God "Could Have" Protected Kids, Chose Not To....SMFH

[Cap'n Cat]

Gil Dobie: Just dumb.

SeattleGriz: Whackjob.

St. Wronge: Wannabe know-it-all who can barely follow the directions on a can of Febreze.

Cap'n Cat: Karl Rove

Yeah, uh, that's.....uh, a really, uh, good comeback there, Gil, uh, I guess.

[CAA Flagship]

I believe we have many choices.
I don't think when or how we die is one of them.

There's this thing called suicide...

Not everyone dies from suicide attempts. Many screw it up and survive because, IMO, their number was not called.

[JohnStOnge]

St. Wronge: Wannabe know-it-all who can barely follow the directions on a can of Febreze.

I may not know it all but I know the Secular Humanist attempt to construct a system of morality is fallacious. I also think it's ironic that people who developed to system as well as those who follow it present themselves as enlightened as well as guided by reason when reason says their outlook ultimately has no foundation. They act as though their system of thought is objective but the whole edifice is built on premises that are entirely subjective. There is no "intellectual superiority" associated with their world view at all.

Ditto for atheists who try to argue that acceptance of their view on the existence of God or something like that does not mean that there is no intrinsic right or wrong. Why they can't just be intellectually honest and accept the reality of a scenario in which their view is correct is beyond me. For some reason they want to say it's all just the physical universe and at the same time try to cling to the concept of intrinsic morality and it can't be done.

[Ibanez]

Westboro is en route to spread the hate. Why couldn't this no name loser force his way into Westboro baptist Church?

[Ibanez]

St. Wronge: Wannabe know-it-all who can barely follow the directions on a can of Febreze.

I may not know it all but I know the Secular Humanist attempt to construct a system of morality is fallacious. I also think it's ironic that people who developed to system as well as those who follow it present themselves as enlightened as well as guided by reason when reason says their outlook ultimately has no foundation. They act as though their system of thought is objective but the whole edifice is built on premises that are entirely subjective. There is no "intellectual superiority" associated with their world view at all.

Many of the theories that came from the Scottish Enlightenment show that you can have morality without religion..and this was coming from religious men.

Basically, man wants to be happy. We naturally don't like discontent, problems or anything that disrupts the balance. So, over time laws and rules were designed and codified that did just that. We recognized that murder, theft, assault disturbed the balance. All of this was done before the fairy tales stories of Moses and Jesus.

[kalm]

I may not know it all but I know the Secular Humanist attempt to construct a system of morality is fallacious. I also think it's ironic that people who developed to system as well as those who follow it present themselves as enlightened as well as guided by reason when reason says their outlook ultimately has no foundation. They act as though their system of thought is objective but the whole edifice is built on premises that are entirely subjective. There is no "intellectual superiority" associated with their world view at all.

Many of the theories that came from the Scottish Enlightenment show that you can have morality without religion..and this was coming from religious men.

Basically, man wants to be happy. We naturally don't like discontent, problems or anything that disrupts the balance. So, over time laws and rules were designed and codified that did just that. We recognized that murder, theft, assault disturbed the balance. All of this was done before the fairy tales stories of Moses and Jesus.

Good post. I use to dismiss the accusations that John was a closet fundi, but after that post I'm not so sure now.

[JohnStOnge]

Many of the theories that came from the Scottish Enlightenment show that you can have morality without religion..and this was coming from religious men.

Basically, man wants to be happy. We naturally don't like discontent, problems or anything that disrupts the balance. So, over time laws and rules were designed and codified that did just that. We recognized that murder, theft, assault disturbed the balance.

If some of those associated with the Scottish Enlightenment held that you can have morality without a belief in something else outside of us that sets the rules they were objectively incorrect. Ultimately, in the absence of the something else, you can't have a basis for what is intrinsically right and what is intrinsically wrong. You have to end up stopping at a premise that is subjective.

Each individual wants to be happy. But that doesn't necessarily mean everybody else has to be happy. One person can make himself or herself happy at the expense of others. Presumably it made Stalin happy to have a purge. Or at least he saw it as in his best interest. And what, in the absence of something else that sets the rules, made that wrong? So he was happy and a lot of other people weren't. From his standpoint, so what?

Was it wrong because it made others unhappy? Took their lives? What makes those things wrong?

There is no answer without the something else. In the end, you would have to resort to saying, "well that's just wrong because it's wrong."

All you can come up with in the end is an argument that it is in the best interest of the majority of those in a community to have rules. A utilitarian case. Not really intrinsic right and wrong. Just an argument that it's best for us as a group to do things this way. But it's always possible that someone can see their own best interest in doing something that is not in the best interest of the group. And there is no physical law that says it would be wrong for that person to do it. There is no intrinsic rule that what is best for the group is "right" and what is not best for the group is "wrong." There can be potential consequences but if a person thinks the risk is worth it they can take it.

In Stalin's case he had power. He was not accountable for anything he did. So he could do whatever he saw as in his own best interest within his society regardless of whether it hurt anybody else or made them unhappy. And he did. He lived a fairly long life (died at 74) and he died. No consequences because he was in a position of power. And what he did was no more "wrong" in objective, physical terms than squashing a cockroach would be. It meant no more to the universe than two asteroids colliding. It just was.

[JohnStOnge]

Here is a definition of "utilitarianism" from Merriam-Webster on line:

a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number

Really? Why should the aim of action be the greatest happiness for the greatest number? What is intrinsically right about that aim and what is intrinsically wrong about another?

[kalm]

Here is a definition of "utilitarianism" from Merriam-Webster on line:

a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number

Really? Why should the aim of action be the greatest happiness for the greatest number? What is intrinsically right about that aim and what is intrinsically wrong about another?

This is your stumbling block.

Feelings like love and compassion toward your family, even strangers is a "good" thing. It leads to cooperation, which is good for the community. And community, teamwork, and the exchange of ideas are what lead us out of the stone age. We are not wolves for christ sake...

Oops...turns out even wolves use these strategies. Cooperation, love, and democracy run rampant throughout nature. We just happen to have the awareness to contemplate why and therefore have a tendency to evolve toward a greater understanding of good. Love and awareness are the very best arguments for God. They both transcend religion and you don't neccessarily need religion or faith in an exact deity to get that. But it does help many people...

[kalm]

Come to think of it John, in some respects you're hatred of egalitarianism and over-wrought, cold, calculated view of nature are about as far away from "good" faith as one can get.

[Ibanez]

Many of the theories that came from the Scottish Enlightenment show that you can have morality without religion..and this was coming from religious men.

Basically, man wants to be happy. We naturally don't like discontent, problems or anything that disrupts the balance. So, over time laws and rules were designed and codified that did just that. We recognized that murder, theft, assault disturbed the balance.

If some of those associated with the Scottish Enlightenment held that you can have morality without a belief in something else outside of us that sets the rules they were objectively incorrect. Ultimately, in the absence of the something else, you can't have a basis for what is intrinsically right and what is intrinsically wrong. You have to end up stopping at a premise that is subjective.

Each individual wants to be happy. But that doesn't necessarily mean everybody else has to be happy. One person can make himself or herself happy at the expense of others. Presumably it made Stalin happy to have a purge. Or at least he saw it as in his best interest. And what, in the absence of something else that sets the rules, made that wrong? So he was happy and a lot of other people weren't. From his standpoint, so what?

Was it wrong because it made others unhappy? Took their lives? What makes those things wrong?

There is no answer without the something else. In the end, you would have to resort to saying, "well that's just wrong because it's wrong."

All you can come up with in the end is an argument that it is in the best interest of the majority of those in a community to have rules. A utilitarian case. Not really intrinsic right and wrong. Just an argument that it's best for us as a group to do things this way. But it's always possible that someone can see their own best interest in doing something that is not in the best interest of the group. And there is no physical law that says it would be wrong for that person to do it. There is no intrinsic rule that what is best for the group is "right" and what is not best for the group is "wrong." There can be potential consequences but if a person thinks the risk is worth it they can take it.

In Stalin's case he had power. He was not accountable for anything he did. So he could do whatever he saw as in his own best interest within his society regardless of whether it hurt anybody else or made them unhappy. And he did. He lived a fairly long life (died at 74) and he died. No consequences because he was in a position of power. And what he did was no more "wrong" in objective, physical terms than squashing a cockroach would be. It meant no more to the universe than two asteroids colliding. It just was.

I'm not discussing this with you because you fail to think objectively. Go read on your own and then come back.

Actually, here's a great book.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Scots-Invente ... dern+world" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spend the $.027, buy the book and try to think objectively. You don't know everything yet you bloviate on every topic as if you are a leading expert in the field of religion, politics, economics, science, genetic engineering, exterior illumination.

[D1B]

Yep, he's absolutely correct on #1 - many christians are assholes and know little about their religion. He proceeds to prove this in #2.

If you're a christian, you're supposed to believe God knows everything, including if you're going light up 20 kids in an elementary school.

Don't believe me? Read your **** bible...

Psalm 139:16 - Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

Acts 17:26 - And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.

Proverbs 20:24 - Man's goings are of the Lord; how can a man then understand his own way?

Ephesians 1:11 - In him we were also chosen,[a] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,

God knows everything and everything is predetermined, therefore we do not have free will.

Seattle if you believe god doesn't influence our decisions, why don't you just be honest with yourself and admit that the christian god is impossible and move on to a more life affirming religion or spirituality?

Just like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, D1B is using the versus of the Bible to push his agenda. These are how the writers of the time perceive God, and none of these writings say everything that happens is God's will. If you know God's will, then you know something that no other human that ever lived knows or knew. I tend to believe that some of it's God's will, other times it's man's will getting in the way of God's will, sometimes things just happen.

Gil, you're halfway there: denying the veracity of the the bible and defining your personal god for yourself.

Now take the next step.

[D1B]

Better yet, IMO, drop all of it and investigate secular humanism. While not a religion, it is an enlightened belief system based on reason, science and critical ethical inquiry.

Secular humanism cannot be sustained because it is based on he premise that there is something "good" about human happiness and social justice but, at the same time, that there is nothing outside of ourselves that makes that so. And once you reject the idea of something outside of ourselves that says such is the case the premise cannot be sustained. It's not enlightened at all. It's delusional. It's an attempt to replace religion that doesn't really work in the final analysis.

Says the guy who cant prove god exists. Secular humanism doesn't seek to replace religion. Secular humanism is not a religion.

Secular humanism does present man with an evolving moral and ethical system based on reality, not the ideal/absolute or god or metaphysics. Its focus is virtue versus piety.

[Chizzang]

All of the arguments that say: We can't comprehend a moral foundation without "something else" or "God" is nonsense. It dismisses or somehow completely overlooks the idea that we can observe in others a capacity to suffer, the sincere and scientifically observable act of creating suffering or stand as witness to the capacity for others to suffer completely debunks the argument.

Morality comes from the real life observation of suffering...
With a very leisurely stroll down logical lane from that point forward

The idea that GOD has to tell us when we are creating suffering for ourselves and others is nonsense

There are lots of exciting arguments FOR GOD / In fact it is the most exciting idea humans can discuss
But morality and it's origins do not come from God
Moralities origins very likely pre-date Monotheism God by 100,000 years

[Ibanez]

I suggest some light reading on Thomas Hobbes.

[kalm]

I suggest some light reading on Thomas Hobbes.

Didn't he write Leviathan? I fucking love that movie.

[biobengal]

I may not know it all but I know the Secular Humanist attempt to construct a system of morality is fallacious.

Real flesh and blood men and women (without divine intervention) wrote the Bible early in human cultural evolution. Through time, real men and women have departed from Biblical teachings as our moral understanding has evolved.

Real men and women in every society and every religious persuasion have constructed their own system of morality without Jesus or your God. It is ignorant to state modern human's can't accomplish the same feat as hundred's of "primitive" human societies. Bounds on morality are a fundamental human condition shared by hundreds of "primitive" societies and have a clear evolutionary perspective. This evolutionary perspective is most clear in the Bible where killing a neighbor is sin but killing men, women and children of another tribe or race is not.

[Gil Dobie]

This evolutionary perspective is most clear in the Bible where killing a neighbor is sin but killing men, women and children of another tribe or race is not.

Guess I missed that commandment about thou shalt kill men, women and children of another tribe or race. There are stories about it, but nothing that says it is not a sin.

[biobengal]

This evolutionary perspective is most clear in the Bible where killing a neighbor is sin but killing men, women and children of another tribe or race is not.

Guess I missed that commandment about thou shalt kill men, women and children of another tribe or race. There are stories about it, but nothing that says it is not a sin.

The Biblical action scenes are quite clear on this.

[D1B]

This evolutionary perspective is most clear in the Bible where killing a neighbor is sin but killing men, women and children of another tribe or race is not.

Guess I missed that commandment about thou shalt kill men, women and children of another tribe or race. There are stories about it, but nothing that says it is not a sin.

You missed it because you don't read the bible.

[Gil Dobie]

Guess I missed that commandment about thou shalt kill men, women and children of another tribe or race. There are stories about it, but nothing that says it is not a sin.

You missed it because you don't read the bible.

I know the commandments and I have read the black and white. What people put between the lines is their stuff. Can you show me the commandment that states it's okay to kill men, women and children of another tribe or race and it's not a sin?

[Gil Dobie]

Guess I missed that commandment about thou shalt kill men, women and children of another tribe or race. There are stories about it, but nothing that says it is not a sin.

The Biblical action scenes are quite clear on this.

A blanket statement without evidence, does not make it a commandment.

[death dealer]

The Biblical action scenes are quite clear on this.

A blanket statement without evidence, does not make it a commandment.

1 Samuel 15:3. Read it.

[D1B]

You missed it because you don't read the bible.

I know the commandments and I have read the black and white. What people put between the lines is their stuff. Can you show me the commandment that states it's okay to kill men, women and children of another tribe or race and it's not a sin?

You're an idiot.

[JoltinJoe]

A blanket statement without evidence, does not make it a commandment.

1 Samuel 15:3. Read it.

There's a lot of context and background to 1 Samuel 15.

You can't take one sentence out of a 73-book compilation and place dispositive emphasis on it.