WANTED



Wanted for an Empeg Forum Hit and Run and one count of inciting a longass thread.

they reflect the higher rules given to us by God (do not kill, do not steal, love your neighbour as yourself, etc.)

<poke>

I'm almost insulted by the fact you think you need a god to lay out these rules for you. It's a good thing you were introduced to these rules or who knows who you'd be killin right now!

It seems many of your "rules" are followed by most social animals.

In reply to:

---

I'm almost insulted by the fact you think you need a god to lay out these rules for you. It's a good thing you were introduced to these rules or who knows who you'd be killin right now!

---

It's only obvious in an civilized society, which by the way was basically civilized with the help of those statements.

In reply to:

---

It seems many of your "rules" are followed by most social animals.

---

Your going to have to define "social animal". Surely your not saying that cows worry about adultery.

Surely your not saying that cows worry about adultery

ahh but cows will care for eachothers young, and dont go around killing eachother.. and i said:

many of your "rules"

not Every single one of those crazy rules outa that man-made bible.

"I'm almost insulted by the fact you think you need a god to lay out these rules for you. It's a good thing you were introduced to these rules or who knows who you'd be killin right now!"

your missing the point, im not saying we know these rules only because we have the Ten Commandments, Bible, etc. You seem to be saying we have an innate knowledge of these rules, i agree compleatly. The only difference between us is that I think God put them there. Where do you think they came from?

Just because God hadn't put out the 10 Commandments yet, doesn't mean it was ok when Cain killed Able, he still knew it to be wrong.

"you think you need a god to lay out these rules for you"

this, i belive, is the heart of your error. you seem to think that I found God (or you would say, "made up") and then He gave me rules. I'm doing just the oppisite, I found rules (I know i shouldnt kill, steal, etc.) and in trying to determin where they came from, they (the rules) led me to God.

"It seems many of your "rules" are followed by most social animals."

This only shows that man is, somehow, uniquely flawed. why is it that a monkey cannot sin, but a man can? did "evolution" take a misstep? furthermore, where did the rules which they follow come from? who governs the animals? mere random chance? thats some heavy odds your talking about

but enlighten me, explain to me more clearly where exactly you do think all this comes from.

by the way, i hate to impose any "man-made moral code" on you, but i've attmpted to be, for the most part, as uninsulting as i can. please show the same maturity

"not Every single one of those crazy rules outa that man-made bible. "

but they all go back to "love your neighbor as yourself" (if everyone followed this, i doubt we would need any more rules, agreed?) if they dont hold to that, people cry out "Injustice!" this tells us that they are holding the rules our rulers make to some higher standard, "the rules by which rules are judged"

EDIT: of course the Bible is man-made, God didnt reach down out of the sky and pen it Himself or anything like that. Men wrote it, we only claim God inspired them to write it.

they (the rules) led me to God.

I think Darwin's version makes more sense.

This only shows that man is, somehow, uniquely flawed. why is it that a monkey cannot sin, but a man can? did "evolution" take a misstep?

ok so when monkeys kill eachother theyre not sinning?

I personally think life is more prevelant than even we know. It almost seems as though life isnt a fluke, its inevitable. That said i still see zero proof for any god to date.

Good Book

but they all go back to "love your neighbor as yourself" (if everyone followed this, i doubt we would need any more rules, agreed?)

No argument there...
Hmmm someone once said "You and I are very much alike, I just belive in one less god".

"ok so when monkeys kill each other theyre not sinning?"

are you sugesting they are?

but here is a question for you:

if the earth, and the animals that live on it are a product of chance, and if your and my conception is the product of chance, and the arangement of our bodys is chance and therefor the arangement of our brain is chance, and if all the things i've seen and heard and learned are the product of chance, therefor the nurons in my brain are firing in the paterns they are because of chance.......then how on earth can i know that to be true, since my (and your) conclusion has been arived at entirly by chance? it is as if i knocked a pen off of a desk and it happened to fall in such a manner as to write out how it was produced, how it got to the desk, where the desk came from and how it was produced, where i came from, and how i came to knock the pen off the desk.

now, is this view wrong? if so how? or explain to me how we can trust a conclusion which, by its nature, was arived at entirly by chance.

I'll read that bit on darwin and probably make a longer post later tonight or early tomorow

"You and I are very much alike, I just belive in one less god"

The two greatest commandments are these:

#1. Love The Lord God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.

#2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

So, i take what youre saying as, you subscribe to rule #2, but not rule #1. Fine, but if that is so, then where did rule #2 come from? and, more importantly, why should i follow it? You see, in the same way as all rules below it are contengient on rule #2, it is contengient on rule #1. If i truly love the Lord i will love my neighbor. So where is your motivation for following rule #2?

that's simple and fairly obvious to me... it's for the betterment of everyone. When you help someone else you help yourself in the long run... it's selfish...it's karma... it's the justification that altruism doesn't exist... It's a commandment... call it what you will. But there is no logical demand for your rule number one to exist to justify rule number 2... they simply co-exist nicely.

fuck karma.

easy if we didnt follow rule #2 we wouldnt be here right now.
wow a little poke goes along way.

I do not understand your necessity to worshit "thy lord" or why commandmants from (somewhere) are so devine.

.... what's the bloody point...

anybody beginning to wonder if this was (is) a suicide thread?

I always went on, well proof. From the books ive read there is enough evidence in my mind to conclude religion in its entirety is an attribute of mans psyche.
I always thought the burden of proof was on the shoulders of the man making the outrageous claim (god).

I mean, by this(your) standard i just need to belive in "thy lord bigfoot" and dare someone to prove he doesnt exist.

I guess im not techinically saying god doesnt exist but rather there are much better theories than "worship thy lord".

anybody beginning to wonder if this was (is) a suicide thread?

It actually is a little disturbing, and Rob hasn't posted since the date of this thread. Anybody know if he is OK?

-Mike

anybody beginning to wonder if this was (is) a suicide thread?

I've started to become a little concered too, though I don't know Rob's posting habits. It would be nice to hear from him or for someone who knows him well to comment.

You seem to be saying we have an innate knowledge of these rules, i agree compleatly. The only difference between us is that I think God put them there. Where do you think they came from?

Darwinian evolution. Adaptations towards mutual help -- towards "society-forming" -- caused creatures with those adaptations (bonobo, man) to out-evolve creatures without those adaptations.

Similar effects on a shorter timescale explain why the major religions see fit to reinforce those rules. Religions fostering social cohesion naturally survive longer than ones which don't: how many of the competitor religions mentioned in the Old Testament are still around today?

Of course, the religions probably weren't all deliberately designed to foster social cohesion (a theist who'd claim their god went round writing the holy books of all the world's religions, perhaps just to mess with people's heads, would IMO be worshipping a pretty messed-up god) any more than the animals were deliberately designed to be social. It's just that all the ones that weren't pro-society died out, so we see a world filled entirely with pro-society ones.

Peter

Anybody know if he is OK

Yeah I've talked to him in email.

Rob

"that's simple and fairly obvious to me... it's for the betterment of everyone"

but why should i care about the betterment of others? why shouldnt i take the position of d33zY? (thank you d33zY for that wonderful example, by the way) however, the opposing argument is given later, but im trying to answer these one at a time....moving on...

"I do not understand your necessity to worshi(p) "thy lord" or why commandmants from (somewhere) are so devine" (i took the liberty of fixing your spelling, and would appreciate you editing your post to fix the same)

whoa, i havent gotten to worship yet. lets stick to the basics of, is there a creator, has he given us rules to follow? once those things are agreed upon, then would be te approprate time to move the discussion on to topics such as worship, prayer, etc.

"anybody beginning to wonder if this was (is) a suicide thread?"

"Anybody know if he is OK "

"Yeah I've talked to him in email. "

Much relived to hear that. I hope all is well for him. Tell him we would love to hear any comments he might have on the thread he started.

Darwinian evolution.

ok, the big stuff. If, as you say, religion was created because it helps preserve life, and since you seem to be for the preservation of life, then i take your post to mean that you are all for religion. You see, if it doesnt matter whether or not what i belive is true, but only matters that it helps me (and my species) to survive, then if you are trying to get us to all stop beliving in God and His commandments, then it would seem that you are attempting to commit mass genocide, mainly, the extinction of the human race.

but i supose you are saying, "i only want the truth to be known. i dont want people to be deluded and beliving in lies." well then i say, good for you. but i have to ask you, what standard were you holding yourself to when you decided that truth was a good and right thing? where did you get the idea that truth was more important than the survival of the species? certiantly not from Darwin.

but here is a question for you:

if the earth, and the animals that live on it are a product of chance, and if your and my conception is the product of chance, and the arangement of our bodys is chance and therefor the arangement of our brain is chance, and if all the things i've seen and heard and learned are the product of chance, therefor the nurons in my brain are firing in the paterns they are because of chance.......then how on earth can i know that to be true, since my (and your) conclusion has been arived at entirly by chance? it is as if i knocked a pen off of a desk and it happened to fall in such a manner as to write out how it was produced, how it got to the desk, where the desk came from and how it was produced, where i came from, and how i came to knock the pen off the desk.

now, is this view wrong? if so how? or explain to me how we can trust a conclusion which, by its nature, was arived at entirly by chance.

im still waiting for an answer from somebody on this

I do not understand your necessity to worshi(p) "thy lord" or why commandmants from (somewhere) are so devine" (i took the liberty of fixing your spelling, and would appreciate you editing your post to fix the same)

This was an honest spelling mistake made at the end of a very late friday night.

whoa, i havent gotten to worship yet. lets stick to the basics of, is there a creator, has he given us rules to follow?

Why don't ya just stick to stick with "is there a creator", so far I'm supposed to believe in a creator becuase you dont believe we sprung from random chance. well I'd say if you look around the universe is chance. I'm just going by the obvious nature of well Nature.

God was created in the mind of man, and no one has yet to prove otherwise.

religion was created because it helps preserve life

I think what was meant was that evolution was condusive to religion. But, like other evolutionary baggage I think its no longer needed.

well then i say, good for you. but i have to ask you, what standard were you holding yourself to when you decided that truth was a good and right thing?

So youre saying you'd rather live life happy and ignorant, than well im not sure why knowing the truth is so scary for you...

where did you get the idea that truth was more important than the survival of the species

I don't think we're dooming society by not brainwashing eachother into believeing in fairy tales.

now, is this view wrong? if so how? or explain to me how we can trust a conclusion which, by its nature, was arived at entirly by chance.
im still waiting for an answer from somebody on this

You seem to agree with the random nature of the universe, but you're making an outrageous claim that the world really doesnt work that way. I think the burden of proof is on You.

the nurons in my brain are firing in the paterns they are because of chance.......then how on earth can i know that to be true, since my (and your) conclusion has been arived at entirly by chance?

...

im still waiting for an answer from somebody on this

The first problem with your question is that you have no antecedent for ``that''. What is the ``that'' for which you are attempting to ascertain truth?

Assuming that you're talking about the entire conclusions that science has brought us to, it's because science provides us with theories that are demonstrably true or not true, at least within a certain realm. In addition, they can predict things that have not yet happened.

Religion provides us with neither of those.

Science does not preclude the fact that a creator exists, but it does preclude the fact that he interacts with us on a regular basis, unless he always does so in accordance with the rules of nature as we observe them, in which case, that creator would be no different than the nature of the universe itself.

However, I'm sure that I'm still not answering your question, as I'm still not sure what your question is.

Yeah I've talked to him in email.

Thanks, Rob. I was concerned.

if the earth, and the animals that live on it are a product of chance,

May I take a brief aside and remind everyone that natural selection is the exact opposite of chance. By saying "evolution is chance", you're demonstrating that you don't truly understand it. And also... evolution by natural selection doesn't attempt to answser any larger cosmic or theological questions, only the question of how life evolved on this planet.

Anybody know if he is OK

Yeah I've talked to him in email.

Please, make sure he stays that way...

Excellent clarification, I'll try to retain...
My memory's like a sieve.

"This was an honest spelling mistake"

I was giving you the benifit of the doubt on that, but thank you for saying so.

"God was created in the mind of man, and no one has yet to prove otherwise."

Do you mean the idea of God, or God Himself? if you mean the idea of God, then of course. likewise the idea of chance was created in the mind of man. in fact, all ideas are a product of the mind of man, insofar as it is what happens when the mind thinks about something, that is what it means to be an idea. on the other hand, if you ment God Himself, how can you prove that? if you mean God exist in and of Himself only because man thought it up, well then why not the same for everything else?

"like other evolutionary baggage I think its no longer needed"

give me some other examples of evolutionary baggage please

"So youre saying you'd rather live life happy and ignorant, than well im not sure why knowing the truth is so scary for you... "

No, thats exactly what im NOT saying. I'm saying truth IS a good thing in and of itself. my point is that if you belive survival of the fittest is the important driving force in life (i dont belive this) then i must conclude that you think truth subordanate to that. if you think truth more important than survival of the fittest, then i am asking you on what basis do you claim its superiority?

"brainwashing eachother into believeing in fairy tales"

if by brainwashing you mean proclaiming as fact half-baked hypothisiss baised on little-to-no empirical evidance, well....at least I'll admit that what i belive has eliments of faith in it, how about you?

"You seem to agree with the random nature of the universe, but you're making an outrageous claim that the world really doesnt work that way. I think the burden of proof is on You."

no, i dont agree at all with the "random" nature of the universe. i dont think there is anything that is truly random, i dont belive in chance, luck, or coincidences. i also think the claims you are making are at least as outrageous as you seem to think mine are. You say, nothing + nobody + blind chance = everything. I say God is the fundamental explination of all things. The burden of proof rest on both of us.

Concerning my question, let me reproduce it, word for word, as i first heard it:

"The fourth point of naturalism, it will be remembered, was that science had undermined not only what naturalism regards as the mythological accretions of religion, but also what naturalism regards as its essence. that essence is, to the naturalists, Theism and immortality. in so far as natural science can give a satisfactory account of man as a purely biological entity, it excludes the soul and therefore excludes immortality. that, no doubt, is why the scientists who are most, or most nearly, concerned with man himself are the most anti-religious.
now most assuredly if naturalism is right then it is at this point, at the study of man himself, that it wins its final victory and overthrows all our hopes: not only our hope of immortality, but our hope of finding significance in our lives here and now. On the other hand, if naturalism is wrong, it will be here that it will reveal its fatal philosophical defect, and that is what i think it does.
on the fully naturalistic view all events are determined by laws. our logical behaviour, in other words our thoughts, and our ethical behaviour, including our ideals as well as our acts of will, are governed by biochemical laws; these, inturn, by physical laws which are themselves actuarial statements about the lawless movements of matter. these units never intended to produce the regular universe we see: the law of averages (successor to lucretius's exiguum clinamen) has produced it out of the collision of these random variations in movement. the physical universe never intended to produce organisms. the relevant chemicals on earth, and the sun's heat, thus juxtaposed, gave rise to this disquieting desease of matter: organization. natural selection, operating on the minute differences between one organism and another, blundered into that sort of phosphorescence or mirage which we call consciousness - and that, in some cortexes beneath some skulls, at certain moments, still in obedience to physical laws, but to physical laws now filtered through laws of a more complicated kind, takes the form we call thought. such, for instance, is the origin of this paper: such was the origin of Professor Price's paper [the paper he is responding to]. what we should speak of as his 'thoughts' were mearly the last link of a causal chain in which all the previous links were irrational. he spoke as he did because the matter of his brain was behaving in a certain way: and the whole history of the universe up to that moment had forced it to behave in that way. what we called his thought was essentially a phenomenon of the same sort as his other secretions - the form which the vast irrational process of nature was bound to take at a particular point of space and time." - C.S. Lewis in the essay "Religion without Dogma?" contained in the book titled, "God in the Dock"

"the nurons in my brain are firing in the paterns they are because of chance.......then how on earth can i know that to be true?"

"What is the ``that'' for which you are attempting to ascertain truth?"

If the nurons in my brain are firing in the paterns they are because of chance, and by firing producing the idea that "the nurons in my brain are firing in the paterns they are because of chance", then how can i know that the statment "the nurons in my brain are firing in the paterns they are because of chance" to be a true statment?

better?

"Religion provides us with neither of those."

Of course not. i am not merly concerned with the naturalist point of view because it is against my religion. i belive it also to be unscientific.

"Science does not preclude the fact that a creator exists, but it does preclude the fact that he interacts with us on a regular basis, unless he always does so in accordance with the rules of nature as we observe them, in which case, that creator would be no different than the nature of the universe itself."

but if you remember that He created the laws of nature, and furthermore, created the universe which interacts with them, then it is extreamly logical that He would interact with us and communicate with us through them.

"May I take a brief aside and remind everyone that natural selection is the exact opposite of chance."

i hope my restatment of the question has cleared this up, but just in case, i will elaborate on what i mean by evolution involving chance.

lets look at a few examples, we have laws which goveren our country, but they dont produce criminals, or more precisly, they dont produce the people which they goveren, do they? or take math, you can know and understand all the mathmatical equasions in the world, but it doesnt mean anything untill you actualy mesure something, or count something, right? just because i do math concerning my bank account doesnt mean more money gets put into it. likewise, there are laws wich goveren the universe, but they did not produce the universe. laws can state that "if X then Y" but they cant produce X out of thin air. so if your not saying that X was produced by "chance" then where did it come from?

Hope I've made myself clearer.

give me some other examples of evolutionary baggage please

In all humans, the appendix. In humans in affluent areas, the desire for fatty foods. There are many others, but those are the obvious ones.

if you belive survival of the fittest is the important driving force in life (i dont belive this) then i must conclude that you think truth subordanate to that. if you think truth more important than survival of the fittest, then i am asking you on what basis do you claim its superiority?

Why do you assume that survival of the fittest and truth are mutually exclusive?

If the nurons in my brain are firing in the paterns they are because of chance, and by firing producing the idea that "the nurons in my brain are firing in the paterns they are because of chance", then how can i know that the statment "the nurons in my brain are firing in the paterns they are because of chance" to be a true statment?

better?

Not really. The reason that we can prove them to be so is that we can accurately predict the results of things which we have scientific theory for. Unless all that we perceive is an illusion, then we can prove that many things are true (within certain confines), and predict other things.

Or, to more precisely answer your question, if you ask the question ``what is two plus two'', and I roll dice to give you an answer, if the dice roll up four, that's a true answer despite the fact that it was arrived at by chance. Chance does not preclude truth.

In all honesty, you're speaking in riddles that are rife with the same logical fallacies as you're accusing us of.

Dice, chance, and Truth

Hey, that's a great explanation. I'll have to try and remember that.

"Why do you assume that survival of the fittest and truth are mutually exclusive?"

i dont think they are mutualy exclusive, im saying, IF one came to the other, then which would you choose? and why?

Dice, chance, and truth.

im not asking IF it is true, im asking, how can you know it to be true? using your illistration, if you did not know what 2+2 equled and rolled a dice and got 4, how could you know that you had gotten the right answer? it doesnt matter, for the sake of the question, that it is the right answer, what matters is how you know it to be right.