Afterlife?

In reply to Curmudgeon:

Can an atheist act in moral and ethical ways? Certainly, they can. All humans still retain the image of God upon them, even after the fall of Adam and Eve into sin. The image of God was effaced at the fall, but it was not erased, and so man still understands right and wrong no matter how many try to say otherwise.

The difference between the atheist and the Christian in this sense is that the atheist may act ethically for certain reasons, but he has no ultimate reason for acting ethically because there is no ultimate moral authority that exists over each sphere of his life. Without this ultimate authority, each atheist defines morality on his own terms, although his morality is influenced by the remnants of morality from the image of God within, along with the strictures and constraints of the culture and society in which the atheist exists.

The Christian, on the other hand, acts morally out of the knowledge of the moral law given by God in His Word and a love for the Law-giver Himself.

When confronted with a situation that demands both the Christian and the atheist to make moral choices, a situation in which societal constraints are removed, the reaction of each will be vastly different. If a society deems it morally acceptable to kill unborn babies, for instance, the atheist sees no reason to oppose the practice. His own “moral law” even tells him it’s the compassionate thing to do in cases where the child is the result of rape or incest. The Christian, however, knows abortion is wrong because his moral choices are built upon the moral Law-giver who has declared all human life to be sacred because it is created in the image of God. The Law-giver has proclaimed, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and, for the Christian, there’s the end of it.

So can an atheist act ethically? Certainly, but he has no ultimate reason to do so and no ultimate authority to look to in order to ensure his line is indeed straight and unbendable.

**And one other point. As a Christian, I know unbelievers who are "nicer" people than some other Christians I know(who may not even be one). It gets me upset, but its the truth. Biblically however, being good isn't the way to salvation. Those Christians need to straighten up and fly right though. I work with unbelievers, not atheists though, that I love to death. Even if they were atheists I'd still love em'.

Otto Maddox wrote: Anybody wonder why Jesus always looks like "Catholic Jesus" when spotted? Why doesn't he look like some sort of middle eastern Jew when he shows up on my dinner plate?

Because when arab looking motherberkeleyers show up on some toast you lay on the peanut butter and keep eating. You pause for that blue-eyed devil because you have unresolved issues with handsome men.

Fletch1 wrote: In reply to Curmudgeon: Can an atheist act in moral and ethical ways? Certainly, they can. All humans still retain the image of God upon them, even after the fall of Adam and Eve into sin. The image of God was effaced at the fall, but it was not erased, and so man still understands right and wrong no matter how many try to say otherwise.

Speechless

Fletch1 wrote: In reply to Curmudgeon: Can an atheist act in moral and ethical ways? Certainly, they can. All humans still retain the image of God upon them, even after the fall of Adam and Eve into sin. The image of God was effaced at the fall, but it was not erased, and so man still understands right and wrong no matter how many try to say otherwise. The difference between the atheist and the Christian in this sense is that the atheist may act ethically for certain reasons (e.g., not wanting to go to jail, it disrupts social order, it makes them look good to others, etc.), but he has no ultimate reason for acting ethically because there is no ultimate moral authority that exists over each sphere of his life. Without this ultimate authority, each atheist defines morality on his own terms, although his morality is influenced by the remnants of morality from the image of God within, along with the strictures and constraints of the culture and society in which the atheist exists. The Christian, on the other hand, acts morally out of the knowledge of the moral law given by God in His Word and a love for the Law-giver Himself. When confronted with a situation that demands both the Christian and the atheist to make moral choices, a situation in which societal constraints are removed, the reaction of each will be vastly different. If a society deems it morally acceptable to kill unborn babies, for instance, the atheist sees no reason to oppose the practice. His own “moral law” even tells him it’s the compassionate thing to do in cases where the child is the result of rape or incest. The Christian, however, knows abortion is wrong because his moral choices are built upon the moral Law-giver who has declared all human life to be sacred because it is created in the image of God. The Law-giver has proclaimed, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and, for the Christian, there’s the end of it. So can an atheist act ethically? Certainly, but he has no ultimate reason to do so and no ultimate authority to look to in order to ensure his line is indeed straight and unbendable. **And one other point. As a Christian, I know unbelievers who are "nicer" people than some other Christians I know(who may not even be one). It gets me upset, but its the truth. Biblically however, being good isn't the way to salvation. Those Christians need to straighten up and fly right though.

Are we talking about an allegorical Adam and Eve or the real literal deal, like two peeps got popped onto earth at the time of creation and started the human race?

Fletch1 wrote: In reply to Curmudgeon: Can an atheist act in moral and ethical ways? Certainly, they can. All humans still retain the image of God upon them, even after the fall of Adam and Eve into sin. The image of God was effaced at the fall, but it was not erased, and so man still understands right and wrong no matter how many try to say otherwise.

Any reason you bothered asking the following on the previous page?

Fletch1 wrote: If then God is a myth, as you say, where do you get your morals from? What is right and wrong? Just curious.

It's fine to not be curious about atheism. It's even fine to believe that we unknowingly are given our morality and ethical compass from your God.

But it's inane to ask "If not God, where do you derive your morality from?" and then turn around and say "You derive it from God!" as though nobody had offered any other answer...

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: Do you really think there is a need for demonstrable, repeatable experimentation to account for everything?

Yes. That is how we "Account".

There is no such way to account for math or logic. Your position is unsustainable; presuppositions which science cannot prove are necessary for science to prove anything else.

Fletch1 wrote: In reply to Curmudgeon: Can an atheist act in moral and ethical ways? Certainly, they can. All humans still retain the image of God upon them, even after the fall of Adam and Eve into sin. The image of God was effaced at the fall, but it was not erased, and so man still understands right and wrong no matter how many try to say otherwise. The difference between the atheist and the Christian in this sense is that the atheist may act ethically for certain reasons, but he has no ultimate reason for acting ethically because there is no ultimate moral authority that exists over each sphere of his life. Without this ultimate authority, each atheist defines morality on his own terms, although his morality is influenced by the remnants of morality from the image of God within, along with the strictures and constraints of the culture and society in which the atheist exists. The Christian, on the other hand, acts morally out of the knowledge of the moral law given by God in His Word and a love for the Law-giver Himself. When confronted with a situation that demands both the Christian and the atheist to make moral choices, a situation in which societal constraints are removed, the reaction of each will be vastly different. If a society deems it morally acceptable to kill unborn babies, for instance, the atheist sees no reason to oppose the practice. His own “moral law” even tells him it’s the compassionate thing to do in cases where the child is the result of rape or incest. The Christian, however, knows abortion is wrong because his moral choices are built upon the moral Law-giver who has declared all human life to be sacred because it is created in the image of God. The Law-giver has proclaimed, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and, for the Christian, there’s the end of it. So can an atheist act ethically? Certainly, but he has no ultimate reason to do so and no ultimate authority to look to in order to ensure his line is indeed straight and unbendable. **And one other point. As a Christian, I know unbelievers who are "nicer" people than some other Christians I know(who may not even be one). It gets me upset, but its the truth. Biblically however, being good isn't the way to salvation. Those Christians need to straighten up and fly right though.

So, you "keep to the straight line" because your religion has convinced you that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity.

I think it's more moral to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

To claim that an atheist is without a moral compass because he may be influenced by society and then claim that a Christian is not because he does what it says in his society's book is... flawed.

Too much faith in either a holy book or conventional wisdom is problematic.

I've begun worshipping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate.

In reply to Fletch1:

So, since a very large part of the 6-7 billion people who inhabit this planet are not Christians, are they athiests? You put the morality squarely in a Christian view that it cuts out all other views of a greater being.

That's where I don't like Christianity, even though I claim to be one. I can't see a God who is so forgiving that so much of this planet is damned to a lower place just because they don't belive in Jesus. The most moral of all Buddists priests, who pray continuously, spin things, ect- going to hell.

There's a whole big non-Christian world out there.

Fletch1, it's not the understanding of right/wrong but how we choose to act on it that is the problem. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with retaining the image of a god or gods in ourselves.

I think morals are a learned behavior in response to the world around us; for instance way back when humans were still quite rare in a small group of, say, 10 people if one was killed it made the survival of the remaining 9 that much more precarious since the essential work of survival fell more heavily on the remaing ones. Stealing food or clothing from another had the same effect, it could touch off a survival battle that would destroy an already precariously balanced unit and ultimately lead to the death of all. That got drilled into our heads over the millenia.

Then there was the problem of not having a real concrete scientific explanation of the weird things that happened (thunderstorms, the seasons, eclipses, etc), they eventually came up with the idea that powerful beings toyed with those same primitive humans.

It's no wonder that morals and religion became so tightly interwoven. They developed at the same time.

MG Bryan wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: Do you really think there is a need for demonstrable, repeatable experimentation to account for everything?

Yes. That is how we "Account".

There is no such way to account for math or logic. Your position is unsustainable; presuppositions which science cannot prove are necessary for science to prove anything else.

We can suppose all we like. When we want to account for something we need to do more than offer supposition. We need to offer a way to decide if the supposition has some legitimacy. To convince someone else of it's legitimacy we need to offer something demonstrable that supports our supposition and be open to the idea that our demonstration might be scrutinized. Verified. Falsified.

Otherwise - we are just making E36 M3 up and telling each other stuff. Next thing you know... institutions will rise up to compete for our allegiance based on attractive promises and at the very least... waste half our sunday mornings on nonsense when we could be racing each other in machines born from verified science.

rotard wrote: I've begun worshipping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate.

Hmmm, the Egyptians worshiped Ra the sun god and were called heathens for it. Same thing happened to the Mayans. Lesson: you cannot worship anything that can prove its existence.

I was sitting in church this past Sunday thinking about what it will be like when they can hook our brains up to a computer and give us "false reality". Transmit BACK AND FORTH our senses of this false reality. Unlike reality, in this false world we could make ourselves taller, slimmer, smarter...just by willing it so.

We could experience every place in the world...the computer would simulate the warmth of the sun, the breeze, the smells of far away places never experienced by our "real" bodies.

Meanwhile, our "real" bodies could be disconnected from our brains...thrown away...our brains would just remain in this false reality until we had enough.

After experiencing everything in life we would grow bored of existence...we would want to want to escape even the dreams of sleep.

And no-one would be afraid to die.

PHeller wrote: I was sitting in church this past Sunday thinking about what it will be like when they can hook our brains up to a computer and give us "false reality". Transmit BACK AND FORTH our senses of this false reality. Unlike reality, in this false world we could make ourselves taller, slimmer, smarter...just by willing it so. We could experience every place in the world...the computer would simulate the warmth of the sun, the breeze, the smells of far away places never experienced by our "real" bodies. Meanwhile, our "real" bodies could be disconnected from our brains...thrown away...our brains would just remain in this false reality until we had enough. After experiencing everything in life we would grow bored of existence...we would want to want to escape even the dreams of sleep. And no-one would be afraid to die.

Now if you could just get Keeanu Reeves involved somehow...

About Adam and Eve: Adam was made in god's image and Eve to keep him company, right? They had the best of everything, a wonderful place to live, milk and honey (but I suppose no beer or wireless Internet access ) and lost it all over 'sin'.

So what was Adam and Eve's sin? Partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Had they stayed stupid, they would have lived in paradise forever. As it was, they partook of the forbidden fruit of knowledge (which would eventually lead to questioning everything, including god's existence) and that was enough to get them thrown out.

Sounds to me like a warning for posterity: do not dare question, see what happened to them and the world? Question me any more and I might do something even worse. Which of course leads us to Moses and the flood, wow there were anger issues.

Fletch1 wrote: Mathew 7:6

Chelsea 2:1

ransom wrote: When you share a moment with someone you care about, when you buy a buddy a beer, when you delight in the first bite of a pizza, or see a beautiful landscape or sunset, or build something, do you feel anything? Doesn't that mean something to you? All these things and more are meaningful to me. I don't expect to make a large change in the trajectory of the cosmos, but if I can make someone laugh, that gives me meaning. The world around me matters, the experiences of the other people, and heck, my own experience!

It poisoned every single experience at that time. I could not enjoy nor feel anything. It was terrible, deep depression. Borderline suicidal.

Now, it's different. I have a fulfilling purpose and meaning to my life. And the happiest and most fulfilled people I've met have all been exceptionally holy people. I have not met an atheist with the same sense of joy and verve that I've seen in John Paul II, for instance.

I'm one of those wierdos who had a dramatic conversion experience. It actually came from an experience with supernatural evil. I also had a vision that dramatically improved my relationship with my sister. I sometimes have a positive knowledge of God's particular presence. It's not a sense, per se.

Construct whatever opinion you desire of me or my experience. I'm sure whatever I say is already dismissed as foolish, incoherent, illogical or impossible. It's not going to make much difference to me. I don't know why I feel so compelled to share all this, but you're there to read it, and if you think I'm a nutjob, that's fine, I suppose. Faith and reason can work together and do so beautifully in the Catholic Church. Of that I am convinced. We're a little too reasonable to the Sola Scriptura folks and we're a little too mysterious for the atheist folks. I love it, I really do. I suppose I just wish that I did a good job of being able to communicate that. Oh well...

I feel like I've found this golden treasure, and I want to share it with the whole world. I just wish I could get all of you to see with my eyes, and hear with my ears, and know what I know.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

PHeller wrote: And no-one would be afraid to die.

Now if you could just get Keeanu Reeves involved somehow...

The whole time I'm thinking about this I'm like "damnit Matrix, such a good plotline ruined by such bad acting!"

I notice that several people have said that they can't believe in something they can't see, or confirm through experimentation.

I'm curious how this position classifies emotions like happy, sad, angy, etc....

Apexing a corner makes me happy. 600HP drag launches make me happy. lather rinse repeat.

as I said, I've just been checkin in every so often, but it has been an enlightening thread so far.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

MG Bryan wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: Do you really think there is a need for demonstrable, repeatable experimentation to account for everything?

Yes. That is how we "Account".

There is no such way to account for math or logic. Your position is unsustainable; presuppositions which science cannot prove are necessary for science to prove anything else.

We can suppose all we like. When we want to account for something we need to do more than offer supposition. We need to offer a way to decide if the supposition has some legitimacy. To convince someone else of it's legitimacy we need to offer something demonstrable that supports our supposition and be open to the idea that our demonstration might be scrutinized. Verified. Falsified.

No. Without certain presuppositions there is no verification or falsification of anything.

scardeal, I'm glad you have found what you are looking for, I really am. It's not often you see that. I hope you can accept that there are many many other happy people in the world who may have found a different path to happiness than yours. FWIW, the happiest person I ever met was a Buddhist.

In reply to scardeal:

I'm just perplexed that you're convinced that no atheist else feels as much joy as you (or the pope) do, and that the reason they don't is their lack of faith.

If nothing else, when my experience as an atheist is clearly nothing like as bleak as yours before you found your faith, how can you dismiss the meaning I find in the world around me? That you could not find the meaning in everyday life without religion does not suggest to me that the meaning wasn't there to be found.

alfadriver wrote: So, since a very large part of the 6-7 billion people who inhabit this planet are not Christians, are they athiests?

The number becomes considerably larger when you count all of the human inhabitants of this planet dating from the first pair of modern humans to be able to mate to produce offspring. Too bad for some of them that they predated any notion of any gods by tens of thousands of years... nevermind that it was only possible to be "Christian" for the last 2 thousand or so.

Fletch1 wrote: The Law-giver has proclaimed, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and, for the Christian, there’s the end of it.

20:13 says "You will not kill" in the KJV of the book. It says "Murder" in other versions.

Which one is right?