, just like animals do. But for some reason you think that is wrong. Why? This is an argument that is detatched from you. President Bush does not threaten you, nor will he ever threaten you. This action in Iraq does not, or will not ever hurt you. So why are you against it? Because people are being unjustly slaugtered. Its not that they are your friends, or they benefit you now, youre pissed off because PEOPLE HAVE VALUE IN AND OF THEMSELVES.  This is a value that animals do not have. As for leaving people alone because they will consider you a threat, and so lessen your chance of survival, many people, when threatened will do what they can to please you so you do not hurt them as well. Think Germany in 1939.

Yet again with the apples and oranges comparisons. There is nothing even remotely similar between animals fighting for limited resources necessary for survival and humans fighting for profit motives and it’s either disingenuous to suggest that there is or incredibly naive. A better argument to make would be that the war in Iraq was to gain access to a limited resource (oil) that could be considered as essential to our survival given modern America’s dependence on it, but even that is shaky as mankind survived without using oil for thousands of years so it’s not exactly a basic necessity like food would be. As to why I am pissed about the war my reasons have nothing to do with a belief that humans have an intrinsic worth. The irony of trying to use Iraq to prove your point is very amusing considering that the President’s main argument for going to war was that the Iraqi regime was an imminent threat to our very survival. If that were true then I would have had no problems with the war at all as it fulfills one of the justifications I listed for when I feel killing is acceptable and, frankly, I’m surprised this didn’t occur to you. I’m against the war in Iraq because I was told it was done in self-defense to some potentially major threat the regime therein supposedly held for our well-being, an assertion that didn’t have much in the way of supporting evidence before the war started nor has proven to have much of any after the regime had been deposed. Trying to tell me that I am detached from what happens in Iraq is also incorrect as the actions of my elected leaders can have a direct consequence on my well being. You even provide a handy example of how it could impact my well-being in suggesting I think of Germany in 1939 where the actions of an elected leader lead to World War II and did harm the people of his country. I’m not so gullible as to think something similar couldn’t happen here. Thank you for proving my point for me.

It seems to me you’re trying to dictate to me how I think and feel on this issue so you can better support your argument. You assert that Bush isn’t now nor ever will be a threat to me and I don’t see how you can know that for certain. You also assert that the action in Iraq does not and will not ever harm me and that the reason I am against the action in Iraq isn’t because I have friends in Iraq (how do you know?) or that anyone in Iraq benefits me now (how do you know?), but because I feel people have an intrinsic value in and of themselves and, again, I don’t see how you could possibly know if that’s what I really think. Insisting that you know what I think and what I feel so you can attack my viewpoint is our old friend the “Straw Man” fallacy. Please do not try to tell me my reasons for being pissed or for any other emotion I might feel. I know why I feel the way I do and I know what my reasons for those feelings are.

Your argument fails because it is circularly dependent on itself. You’re trying to establish that god exists by asserting that humans have an objective value and for humans to have an objective value god must exist. The problem is you can’t independently prove the truthfulness of either assertion on its own as they are dependent on each other. My assertion is that neither one of those claims is correct. There are no gods and humans do not have an objective value as the concepts of “value” and “worth” are subjective and contextual dependent on the observer. You then try to support your argument by pointing at the fact that there is some general consensus among most humans on some basic moral concepts such as it is wrong to kill and questioning what reasons outside of the objective value humans supposedly hold is there for such a consensus to develop. I’ve given you several valid reasons which you have dismissed as irrelevant with spurious claims about their applicability to an individual by making further assertions that ironically demonstrate just how those reasons I cited do apply to the individual. That’s pretty damned funny if you ask me, but that’s just my subjective opinion.

In your argument you�ve tried to establish the objective value of man by asserting that animals don’t have a similar inherent value and that’s why no one feels it’s wrong when two animals of the same species fight to the death. I assert that it’s not an issue of inherent value, but an issue of necessity. Animals of the same species only fight to the death when there is little other chance for survival and most humans recognize this truth. The acceptance of this truth in no way implies that this means most humans don’t feel animals have any value of their own or that their value is somehow less than the value of humans. I concede that there are many people who do feel human life has inherent value that animal life does not (you would appear to be one of them), but I also assert that there are many people who do feel that animal life has as much, if not more, inherent value as human life. I know people who love dogs so much they would rush into a burning building to save one, but wouldn’t risk the same for a human they don’t know personally. Those people see an intrinsic value in dogs that is higher than what they see in humans. Why? Because the concepts of value and worth are subjective opinions that are relative to the person making the judgment. Lastly, I assert that the views of most humans on the relative worth of human life versus animal life falls somewhere between these two extremes.

Its just overall a grim argument you give. Sucks to be the girl on a date with you �Well honey, I just want to say that this relationship has proven to benefit me. I dont love you, I just care that you survive so that you can continue to make my life better.� So pretty much anyone who is not connected with benefiting you, who cares about them. And if this is not true, then where does their worth come from, if it is not from helping you?

I never claimed my viewpoint would give anyone a serious case of the warm fuzzies, but then reality is rarely as wonderful as we might wish it to be. Face it, there’s a lot about existence that flat out sucks rocks and most of us could easily envision how we’d recreate reality to be paradise if we had the power to do so. The idea of a super being who exists outside the suckiness that is reality and thinks we’re just the greatest thing he’s ever bothered to whip up despite the fact that we’re all supposedly guilty of a crime so heinous that we are totally undeserving of that being’s love and protection, let alone the marvelous paradise he has waiting for us once we shuffle off our mortal coil for no more price than having faith he actually exists without any direct evidence, is certainly a very attractive and comforting one. But wishing something were true doesn’t make it true no matter how wonderful it would be if it were true.

I do love your over-simplification of my viewpoint, though. Have you stopped to consider the idea that one of the ways my fellow humans add value to my life and benefit me is by the fact that they allow me to experience the emotion of love and of being loved? Are you suggesting that my viewpoint makes love undesirable or unnecessary?

It is certainly true that I have had relationships with members of the opposite sex that were more a matter of benefit than love. I believe the popular term for that sort of arrangement is that she was my “fuck buddy.” We were friends who did things together, but neither one of us was in love. Sex was something we enjoyed, however, and the benefits of having sex with a friend you trusted were higher than going out and finding someone at a bar to have sex with. Whenever we were in a relationship with someone else then sex between us was off-limits, but when we were both single and the hormones got to be too much we’d ring each other up. It was a mutual agreement and we both benefited from it, which is the only reason it worked. That’s also a key point you seem to be missing. Even if I were so callous as to only extend my concern for others as far as how much they directly benefit me the reality is I’d best make sure they benefit as well or they’ll have no reason to stick around and continue to be of benefit to me. One of those ways I can ensure they benefit is to open myself up to the possibility of falling in love with them.

It is also true that I value people I love more than people I only like and I value people I like more than people I hardly know and I value people I hardly know more than people I don’t know and I value people I don’t know more than people I actively dislike. I would, for example, take a bullet for my wife without hesitation. I can’t say for certain that I�d do the same for you and I think most people wouldn’t feel that’s unreasonable. For that matter, your death in a horrible traffic accident tomorrow would not affect me beyond freeing up the time I’m spending typing out these responses whereas the death of my wife in such a manner would devastate me for years to come. It’s that whole “value” and “worth” being subjective and relative again.

Morality. This really came into question in Nuremburg after the war. A few of the Nazi leaders claimed that just because the outside world thought that their extermination of the Jews was wrong, it didnt mean shit, because it was just that, their ideas. And really, why, in your sense, would one people group care if another that wasnt their own was to be exterminated. Why should the US have acted in Rwanda to stop the slaughter there instead of sitting on our asses, or don�t you think we should have? It didnt hurt us in the least. Maybe thats just their view of morality over there, it doesnt affect us, so lets not push our views on them.

There are all manner of situations where we did sit on our ass and do nothing if we didn�t feel it directly affected our survival. Many people in this country felt we should be doing something about Nazi Germany at the time, including the President, but the will of the majority was to stay the hell out of Europe�s problems. In fact, it took a direct attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese to get us into World War II. In other words, we as a nation didn�t give a rats-ass what was going on in Europe until our very survival was directly threatened.

Rwanda was a situation that our government largely ignored for quite some time as it started as a civil war, often considered an internal problem much as our own was, and the Clinton administration was still smarting from the debacle that happened in Somalia when they tried to get involved there. As a result the war escalated into an attempt at genocide by the Hutu majority in power, who realized the U.S. largely didn�t give a shit what happened in Rwanda, which eventually caused the deaths of between 800,000 and 1 million people. As it was becoming more and more evident that a policy of genocide against the Tutsi minority was well underway in the country, the Clinton administration attempted to downplay the seriousness of the situation and pressured the U.N. to slash the number of peacekeeping troops they had in the country by 90% leaving a mere 300 or so peacekeepers who had no mandate from the U.N. to intervene to stop the bloodshed. Ultimately once the situation got so bad that only the most unreasonable of people could avoid calling it genocide did the U.S. finally get involved and that was because the United States was a signatory to the Genocide Convention of 1948, not because of any altruistic belief in the value of human life. Most Americans are still largely ignorant of what happened in Rwanda, why it happened and why we got involved in part because it didn�t directly threaten our survival.

Seems to me that for all the talk of objective morality and the inherent worth in a human life that so many people like to do, we tend to act more like you�d expect us to if there actually isn�t any god and our morality is relative. You have a bad habit of picking the wrong topics to support your argument, but thanks again for unintentionally supporting my stance.

You cover a lot of ground in this last paragraph so I�m going to break it apart.

You were right, Jesus did bring in a new covonant, that is why old testament laws must be evaluated in conjunction with the new testament.

Thank you for confirming my assertion that the �morals� of the Old Testament are relative to the New Testament and, thusly, not absolute. If the morals used to apply and they don�t anymore then the morality presented in the Bible has changed and is relative to whether you�re speaking of before Christ�s first stint on Earth or after it.

And yes, homosexuality is also spoken against in the new testament. You should know this.

Yes, I do know this. It occurs in Romans 1:26-27 and was written by Paul, arguably one of the more difficult authors to follow in the Bible. I have no idea what this has to do with the rest of our conversation to date, but I concede that the New Testament does mention homosexuality.  Though there is much debate on just what the verse is actually saying.

Rules like not eating pork was for the Israelites own good, if pork isnt cooked properly it can be a health risk with worms and bacteria. Its much harder to tell if pork is cooked well than foul or beef. Better cooking methods came along, so there was no need not to eat pork any more.

I have no qualms with your explanation on why this particular moral changed, but that doesn�t counter my argument that �morality� between the OT and NT is relative as a result.

As for the stoning of the children, it is a case law. Im assuming you are referring to Deuteronomy 21:18-21. The son it speaks of is not a little kid, his sins are drunkeness and gluttony, as well as cursing his parents. These sins are also refered to in the present tense as habitual, and ongoing. It also shows that the son has the ability to take his case before the authorities. These things must be taken into context, especially of the need to keep Israel in a tight family structure at that time. This sort of thing could not be tolerated, and by the context, it appears that it had been tolerated for some time.

I fail to see how the age of the offspring or the sins he�s accused of justify the punishment meted out for him. Nor do I see how if it was just then it shouldn�t be just now if there is such as thing as a moral absolute. We don�t stone adult children to death today for engaging in drinking, gluttony and cursing of their parents and I find it difficult to believe there aren�t people out there guilty of said sins. I thought a tight family structure was still important to Christians today? Or are you saying it�s not so important anymore than it�s worth stoning our adult children over? So much for traditional family values.

But that wasn�t the passage I was thinking of when I made my comment, rather I was thinking of Exodus 21:17. You know, the chapters immediately after god spells out the Ten Commandments which most Christians argue are moral absolutes? The passages that lay out the laws with regard to things like dealing with personal injuries and the proper rules for buying a Hebrew slave? Yeah, you know the ones I�m talking about.

Exodus 21:17 reads: �Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death� or if you prefer the KJV it reads �And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.� That seems pretty straightforward to me with nothing in regards to the age of the child or requiring the child to have committed a multitude of sins or what have you to qualify for this punishment. Considering that the common method for handing down death sentences is by stoning I just naturally assumed that would be the method employed here. If the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) are still considered moral absolutes today and Exodus 21 is just a continuation of god laying down the law then why aren�t Christians stoning the shit out of their kids left and right?

That�s like saying that only the first ten amendments to the Constitution are the law of the land today as the rest of the laws written after the first ten don�t really apply anymore. Whoops, there went the rules on how to elect the President, Slavery is once again legal, and the right of women to vote is gone, and so on. On a positive note taking this approach would eliminate income tax.

Law in context and relative law are two totally different ideas. Relative means everyone has his own idea of law, in context means that law can change depending on the circumstances, but it is still over everyone.

OK. Not sure how this applies, but OK.

You can most certainly take anything out of context in the Bible, and make the Bible sound awefull, or rather, make true things that the Bible doesnt say.

Indeed this is possible, but it�s not usually necessary to take things out of context to make the Bible sound awful. There�s much that the Bible does say that is awful without taking it out of context to twist the meaning. After all, god used to be quite the bloodthirsty fellow before Jesus came along and introduced �New God Lite! All the Salvation, None of the Plagues!�

Youre smarter than this, Les. I know you say you read the Bible 4 times, but really, when you go and just throw random ideas out there, it occurs to me that you really didnt try to understand it, and were more focused on saying �Yup, read the Bible 4 times. That means I completely understand it, and have a strong basis for my reasons against it.�

Your ignorance of my past is showing again. Yes, I�ve read the Bible four times over, but the first reading was done at the height of my faith as a happy Baptist and as such I didn�t set out to read it to confirm any kind of a basis against it. Sitting down and studying the Bible is what started me on my journey away from belief in gods of any kind, but I never suspected that would be the case when I first sat down to really study it. The truth is, I still study it on occasion, though with a much more critical eye these days, as I feel that having an informed opinion is better than just having an opinion.

I could read it a thousand times through and not understand a word. I dont tell non-believers to go and read through the whole Bible, because they havent had the 20 some years of instruction and training I have. They wont see the forest for the trees.

This begs the question of why god would write a manual that�s supposed to tell people the how�s, why�s and what-for�s of living a good life and reaching salvation that would take 20 or more years of instruction and training to have any kind of an understanding of. No wonder it�s so hard to get two Christians to agree completely on most of the major aspects of the Bible, let alone the details. According to the Christian World Encyclopedia there are over 34,000 different denominations of Christianity in the world today. Given what you said above, this fact should come as a surprise to no one.