Still it is used justification to why kill other human beings, defining moral law themself in some social structures I will argue, and so, play some part of in some social structures. Yes, we will die, because the way we are build by our DNA, although some sectors of science and philosophies work hard not to, bacterias dont select, rather do as programmed by DNA. “The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. Conscience is a Jewish invention, it is a blemish like circumcision.” -Adolf Hitler “The earth continues to go round, whether it’s the man who kills the tiger or the tiger who eats the man. The stronger asserts his will, it’s the law of nature. The world doesn’t change; its laws are eternal.” -Adolf Hitler "We are the joyous Hitler youth, We do not need any Christian virtue Our leader is our savior The Pope and Rabbi shall be gone We want to be pagans once again.” - Song sung by Hitler youth
It is a shortcoming of English's lexicon, not a declaration of state. We don't have a second-person singular pronoun for a living entity that is not gender-related. "It" doesn't really cover it.
We are part of nature. Like other creatures, part of our selection process includes selection by others of our kind.
It seems that the "english lexicon" already has a word "GOD" which needs no pronoun. (if I seem obstinate on this topic--------------------------------------------------yeh, well) (I once had an altercation on this subject with a southern baptist preacher which ended with him screaming at me) (in words that I will, most likely, never forget.) Is that a split infinitive?
I'm with Sarkus on this: do you genuinely think you could "choose" not to believe that God exists? Curiosity: why does believing in the story of the flood make you a Christian as opposed to any other religion that happens to believe it as part of their scripture? What does God have to do with such societal principles? Are they not principles held by humanists as well? As such, if non-believers have the same notions as believers, how does God commanding it have any value if it is being done anyway? Would it not be like me commanding you to breathe? Are you breathing? Is it because I commanded it? Does it require me to command it to make it happen? And are you going to present your argument as implied in the OP?
This raises many guestions, what is there you to believe or 'accept', as far I can tell you are the one who is defining what God is, not the God telling you who God is, is it then that you accept your own conclusions about who God is? About the goodness of God, how you define it, where you take the reference point what is good? How should one worship the God you are referring? So on what you base your Theism? Those principles didnt generate in the vacuum, care to eloborate how you arrived on that conclusion? Did God gave you revelation, or did it just pop up in your mind from nowhere? Isnt that the New Age stance, the Universal Truth that should be accepted with no examination how it is related with reality?
It's a convention, not a judgement, to use "He" rather than "She" or "It" when referring to God. It won't likely change any time soon, so asking people to go against convention just so as not to annoy you is probably asking too much, especially when almost everyone knows it is just convention and accept it as such. Consider your point made and just move on. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I do not agree that anyone simply chooses to accept such things. One either does or one does not accept them. Nothing can make you "choose" because there is no choice. Could you change your mind, for example? Do you honestly think you could have "chosen" other than you did? As baldeee has pointed out, believing in the biblical flood story is not restricted to Christians. And where is the joke I supposedly made? Again, as baldeee and eyeswideshut have expressed, this is not per se a religious position that requires belief in God. This is a rather simple societal maxim that leads to the benefit of society as a whole. Is this what your God is commanding you to do? How does it relate to "Be Honorable"?
And more over, was it your honour that wouldnt let you to response, not to dignify with response, although it was response, declaring that my guestions were not worthy of response. Oh the irony. Was the response you made honorable? If not, is there any consuquences when not acting according to your Gods will? If yes, why was is it honorable not to response, where you draw the line?
I think there is a reason why New Age concepts of God are so appealing, it is more based on the feeling what feels good than reason, "follow your heart" if you will, and there is no real consuquences if you cant, easy and comforting. In the bible you find these verses among others why man shouldnt define what is "honorable". “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9) “out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander” (Matthew 15:19) I guess it boils down to the first act of sin, rebellion against Gods command not to eat the fruit, we used our own reasoning and heart and were joined Lucifers rebellion. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding" -Proverbs 3:5
It It's only a very small part of natural selection though. Even during WWII, was death-by-human a majority cause of death?
I´m not sure I follow, make what "true"? Certainly it happened, The Naturalistic Ideas has been used to justify to kill fellow man. It happened or it didnt happen? How about abortions that are futile ones, do Atheism and Natural Selection play a part there? Your claim that "we would figured it out with no religion how to be honorable", if you will, I havent found logical reason though.
Yes. Every bomb, every bullet, every landmine was humans killing humans. (Unless you're talking about infection and disease. In which case, you have a point.) Still, in nature, some species wage war on others. Ants wage war with competing colonies, wasps sometimes attack and wipe out entire hives of bees. Humans sometimes exterminate competing tribes. (I note the examples of wars are all social species). The fact that humans use extensions of their otherwise ineffectual physical armament doesn't make it any less natural behavior.
Why are non-believers so angry while believers seem quite content believing? I believe sub-consciously EVERYONE KNOWS God exists, atheists are simply searching for proof. They assume a position of non-belief in the hope the someone will "prove them wrong." Well sir or lady, I am quite content believing what I believe as I am content allowing you to live your deposition.
I believe you are wrong on a couple of counts. [1] All of science and scientists are looking for answers: That doesn't mean though they expect that answer to be god. https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ A Universe from Nothing [2] There are as many angry believers as there are non believers. eg: Observe Timojin and his efforts to invalidate, deride science whenever he can. There are also others far more devious in their "operandi modus"
Thats something I have wondered too, I have been yelled to be stupid, ignorant, delusional and so on, only because I challenge their position by logic and reason, funny thing is that they dont know hardly anything about the basis of my conviction and I know often more about their basis of conviction than they themselves, go figure. Well, if Richard Dawkins publicly tells hes peers to mock theist what is to wonder... It works otherway around too, but, what kind is the God then that those Theist worship? "Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) proclaimed that "God is dead." [Reference 1]. By this he meant that the Christian world view was no longer the dominant influence on the the thought of Western culture. Nietzsche reasoned that mankind had once created God through wishful thinking, but the nineteenth century man intellectually matured to the point where he rejected God's existence. [Reference 2]. Intellectuals throughout the world were embracing atheism as their world view, and the ideas of these intellectuals were beginning to influence the common people throughout Western civilization. According to Nietzsche, scientific and technological advances had made belief in God untenable. But Nietzsche saw a contradiction in the thought of these intellectuals. Though he agreed with their atheism, he rejected their acceptance of traditional moral values. Nietzsche argued that, since God is dead, traditional values have died with Him. [Reference 3]. If the God of the Bible does not exist, reasoned Nietzsche, then the moral values taught in the Bible should have no hold over mankind. Nietzsche viewed existence as a struggle and redefined the good as "the will to power." [Reference 4]. This was a logical outgrowth of his acceptance of the Darwinian doctrine of the survival of the fittest. Nietzsche called for a group of "supermen" to arise with the boldness to create their own values. [Reference 5]. He proposed that, through their will to power, these "supermen" replace the "soft values" of Christianity with what he called "hard values." Nietzsche believed that the "soft values" of Christianity (self-control, sympathy, love for enemies, human equality, mercy, humility, dependence on God, etc.) were stifling human creativity and progress; these values encouraged mediocrity. But the "hard values" of the supermen (self-assertion, daring creativity, passion, total independence, desire for conquest, etc.) greatly enhance creativity. [Reference 6]. Nietzsche considered the soft values a slave morality, and the hard values a master morality, and he promoted the latter. Nietzsche rejected the idea of universal, unchanging truths. He viewed truths as mere human creations, as metaphors mistaken for objective reality. [Reference 7]. Therefore, Nietzsche showed that, since God is dead, universal truth, like absolute moral values, is dead as well. Nietzsche predicted that the twentieth century man would come of age. By this he meant that the atheist of the twentieth century would realize the consequences of living in a world without God, for without God there are no absolute moral values. Man is free to play God and create his own morality. Because of this, prophesied Nietzsche, the twentieth century would be the bloodiest century in human history. [Reference 8]. Still, Nietzsche was optimistic, for man could create his own meaning, truth, and morality. Set free from belief in a non-existent God, man could excel like never before. Nietzsche viewed the changes that would occur as man becoming more than man (the superman or overman), rather than man becoming less than man. Nietzsche was the forerunner of postmodernism. A key aspect of modernism was its confidence that, through reason, man could find absolute truth and morality. Postmodernism rejects this confidence in human reason. All claims to having found absolute truth and morality are viewed by postmodernists as mere creations of the human mind. [Reference 9]. The history of the twentieth century has proven Nietzsche's basic thesis correct. Western culture's abandonment of the Christian world view has led to a denial of both universal truth and absolute moral values. The twentieth century has proven to be the bloodiest century in human history. [Reference 10]. Hence, the Christian thinker must object to the optimism of Nietzsche. The death of God is not a step forward for man; it is a step backward—a dangerous step backward. If God is dead, then man is dead as well." http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/thedeathoftruth.htm Something to think about
How is "Universe created itself from nothing" more plausible than that it was created by God? First one is to me much more difficult to understand, impossible to be honest. Both unproven, to suggest otherwise is fallacy. So its by reasoning and logic which side you will choose. Or to me a least, no divine revelations, so far But this one needs its own thread I guess.
You don't agree because that is how it is for you, and you choose to, and/or not. to accept anything else. One can change ones mind directly by suppressing natural instincts, and latch on to what they may consider the positive points of their preferred position. Eventually one can forget the original instinct. Intentionally doing no harm isn't s simple as you seem to think. Plus I agree that it does not require you to affirm belief in God, as for the reasons. It is because of God we are able to ascend to such heights. That is foundational principal. Once you accept God, you become aware of it. Of course if one doesn't accept God, then ones foundational priniciples will facilitate a different route, according to the individiual If you don't accept God, you are still aware of such virtues as do no harm, which goes as far as you are prepared to accept. The highest being 'do unto others as you would have them do to yourself'. This is based on intelligence. To be honourable is to embrace this intelligence. Most people use this intelligence to some degree or other. Ultimately it rests with the individual. The individual is far more complex than what he or she projects. From my foundational pov, every single individual has a relationship with its source. What that source is, is understood by each, and acts accordingly throughout their lives. jan.
