jump to last post 1-32 of 32 discussions (370 posts)

Is There a God?/ Why Do You Believe There Isn't a God

  1. RoseAsauresRex profile image60
    RoseAsauresRexposted 5 years ago

    "Do you beleive in good and evil? In morality? do you love anything or anyone? what is love?" With out God there is no good or evil, it would only be a matter of opinion as to what good and evil would be. With out a moral law giver, there is no moral law

    1. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Both are perceived concepts establish based on actions.
      Yes. Wrote a Hub on it and where it comes from, which the human conscience.
      Yes.
      Wrote a Hub on it.
      Untrue.
      Untrue.

    2. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I can't take your question seriously, ref. this god thing, until you can define "it" in a form other than opinion.
      Can you do that for me?
      If you can, I'd love to chat with you about the possibility of its existence
      Ty.
      Qwark

      1. Rafini profile image83
        Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        God is moral law.


        big_smile smile  Hi Qwark.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          G'mornin' Raf:
          It's early. Let me pour ya a nice fresh, hot cuppa coffee. smile:
          Now, lets see....oh yeh, thank you for another "opinion" on the definition of this "god thing."
          Have a good'n!  smile:
          Qwark

          1. Rafini profile image83
            Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            smile lol big_smile

            you kill me, ya know?  big_smile

            1. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Raf:
              Naw, I couln't "kill ya!"
              What'd I do without your "opinions?"
              Life would just be miserable for me....smile:
              Qwark

              1. Rafini profile image83
                Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                awww, shucks...!  big_smile smile

                1. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  smile:

    3. Titen-Sxull profile image93
      Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Those are some bold assertions. Without a Law Giver there is no morality? Yet even Piranha's in a feeding frenzy don't eat each other. If you took the time to study nature you'd see quite clearly that morality is something which has evolved, particularly altruism and empathy, to exist primarily in social animals like humans.

      One doesn't need some spooky sky man to say that murder is wrong, we can see the damage such actions do to others through simple natural empathy.

      And what we see when we look at religious morality is that God's moral laws are often those of primitive men.

      Have you ever read the Old Testament? In it the Biblical God commands genocide, condones slavery, the law says that women who commit adultery should be stoned, along with rebellious children. Dogmatic religious morality is what happens when people lose touch with natural empathy.

      And by the way, good and evil are words we use to describe human behaviors, good behaviors are generally positive for the individual or society and have little negative impact. Evil behaviors harm others and usually have NO positive impact.

      1. AtYourService profile image59
        AtYourServiceposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You seem to assert that a Piranha's not eating one of its own constitutes an action that falls under the category of that which is "moral."  But consider whether the piranha is acting in accordance with duty, or from duty (see Kant's Fundamentals of the Metaphysics of Morality). 

        Do you really think that the piranha heads to the frenzy saying to itself, "Now, as much as I'd really like to eat my friends, I know that I ought not to do that, so I won't."  Of course it doesn't!  It's simply acting on that which its nature has determined.

        However, if we say that the Piranha does indeed act "morally" simply because it is acting in accordance with its nature, then I guess we should also say that human beings are acting "morally" when they kill someone in a moment of passion, or commit rape as a result of lust and desire for control.  Additionally, we would have to say that the naturally happy person who stops the murderer or rapist because they see that such an action will result in sadness and pain is also acting morally, because they have done that which their nature suggested to them.  So it is both moral to commit murder and to stop murder.  Such a contradiction is ridiculous!   

        Feelings of empathy and altruism (and feelings of all sorts) are not the basis of morality, and acting in accordance with them is not acting morally at all. 

        Now, perhaps we don't need, as you say, "some spooky sky man" to determine some absolute form of ethics (though frankly, I think that it's awful hard to assert any form of morality without such a being), you should at least withdraw your claim that our moral actions are a result of our nature.

        1. Titen-Sxull profile image93
          Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No the piranha does not go through an internal dialogue about what to do, in fact that is exactly my point, these behaviors we call "moral" exist in nature even without the level of cognition seen in humans. In fact our higher cognitive ability is actually a double-edged sword of sorts.

          Scientists have found that the most intelligent animals also have the greatest tendency to commit acts of senseless violence. Chimpanzees for instance have been known to go to war with other groups over land and even fashion crude spears. Dolphins to have been known to kill without cause.

          Your assertion that somehow we would have to acknowledge murder as moral is absurd. When did I ever insinuate that because a behavior was possible within an animal's nature than automatically makes it moral? I'm not sure why you're leaping to such absurd conclusions. 

          No empathy would not lead us to conclude that murder is moral, as I said before behaviors which hurt other individuals or are detrimental to society.

          Yes empathy is the basis of morality for humans and human morality also benefits from our ability to form hypothetical situations in our mind. We can imagine what it's like to be someone else and play out possible consequences from possible actions we might take. Empathy tells us what damage we might be doing and from this we tend to extrapolate many of our morals. It is this principle from which Christianity gets one of its most popular teachings and many other philosophers throughout the ages have given their own version of a similar rule... you may know it as the Golden Rule.

          Treat people the way you want to be treated might as well be the definition of empathy.

          Now I'm curious as to why you think morality cannot exist without a deity. It is obvious that  moral behavior is important to the survival of social species of animals. It makes perfect sense that those species who live in societies and act morally and help each other have a better chance of survival than those that, for instance, eat their own young. Empathy is even more important for placental mammals like us who require a great deal of care when we are young. Without strong instinctual morality reinforcing the social mores and rules we set up human society would have never gotten started.

          I encourage you to do some further research on the subject.

          1. AtYourService profile image59
            AtYourServiceposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            First, let me say thank you for a legitimate response, I truly appreciate being able to "spar" like this.  Anyway, the dialogue.

            "these behaviors we call "moral" exist in nature even without the level of cognition seen in humans."

            I think there is a difference between those actions which you call moral and those which I do.  As you asserted in your first response to this whole thread, you seem to think that those actions are moral which are generally good for society and cause little or no harm.  This, however, is not what I would call moral behavior.  I would call it beneficial, certainly, but if it has not been done out of some sense of duty, then it is only beneficial--not moral.  I think that there is a moral difference between the naturally happy person who goes around making other people happy (someone who does it out of their nature) and someone who is internally depressed, but out of the knowledge that happiness is a good thing, decides to promote happiness instead of the sadness they feel inside (thus doing it from duty). According to your view, both these people are deserving of the same respect in terms of morality, because their actions yield beneficial results.  I, however, think that only the second person is deserving of any respect, because it is this person who follows their moral law on principle. 

            I would also wonder if you think that the thought of killing someone, or a desire to commit adultery is immoral.  Since these don't have any directly negative effect on society, it seems that they do not fit your definition of that which is immoral.  You might argue that such thoughts can lead to immoral behaviors and could thus be considered immoral, but for the sake of this example, let's say that the person only has the thoughts and never acts on them.  I'm just curious. 

            "When did I ever insinuate that because a behavior was possible within an animal's nature than automatically makes it moral?"

            This, quite honestly, I'll give you.  I failed to read your first post as carefully as I should have (namely, the last paragraph) and I made a critically inaccurate judgment regarding the consequences of your position.  My sincere apologies.

            So, why is it that I think that empathy is not at the core of morality, and why should I posit that it is necessary for us to call only those actions moral which are done from a sense of duty?    This, I think, is one of the first areas in which our opinions differ, and it is worthy of looking over. 

            Rather than empathy, I would suggest that it is our ability to  acknowledge  an action as being moral or immoral that lies at the core of true morality (Note, it is the ability to do so, not the acknowledgment in itself).  If a tornado destroys a city and kills thousands, it has done something that harms others and has had no positive effect.  Yet, would we call the action of the tornado immoral?  If a dog bites another dog or a person, do we claim that the dog is immoral? Or, if the dog refrains from biting people, do we uplift it as being an animal that has a true sense of morality--a dog with great integrity?  If a mentally handicapped person kills someone by mistake, do we claim that the person is terribly immoral? 

            The tornado serves as an example by which I question your definition of those things which are immoral.  The examples of the dog and the mentally handicapped individual serve as ways for me to suggest that there are indeed certain beings that are capable of empathy, but that I would not consider to be creatures who are capable of being judged as moral or immoral. 

            Because of this, although I am somewhat unsure of my footing here, I think I would reverse the statement from your most recent post, saying instead that our ability to form hypothetical situations in our mind is the basis of morality for humans and that human morality also benefits from empathy.  If I can consider a situation in my mind as having terribly negative consequences, I should avoid that action on principle, whether I have any empathy for the others involved or not.  If I choose to avoid this behavior based on principle, I have done the moral thing, and if empathy--a feeling of aversion towards having the behavior done to myself--assists, so be it.  If I simply avoid the behavior out of empathy, but am completely lacking in any ability to consider the consequences--whether the action benefits society or harms it-- then I have acted beneficially, but not morally.

            Immorality, I believe, exists when in a situation such as this-- "I know that my performing this action will harm others.  Despite this, I am going to continue with the act."   

            Alright, so, moving on to the "morality without a deity" issue.  My parenthetical comment regarding my belief that it is difficult to posit any form of morality without also asserting the existence of a god, was aimed more at saying that I think it is difficult to show why it is that anyone ought to act in a moral way if there is no god.  I likely should have clarified that, so I apologize. 

            I agree, moral systems can exist without a deity.  I can set up a moral system right now.   I would likely fail, however, to show why it is that someone should follow that system.  That is, unless we get into the realm of there being a form of morality closely related to Platonic forms, in that they have an objective reality outside of the existence of anything else...but that is an entirely different conversation. 

            I'm eager to continue this.  I know my skills in reasoning have a long way to go, but I'm working on it, so I truly appreciate being able to have a discussion like this.  Thanks.

            1. Titen-Sxull profile image93
              Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The difference between the two people you describe seems to be one of motivation or intent. One is motivated by a sense that he is required to do good even if he himself is miserable and the other only does good because of his own self-interest. While certainly I think that self-interest has a lot to do with all human behavior I do not think that those two people's internal motivation is necessarily mutually exclusive. In other words I think someone can act morally both because it is the right thing to do (what you might call duty) and also because it is beneficial. Let me put it another way, you can act morally both for yourself AND others at the same time.

              "I would also wonder if you think that the thought of killing someone, or a desire to commit adultery is immoral."

              I'm not sure I have an answer, that's a tough one. Many people fantasize about killing or committing other acts deemed immoral by society the real question is whether these fantasies are mere day-dreams or if they are actually planning on acting. An employee might spend time imagining ways to end the life of a boss or fellow employee they loathe but if they're just venting their emotions in a realm of pure hypothetical thought I don't see the harm.

              Another thing to consider is how much cognitive thought goes into the fantasy itself. If a married man sees a woman walk by and his eyes follow her and his mind gets caught in a momentary fantasy that fades almost as soon as it enters his mind it is a bit different from him spending night after night imagining his wife is some other woman as they make love. Plus there are dreams, what if a man who is entirely faithful to his wife even in his thoughts dreams he's having sex with another woman.

              In general I would argue that moral and immoral, right and wrong and good and evil are labels that should only be applied to actions and the thoughts that plan those actions. Mere fantasy would be excluded from those labels until it becomes actual premeditation of a deed.

              "The examples of the dog and the mentally handicapped individual serve as ways for me to suggest that there are indeed certain beings that are capable of empathy, but that I would not consider to be creatures who are capable of being judged as moral or immoral."

              Well for the mentally handicapped it depends on the severity of course however I would argue that any accidental death, though tragic, is not necessarily immoral (depending upon the circumstances). In my original response I mentioned that good/evil and right and wrong are labels we attach to human behaviors and indeed we wouldn't attach the same concepts we have for each other to animals or acts of nature.

              "If I can consider a situation in my mind as having terribly negative consequences, I should avoid that action on principle, whether I have any empathy for the others involved or not."

              I agree however without empathy you might have NO perspective on whether the consequences are truly negative. Without empathy, without feeling for our fellow human being, we wouldn't be able to see the difference between a negative and positive consequence.

              "If I simply avoid the behavior out of empathy, but am completely lacking in any ability to consider the consequences--whether the action benefits society or harms it-- then I have acted beneficially, but not morally."

              I would agree that what is beneficial is not ALWAYS moral, certainly not. As I alluded to in my previous post there is a weighing of pros and cons. Slavery for instance was certainly beneficial to society, it was a massive part of the economy, however after people questioned the status quo they found the cons outweighed the pros. This is why things like slavery rely on dehumanization, dehumanization overcomes the natural empathy we feel toward one another. I certainly agree that empathy and the ability to look at the hypothetical consequences of a decision go hand in hand in influencing morality. One without the other and we wouldn't have the same sort of morality we have today. That sort of proves my point in one way or another that our morality is merely a complex version of what animals already have and what we inherited from our ape ancestors.

              "My parenthetical comment regarding my belief that it is difficult to posit any form of morality without also asserting the existence of a god, was aimed more at saying that I think it is difficult to show why it is that anyone ought to act in a moral way if there is no go."

              We're a social species and we thrive together. The phrase No Man is an Island comes to mind as well as the phrase it takes a Village to Raise a Child. These figures of speech reveal something about our nature as social animals. Thanks to the mechanisms of morality we've been discussing we humans understand the damage our actions can do and empathy allows us to put ourselves in the shoes of those we influence with our actions. We understand that our actions affect the group as well and perhaps that is who we have a sense of "duty" towards. Most of all we might have a duty to ourselves via what is called the "conscience" or moral compass which I think is a combination of natural empathy and the extrinsic morals we are taught by parents, friends and personal experience.

              One doesn't need an objective morality that transcends humanity, or some immortal judge to decide who is good and who is bad - we already do that to ourselves. Society and civilization have created many moral codes throughout the centuries and while yes at first they often required summoning up vengeful gods to reinforce those morals and scare people into obedience as time as gone on we've learned more and more about ourselves, our psychology and our evolution. Just take a look back at history and you'll see the slow but sure progression of morality and that with it our quality of life has gone up as well. So we may not have God given morals or even Platos forms but we have our own constantly shifting human collective morality. Yes it's a damn mess but that's just kinda the way it is, in my opinion anyway. And really would anyone want to subscribe to a dogmatic morality? To be honest with you I think a dogmatic absolute morality would be rebelled against far more than the subjective-collective morality of current society.

              "I'm eager to continue this.  I know my skills in reasoning have a long way to go, but I'm working on it, so I truly appreciate being able to have a discussion like this.  Thanks."

              Indeed it's nice to talk to someone who is interested in real conversation. There's some interesting ideas about this subject floating around the internet including a fairly recent talk by Sam Harris about how he thinks science can help determine moral values. It's not something I agree with fully myself but it is an interesting take on the subject:

              http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Ca … man_Values

              1. AtYourService profile image59
                AtYourServiceposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                “…you can act morally both for yourself AND others at the same time.”

                I have no quarrel with this statement.  People certainly can act morally “both because it is the right thing to do…and also because it is beneficial.”  The problem is with which variable one decides to take out of the equation.  Moreover, the problem is with which form of motivation affects a person first.  Perhaps the actual use of something like an equation would help.

                Principle+Empathy=Morality
                Empathy=Benevolence
                Principle=Morality
                Empathy+Principle=Benevolence

                Okay, so let me explain these a little bit, since I know they go against the strict mathematical grain.  When someone acts beneficially entirely because of empathy, I think they have only performed a benevolent/beneficial action.  If someone acts beneficially based on principle, I think they have acted morally (I’ll get to the part about “without empathy we have no perspective on consequences” part in a bit). 

                If someone decides to act beneficially first on principle, and then is encouraged by empathy they have acted morally.  If, however, someone decides to act beneficially because of empathy, and then develops principles to encourage the action after the fact, they have only acted beneficially. 

                This last case is a bit like the explanations of evolutionary psychologists.  They look at the behavior of, say, a woman deciding to marry a man who is wealthy and strong as being the result of her evolutionary desire to have her children protected.  But, there are any number of evolutionary ways to describe this behavior if we simply get a little creative.  When we try to apply a theory in this way, we get a bunch of results that sound accurate, but each of which is equally likely. 

                In the same way, if someone acts first on empathy and then applies principles, they might come up with any number of rationalizations for the action, each of which being equally likely, but none of them being what I would call “real.”  However, if someone can clearly see, prior to performing an action and without being swayed by feelings, the consequences of an action (again, I’ll get to the perspective and empathy part here shortly) then they have acted on principle alone, what I would call moral action.  If such an action is then encouraged and strengthened by empathy, that’s wonderful, and I’m glad to hear that the person has some feelings.

                “Another thing to consider is how much cognitive thought goes into the fantasy itself.”

                Why?  You say in the next paragraph that “Mere fantasy would be excluded from those labels until it becomes actual premeditation of a deed.”  So why should it matter how much thought goes into a fantasy if it simply remains a fantasy?

                It sounds like you’re uncomfortable with stating that the creation and development of fantasies is never a moral or immoral action, and I can’t blame you.  But at the same time, if morality is only based on actions and their results, then there is absolutely no reason to say that the creation of a fantasy is moral or immoral. 

                I indeed do think that the development of fantasies involving immoral actions is an immoral behavior in itself, but if we want to assert that, then we would have change your definition of morality a bit.

                “In my original response I mentioned that good/evil and right and wrong are labels we attach to human behaviors and indeed we wouldn't attach the same concepts we have for each other to animals or acts of nature.”

                I’m a little confused by this.  In your first response you do indeed say that good and evil are terms we attach to human behaviors, but at the same time you give the example of piranhas not eating one another as being representative of moral-type behavior in nature.  So do the piranhas act in a way that is not at all analogous to the moral behavior of humans?  I’m guessing you would disagree. 

                But if their behavior is entirely analogous to human moral behavior, then why shouldn’t we call their actions moral or immoral, good or evil?  If my deciding not to kill someone when they make me angry is the same as a piranha not eating its fellow piranha at the frenzy, what serves as reason to suggest that one of these actions is any more good or evil than the other?  Why should we only apply the terms good and evil to human behavior if there isn’t any difference? 

                “Without empathy, without feeling for our fellow human being, we wouldn't be able to see the difference between a negative and positive consequence.”

                First of all, touché—good one.  But at the same time, I have to disagree.  I think that even if we had no sense or idea of what other people felt as a result of certain actions, we would still have a way of determining positive and negative consequences.

                For instance, assuming I had no sense of empathy, let’s say I came across someone robbing a store.  Without saying to myself, “I wouldn’t want to be robbed,” I think that I could still observe the action and develop the following argument for its immorality.

                Person 1 has taken from person 2 that which was originally the property of person 2.
                Person 1 has not given anything to person 2 constituting payment for or trading of the object.
                Person 1 has thus reaped a benefit that leaves person 2 with less than he began with.
                Since the benefits and losses are unequal, Person 1 has acted immorally.

                It’s sort of a utilitarian approach, but I think it could work without empathy.  If we apply it as a universal maxim, we might say—only perform those actions which result in benefit for all persons involved.

                Again, this is not to say that this is the way that we should operate, or that we should use this as a moral code, it is simply put here to show what I think to be a valid example of someone determining positive and negative consequences without involving empathy. 

                “I certainly agree that empathy and the ability to look at the hypothetical consequences of a decision go hand in hand in influencing morality. One without the other and we wouldn't have the same sort of morality we have today.”

                I believe that even without empathy, we would indeed have the morality that exists today, but I suppose that this belief is the direct result of my also believing that there is an absolute, objective moral code in the universe that applies to everyone in all situations, whether they feel a certain way about performing the action or not.  Empathy enhances our motivation to act in accordance with said law, but it is not, in my humble opinion, that which determines morality. 

                “So we may not have God given morals or even Platos forms but we have our own constantly shifting human collective morality. Yes it's a damn mess but that's just kinda the way it is, in my opinion anyway.”

                You’re absolutely entitled to your opinion, so I won’t say too much on this one, but I would like to say that, yes, things are a damn mess, but that I don’t believe that they are mess because morality itself is shifting and changing, but because people are constantly going against the eternal moral law.  And yes, I know that’s sort of a wishy-washy term, but my response has gotten pretty long as it is, so I might be able to address that in another post.

                “To be honest with you I think a dogmatic absolute morality would be rebelled against far more than the subjective-collective morality of current society.”

                I don’t think the fact that an absolute morality would be rebelled against has any bearing on the truth of whether or not an objective, absolute morality exists.

                Thanks again for your thoughtful response, and I am letting the Sam Harris video buffer as I’m typing this, so I’ll be watching it soon.  Thanks for the link!

                1. Titen-Sxull profile image93
                  Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "When someone acts beneficially entirely because of empathy, I think they have only performed a benevolent/beneficial action.  If someone acts beneficially based on principle, I think they have acted morally (I’ll get to the part about “without empathy we have no perspective on consequences” part in a bit)."

                  The problem is that the outside observer is usually only aware of the action itself and not the motivation. So someone giving to charity because of a combination of empathy and principle would appear no different than someone acting solely on one of those factors.

                  "If, however, someone decides to act beneficially because of empathy, and then develops principles to encourage the action after the fact, they have only acted beneficially."

                  This may be the primary area we disagree. I think that our natural moral framework is the only reason we have developed moral principles in the first place. The sense of 'this is the right thing to do' comes from social reinforcement. The moral compass, in other words, is a combination of Nature and Nurture (as the dichotomy is often phrased), nature provides the empathy and basic moral framework and nurture provides that sense of duty and goes into more detail than our basic nature.

                  "When we try to apply a theory in this way, we get a bunch of results that sound accurate, but each of which is equally likely."

                  Indeed I agree there are a great many plausible options when it comes to questions like that and hopefully science will be able to refine their hypotheses and falsify or confirm them.

                  "In the same way, if someone acts first on empathy and then applies principles, they might come up with any number of rationalizations for the action, each of which being equally likely, but none of them being what I would call “real.” "

                  That is why I think they work in collusion, with natural empathy and nutured principle each playing their role. You may have a point about actions based on pure empathy however in some sense I think it might be impossible for an adult human to truly act solely on empathy. We might see empathetic actions from toddlers of infants but we probably wouldn't call the actions of an infant moral or immoral because they do not have a fully formed moral compass yet.

                  "But at the same time, if morality is only based on actions and their results, then there is absolutely no reason to say that the creation of a fantasy is moral or immoral."

                  That is the conclusion I reached and you're right that I arrived at it tenetatively although upon further thought I think it makes sense. We can't really judge the thoughts of others and fantasizing about something immoral is not the same as acting it out. I think there is a line between fantasy and premeditation of an actual act.

                  "but at the same time you give the example of piranhas not eating one another as being representative of moral-type behavior in nature."

                  This was an example to point out the source of our morality as evolving from the ground up instead of being delivered from the top (a God) down. Perhaps it was a mistake to word it that way, my point was merely that what we call moral behavior exists in many social animals.

                  "But if their behavior is entirely analogous to human moral behavior, then why shouldn’t we call their actions moral or immoral, good or evil?"

                  Well the "moral" behaviors of animals are not entirely analogous to our own. I was merely trying to point out that on that behaviors we might deem moral exist outside of our species in nature thus suggesting that they evolved rather than they were granted on stone tablets or written on the tablet of our hearts as some religious folks might say.

                  "It’s sort of a utilitarian approach, but I think it could work without empathy.  If we apply it as a universal maxim, we might say—only perform those actions which result in benefit for all persons involved."

                  I see your point and I generally agree with your example however it'd be hard to make those judgments without empathy or at least it'd be hard to make them accurately. Without knowing how Person 2 feels about being robbed from we're left to make a cold decision devoid of feeling. Is it possible? I guess. Is it moral? I don't know.

                  "Empathy enhances our motivation to act in accordance with said law, but it is not, in my humble opinion, that which determines morality."

                  I think the two are interdependent really. Nature and Nurture both play their part. In my personal opinion what people often mistake as an objective moral code (passed down from a deity or simply transcendent in and of itself) is probably just the natural moral framework we all have. It is a very hard thing to judge as by the time we are truly cognizant of ourselves and others our parents have already given us moral guidance and the line between what is social and what is natural in our morality is blurred.

                  "And yes, I know that’s sort of a wishy-washy term, but my response has gotten pretty long as it is, so I might be able to address that in another post."

                  I do have to wonder what contact we humans have with this eternal law. Where do we make contact with it? Is it in our minds? Our genetics? And what sets it apart from natural morality? When you talk of an eternal moral law and I talk of a natural moral framework I think we are talking about the same thing, the difference being that I don't think its eternal or absolute just a product of natural evolution.

                  I'm curious to know more about it though so don't worry about long responses smile

                  1. AtYourService profile image59
                    AtYourServiceposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Alright, so, simply for the sake of maintaining some sense of focus, I propose a summary.  Thus far, I have asserted these things:  That morality does exist, that it is dependent on our ability to create hypothetical scenarios and may be encouraged by empathy, and that there is a single, moral code that is a part of reality as much as the law of physics or Platonic forms, and that everyone ought to follow. 

                    As I understand it, you have asserted the following:  That morality does exist, that it is subject to change over time, that it is most generally defined as the description of human behaviors that, after having weighed pros and cons are either beneficial or harmful to society, and that it is dependent upon empathy and the results of evolutionary processes.
                    If I’m wrong or skewed on any of these things, feel free to let me know, and we can go ahead and clear them up smile

                    If you are curious to know about the eternal law that I’m talking about, I would urge you to read Plato’s dialogue called “Meno.”  I believe, though I’m not sure off the top of my head, that it is in this dialogue that Socrates talks about there not being any “perfect” circles in nature, but that we can clearly understand what it is to be a circle because the form of a circle is an inherent part of the universe (more or less). 

                    They also go into a short conversation about the soul being exposed to all the truths of geometry and physics prior to its being assigned to a body, thus explaining why such truths are obvious to us when we are presented with them.  Personally, I think that sounds a little ridiculous, but I’m not sure that Socrates or Plato entirely believed that either.  It was likely just a clever way of explaining the concept. 

                    Morality, I think, is exactly like Plato’s circle.  It is an inherent part of the universe, whether any human has ever exhibited it or not, or even whether humans exist or not. 

                    Personally, as much as I’m enjoying this conversation, I suggest that we approach a different question: Does a god exist?  Differently phrased, is there a being that brought the universe into being at the start. 

                    I think this question is a little more aptly suited to this particular forum, and I think two people such as ourselves could have quite an interesting and constructive conversation about it.  If you want to go into this, I’ll let you go first (I’m assuming you’ll take the negative position, so I’ll go ahead and take the positive). 

                    I hope to hear back soon!

    4. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      one can have ethics without a religion or belief in god

      1. hanging out profile image60
        hanging outposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        yes they can BUT it is not the level of ethics that God wants. Often we banter about ethics and morals, whether they come from God or not.
        Gods morality and ethics come from God
        mans morality and ethics come from themselves.

        God is not concerned with man ethics or morality
        God is concerned with Gods standards or ethics and morality.

        debate over.
        smile

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Are these the "ethics" you are talking about?

            "I will sweep away everything in all your land," says the LORD.  "I will sweep away both people and animals alike. Even the birds of the air and the fish in the sea will die.  I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity," says the LORD.  "I will crush Judah and Jerusalem with my fist and destroy every last trace of their Baal worship.  I will put an end to all the idolatrous priests, so that even the memory of them will disappear.  For they go up to their roofs and bow to the sun, moon, and stars.  They claim to follow the LORD, but then they worship Molech, too.  So now I will destroy them!  And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do.  They no longer ask for the LORD's guidance or seek my blessings."   (Zephaniah 1:2-6 NLT)

          Nasty and psychotic don't you think?

        2. 0
          Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          morals are not necessarily ethical.  Morals are a set of rules prescribed by religion, including in the bible (because there are such stupid rules in there like killing people)

    5. pisean282311 profile image56
      pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      agreed...

    6. pisean282311 profile image56
      pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      agreed...

    7. 67
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes there is good and evil; moral is what the Creator-God has commanded human beings to do.
      We must love the Creator-God who is all love and mercy for the human beings.
      The Creator-God does exist and I believe in Him.
      Jesus was not god or son of god.

    8. nightwork4 profile image59
      nightwork4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      moral law is what people have determined to be right or wrong over the length of our existence. 10,000 years ago, i'm betting that murder was still considered wrong. the incas believed in many gods but they still had morals. it isn't about some god, it's called common sense.

      1. hanging out profile image60
        hanging outposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        well you cant really call the incas moral then or full of common sense. You should read up on what these human blood drinkers did on a daily basis before you go saying that X,000 years ago murder was still considered wrong.
        Murder was considered right through much of society if:
        1)there was enough money in it
          2) she was pretty enough and abused by her husband
           3) if one did not get caught.

    9. thisisoli profile image65
      thisisoliposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Morality is subjective, but having a non-existant entity dictate the level of your morality suggests a more severe problem than creating your own moral boundaries.

    10. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
      Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes I think there is good and evil. Yes morality exists. I do love.

      Love is simply our need to make other people or even things part of us. A big part of it is empathy.

      We all perceive doing intentional harm as evil. 

      Morality decreed by a god is a decree, not morality. Morality is an objective good. Is it right to take what is not yours? Of course it isn't. Why not? Because it brings real harm. If you take from someone, they can no longer use what you took. At times this hits home if it a persons rent money or a drug they need to survive. There are degrees of harm that are done to the victims, of course. Which is why we judge an act in accordance to the specific scenario involved, and no longer cut people's hands off for taking a loaf of read to feed their starving family.

      But immoral acts escalate and end up hurting some times many people.
      Someone mentioned adultery. Is it a crime that does not hurt society? Hardly. It effects kids and how they grow up, it effects the spouses of the people that do it. They feel betrayed and often their trust is stolen from them.  And if disease comes from it it can effect hundreds of people.

      If there was no disease involved, if people didn't care about fidelity, If people make an agreement that they will sleep with other people,  if no one was harmed in any way, it would not be immoral. But as long as people are who they are it is.  Because immorality is doing intentional harm.

      Others have touched on the idea that morality is natural, and it is. Not only does being immoral hurt others, it hurts you. You bring consequences upon yourself that are usually negative. The thief  or murderer on the run knows that there are consequences if they are caught. That may not deter them but it means they have to watch their back. How can you live a stable happy life on the run? And if you are caught, you have to pay.

      So morality is cause and effect. More so than any god, cause and effect demands morality or your life will be hell. It's natural. How can you expect to live a secure and happy life when you bring conflict upon yourself and others?

      I want to live a happy and secure life. So I don't take what is not mine, I don't cheat on my wife, and I don't harm anyone for gain or revenge or any other intent. I'm selfish that way.

      Again, and some will know I did a hub on this subject, but how can I justify hurting others when I do not want to be hurt? The consequences of hurting others is being hurt yourself. So it is a very selfish thing to be moral. It is a contract or understanding. I will not hurt you if you do not hurt me. It's the oldest social contract in history. Do unto others as you would they do unto you.

      Not originated by Jesus or the Christian god. This phrase is said in a hundred different ways by almost every ancient culture of the world from ancient Sumeria to China.

      No god is required for morality to exist. Again, morality can not be decreed.
      Those who think it can don't know what it means.

    11. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
      Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh. And why do I believe there is no god? I don't. I just don't believe there is one. There is a difference. I do not actively believe there is no god. I don't know and I know full well no one else does either, no matter how much they claim it lives in their heart or where ever else. To say one knows for certain a god exists is a lie. But to say with certainty that you know one does not exist is a lie as well.

      There are probably in excess of 4000 gods to choose from. Don't forget, you lack belief in only 1 less than an atheist does.

      So why do I lack belief in your god? Because there is no evidence of it. I lack belief about big foot in the same way. It may exist, it may not. Until we catch one no one will know for sure. Why believe in something speculative?

      Do you believe there are invisible pink squirrels living in my attic?   Can you prove they don't? No. Can I prove they do? No. But no one can know until they are found.

      You can always falsify a claim if you find one instance that contradicts it. You can prove ravens are not all black the day you see a white one. But until you do, there is no proof either way that all ravens are black, and there is no proof that they are not. Your god is in the same situation. Until it shows up, you can't know it exists.

      So you are on the better end of things. Show me just one god, and I won't be able to be an atheist anymore. You have over 4000 to choose from. Can you prove even one?

      Until someone can, lacking belief in them is my only rational option. Should probably be yours too, but each to their own.

      1. TahoeDoc profile image95
        TahoeDocposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly. Clear and logical. Thank you.

    12. Jesus was a hippy profile image62
      Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Right and wrong are subjective. If there is such a thing as gods moral law then you must agree that it is right to stone a rape victim to death for not crying out in a public place. You agree that it is right to kill anyone who tries to lead you away from god.

      I know that these things are wrong because I have my own morals.

      I dont get them from a book that is full of such hatefull nonsense.

      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "I know that these things are wrong because I have my own morals."

        If your way is correct, and right and wrong is relative, who says "your morals" are any better than someone else's? Book or no book!

        You can't be serious!
        And you come on these forums with such condescension! Is that right? Or is that (morally) wrong?
        Obviously your morals allow for it. lol

        1. Jesus was a hippy profile image62
          Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          My morals are FAR better then that of the morals in the bible.

          You honestly think that a rape victim should be stoned to death because she didnt cry out in a public place?

          Oh thats really moral.

          What a nice guy you must be.

  2. 0
    just_curiousposted 5 years ago

    I think your argument probably held some water hundreds of years ago. When people were still uncivilized. I believe the evolution of our way of thinking and our culture has led to the point that we can, as a society, come to conclusions as to what is moral, by simply using good judgement. What is morality other than living together peacefully and making decisions that are in the best interests of you, your fellow man and the planet? It is possible, now, to do this with out what is perceived as Divine guidance. I don't think love of God or spirituality is necessary in this process for everybody and professed faith has been shown to be a hindrance to some in making moral decisions.

    1. Rafini profile image83
      Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What is 'civilized'?  Webster's defines it as:  enlightened, refined, humanized.

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't believe the world today can be considered anymore civilized than it was hundreds of years ago.  The only real difference between life from then til today is the technological advancement.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree and while some technology is great ,I dont see how its advanced the Earth at all.

        1. Rafini profile image83
          Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There's no such thing as advancing the Earth.  Earth will do what it's supposed to do no matter what humans do.

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            For the main parts thats true ,but I also think we as humans have aged the Earth,abused the environment prematurely, through our greed and total disregard for the planet as a whole.

            Most of the oceans are polluted.
            Landfills overflowing or being shipped and dumped in the ocean.
            Gas ,emissions filling the skies..

            Oh I could go on ,but Im sure you get my point.

            1. superwags profile image83
              superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It means nothing though from a purely planetary perspective. The earth is 4.5 billion years old and we've been a species for around 0.003% of this time - and only polluting on an industrial scale for around 200 years of this.

              We haven't even scratched the surface!

              1. Rafini profile image83
                Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                We haven't even scratched the surface!


                omg!!  This makes it sound like we should do more!  As in, "do as much damage as you possibly can because it doesn't matter anyway!"

                1. superwags profile image83
                  superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Haha, no that's not what I'm saying at all. But the thread began by talking about the earth from a purely plantetary perspective. I just think that we rather overstate our influence upon the world from this perspective.

                  As Hawking said; "the human race is just a chemical scum on the surface of a moderately sized planet, on the edge of a moderately sized galaxy." In a sense, even this emphasis is wrong, because where we live in the universe is fairly atypical.

            2. 0
              Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              comes from the attitude that humans think they have the right to dominate over the earth & everything on it

      2. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You cannot be serious. It is not those supporting the stance of the church who fought for the end of segregation, or equality. It is not the religious right who believes in the compassionate care of the poor.

        I'm not saying the world is compassionate or moral, but developed nations have raised the level of the education of their societies to the point that their citizens are perfectly capable of answering the question of what appropriate behavior might be from a moral stand point. In my opinion.

        And don't even get me started on the church's stance on the environment.

        1. Rafini profile image83
          Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Totally serious.

          Abuse, rape, incest, humiliation for the sake of humiliating someone, bullying, discrimination, wealth distribution - need I continue?

          How about picking on people for being different?  Because they're gay, extra tall or short, overweight, too skinny, "ugly", have freckles, don't meet the "standard" set by society, believe in God (or not), or simply because they have a disability and are unlikely to stand up for themselves.

          When these issues are gone then humans can be considered civilized.

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            These issues have been around since the dawn of time. We realize today that they are wrong. In previous ages they not only continued unchecked, but were  sometimes encouraged. I do not contend that society is perfect. What I believe is that we are capable of seeing right and wrong and making decisions on how to act using our brains. People act in accordance with their conscience. This does not reflect a habit of checking to make sure it is in accordance with the teaching by any religion. It is in accordance with what they believe to be fair.

            1. Rafini profile image83
              Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              and so it has always been.  the world is no more civilized today than it was a couple hundred years ago, because people are people and people never change. hmm  the only thing that has changed are laws and a few attitudes, and yet, the same uncivilized behaviors continue....

              1. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I, of course, disagree; but I think this is because we are looking at this from different angles and, I think, I do get your point. smile

                1. Rafini profile image83
                  Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  smile

      3. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
        Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think it can. But not by much. Evolution is slow and we are barely out of the trees. The bible thinks nothing of slavery, and we don't think that's moral anymore. Human sacrifices were done for thousands of years and yet people even 5000 years ago started thinking they were immoral. Now no one thinks it moral anymore. Genocide was thought to be normal. Leave no one so you don't get kids growing up wanting to go after you and start another war. Now we think it is disgusting and immoral. We are even making international laws against it.

        Yes, people still kill and rape and hurt others in unspeakable ways. But on the whole our morality has improved. We are more civil and more civilized. But you are right, we are not fully civilized yet.

        You talked about people hating gays and anyone different. That's true. But look around. All over the world the "other" people are moving in next door. The strangers or the past are no longer strange.

        When I was a kid I didn't go to school with anyone that was not from white European decent. I didn't see a black person until I was in high school.  He was strange. A novelty. Someone to be a little scared of. Now the streets are full of people from all over the world. They are our friends. My kids went to school with every type of face in the world.

        In Canada gays can marry. It was the 1970s before they were legal, thanks to our PM at the time who said "the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."  Do gays still get beat up? Yes. But it happens far less often than it did. And now there are laws against it.  Hate crimes are not tolerated in Canada. The people themselves are outraged when it happens. That's progress.

        No, the world isn't perfect and may never be. People will hurt others thinking they can get away with it. But eventually more and more people will see that they are also hurting themselves.

        I think the rational, logical mind will develop in the human race over time. I'd like to say we will see in a few thousand years, but neither of us will be here by then.

        But we have not  done with evolving. It's an on going and slow painful process. But if we survive long enough as a species, we might make it to civilized after all.

        1. Rafini profile image83
          Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That's exactly what I'm talking about - Thousands of years, maybe, but not hundreds.  Except, I have to ask, do you really think nobody in existence opposed to slavery or sacrifices way back then?  Not every society accepted these behaviors....

          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
            Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Slaves didn't like it but when they got into power they had slaves. Certainly there were people against slavery and cultures that didn't practice it but they were few and far between. China had them, Japan had them, the Jews had them, the Sumerians had them. The reason Christians were persecuted by Rome was because they roused the slaves to revolt. No other reason. Except when Nero blamed them for burning Rome when he actually did it himself.
            The Jews and Romans got along so it wasn't because the Christians only believed in one god. The Aztec had slaves. It was common. Now it is outlawed. What a change. Still happens though.

            The way I look at it is that when you are traveling between NY and LA, you are where you are until you get there. It takes time. But you will get there. Same with the evolution of morality.

        2. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Truthful, logical and sane comment. How did this manage to get in to the religious forums? I'm in deep shock! smile smile smile

          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
            Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hey Earnest. Shock wasn't what I as going for but I'll take it. wink

            1. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I've been here a while, it's rare to see reality here! smile

    2. fadedsnow profile image60
      fadedsnowposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well said!

      1. qwark profile image60
        qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        G'mornin' Faded:

        "Curious" made just 1 mistake in that comment i.e.

        "I think your argument probably held some water hundreds of years ago. When people were still uncivilized."

        I define "civilized" as Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable.

        I also define "civil" as sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude.

        When has man become a "civil/civilized" creature?

        Not since he has become "modern man!"

        Now, if "curious" means when he says "civilization," an advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions,  I can understand his approach.

        "MAN" IS NOT A CIVIL CREATURE!

        He is a genetic predator preparing, every moment of every day, to destroy himself and most life on this planet!

        Qwark

        1. superwags profile image83
          superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How depressing. I'm not sure you're right, though it may be a matter of semantics.

          I think that we are civilised by virtue of the fact we invented the word and now apply it to ourselves! We fit the bill pretty well, high state of level of culture, social development and technology etc.

          Are we really destroying all life on the planet?

          Either way, the concept that we had no morals before we became "civilised" is erroneous. It does a bit of a diservice to our stone-age forebears given that they survived the first 200,000 years of our existence.

          1. qwark profile image60
            qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Wags:
            If a conscious, semi-intelligent species of life has spent the greatest portion of it's existence trying to destroy others of it's kind and continues to do it with the intent of doing it more efficiently and without compunction, I have a very hard time defining that activity as being "civil."

            I didn't intimate that we are "...really destroying all life on the planet?"

            I said we are preparing, each and every day of our existence, to destroy ourselves without compunction...and we, most certainly, are!

            Qwark

            1. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I smell a pessimist...

              smile

              1. Cagsil profile image84
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Actually you didn't smell anything. You did manage to read his words properly. Qwark is Hubpages' resident pessimist. lol

              2. qwark profile image60
                qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hello Vector:
                Oh yes!
                Pessimism based on fact.
                Convince me otherwise.
                Qwark

                1. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No need to..

                  Not my place to hinder your choice of being miserable. smile

                  All my best..

                  ~Daniel

                  1. qwark profile image60
                    qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hahaha..I have a wonderful life!
                    Miserable? Naw! I'm just a pragmatic realist watching my human brothers rapidly slipping, sliding into a morass of deadly activity that will surely result in creating a new direction of evolution for all life on this planet.
                    Qwark

        2. 0
          just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hey qwark, you're an intuitive woman. That was exactly what I meant. I realize man is still a savage in many respects. smile

          1. qwark profile image60
            qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Curious:
            If I'm a "woman" I'm the baddest "MF'n" female you'll ever meet.
            lol  smile:
            Ok I'll accept your correction ya lil "beatch!"  smile:
            Qwark

  3. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Why do you believe there is one? smile It seems that in 2,000 years  not one single prayer documented to have been answered out of the billions of prayers every day, a god is an invisible entity who killed himself through his son to appease himself because he made a bad being? That sounds more like bronze aged myth than something to believe in.

    1. hanging out profile image60
      hanging outposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Still ranting on that old topic are ya. I thought after a 4 month ban you might have given some thought to all your nonsensical arguments and perhaps decided that playing with grandchildren was more important. Wouldn't that be the moral epitome? But i see you are back and just promoting the same old crap again. Whoopee
      You claimed to be a catholic prior to your ban and since coming back you state that you were a born again christian, hmmm, contradiction
      You say that contradictions in the bible occur and when proved wrong have not the backbone to stand up and apologize.
      No morals, none.
      You are aware that if you pray for material gain or for reasons of pride or if your prayers are to another entity, like mary or some saint, God will not answer them.
      If you are a stranger to God, as i am certain most catholics are: God will only seek to draw you out of that religion, not to bless your favorite saint.
      If you continue to crucify Jesus afresh daily you will never receive an answer to a prayer because what you judge with will be judged back to you.
      So to hear you claim that no prayers have ever been answered is a huge laugh, a mountainous laugh.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not really worthy of reply, but I will anyway. Your attempt at personal character assassination is baseless as anyone who knows me will attest. I changed religions then got over it all altogether. Was it you who got me banned? As for praying for personal gain, again displays to all that you don't know me at all.

  4. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    The gods live in the basolateral complexes of the amygdalae

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Am I searching in the right area ?


      Among these nuclei are the basolateral complex, the cortical nucleus, the medial nucleus, ..... Two people arguing about the existence of God. ... found species that live in larger and more complex social groups have bigger amygdalas.

      Um..ok.

      For the record I respect Science, (dont know many Christians who dont), and if I understood that stuff above ,wow how could ya not marvel at the intricacies,detail,fine tuning etc etc.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yep you are in the right spot. smile I have been fascinated by the brain, particularly brain chemistry since I tried drugs in the sixties.
        The effects of MDMA are a bit interesting, as in my experience religion is replaced with an inner knowing of that aspect of self. The results were that at many parties I attended people loved each other.
        I also saw that "believers" had a different outlook after taking this drug.
        MDMA and MMDA had been used in early psychotherapy with great results, then came the war on drugs. I have kept studying it and psychology all these years since.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Fascinating.

          Oh Im  sure there was heaps of 'lovin' lol


          Can you expand on how 'believers' reacted differenty?,Im curious.

          Definately you have written food for thought, and my middle son is in his 3rd year at Uni learning weird n wonderful things ,all to do with Psychology and the brain.

          ( He even has a picture of the brain (?) dissected on his Facebook page....hmmm)

          Oh there is much to think and say,but alas my cortex is screaming for chocolate lol

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I need chocolate myself! It has a good effect on me and is one of my favorite foods.

            The change that took place was the usual one. A huge drop in fears they never knew they had, and a feeling of empathy.
            I have seen religious believers dump what they believed after taking one dose of MDMA. smile The subconscious fear of dying seems to get disconnected for a while. (only about 90 minutes.)

        2. hanging out profile image60
          hanging outposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          and 30 yrs in the bible and ya see where that got him
          lol
          I am amazed at what replaces God. People who have never experienced a relationship with jesus always replace God with something else. Thats because God, not having been experienced, is not real to them.
          The reason Jesus came was to have a relationship with people. God is completely real to me. Sometimes the things i have to do to clean up my life hurt my flesh and make me feel uneasy but thats part of the parcel. The work of Gods spirit should never be confused with devilry or mind altering drugs.
          God says not to use mind altering drugs because lol they will alter your mind. Be sober and vigilant.
          God is not replaced by drugs but the human being will turn to drugs as a crutch that only God can replace.
          Human inclination is to take the path of least resistance.

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If there were no drugs, we would have died off as a species long ago. lol

      2. 0
        Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        fine tuning....hmmm....like cancer, allergies, autoimmune diseases, crappy eyesight, bung knees...

  5. Eaglekiwi profile image76
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    If I say God lives in my heart, one might respond with ,that is all in your imagination.

    Could it not also be said ,That ones disbelief is imagined also?

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      With due respect, I don't think that's how it works Eaglekiwi I see it as I stated, but I will add that many people religious or not seem to have "god" in their hearts. Some people are happy and have a good strong connection with the positive "god" of self.

      I believe that religion is a response to fear triggered in the flight or fight response which has no connection with reasoning, but a strong connection with the "lizard brain" at the top of our spinal column. smile

    2. Rafini profile image83
      Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes!  Eaglekiwi, I agree with you totally!!  (disbelief is in the imagination! lol)

    3. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      how can an invisible superbeing live in hearts?

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How do you know whats in my heart ?

        1. 0
          Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          well, if you're human, your heart is made of muscle tissue & pumps blood around your body

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Your defination is only a biological one.

            I am made of more smile

            1. 0
              Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              oh, so you have a metaphorical heart?  So does that make god a metaphor too?

              1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No I dont have a metaphorical heart,so no that doesnt make God a metaphor.

                God is real.

                1. 0
                  Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  define what a heart is then, if it's not biological nor a metaphor.  And please explain how anyone can live in it

            2. Woman Of Courage profile image60
              Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Eaglekiwi, Exactly. God is living in the hearts of believers because he is a spirit.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So - not an actual entity then? Why the need to fight and argue and try to force your ridiculous beliefs on others in that case? Now you admit this is simply a concept that is only alive in your "heart"?

                1. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No Mark, very good at swindling those who don't know from the right idea.

                  God is an entity. Omnipresent. But He especially lives within those who serve Him because He helps them.

                  He lives in our hearts as in our relationship with Him. He speaks to us through our hearts... Obviously He doesn't speak to others, as they don't listen to Him. They tell Him He isn't there simply because He won't give them a sound to focus on.

                  And she never once mentioned the word 'only.'

                  smile

                  1. Beelzedad profile image61
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    So, when did our hearts take on extra duties over and above pumping blood? You have made it out to be a house and a set of ears. smile

                  2. Woman Of Courage profile image60
                    Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    vector, God bless you. smile You summed it up quite well.

  6. superwags profile image83
    superwagsposted 5 years ago

    I gather all my morals from the Bible. I don't eat any pork or shellfish and the food I do eat is prepared by my army of slaves. I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over myself or any of my sons, one of whom I stoned to death this morning for back-chatting me.

    Need I go on?

    1. 0
      just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol you're funny.

    2. TahoeDoc profile image95
      TahoeDocposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      yes, you should Superwags, because you forgot that Jesus, the epitome of morality, taught that if your slave disobeys you but didn't know they were doing it , you should beat him less severely than the slave who willfully disobeyed you.
      (Luke 12:47-48)

      Also, importantly, if your daughter is raped, please do not worry about her. If the rapist pays you 5o silver pieces, she gets to marry him (lucky, lucky girl). But at least, she is not stoned to death like the rape victim who was raped inside the city but did not cry out for help.
      Deuteronomy 22:28-29
      and Deuteronomy 22:23-24

      What would we do without the 'good book'?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBo … BC613E8C4D

      1. superwags profile image83
        superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Praise the Lord! What would we do without His moral guidance?!

      2. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I apologize for disagreeing, but Jesus was not advocating, or demanding, the beating of slaves. The passage is an illustration only to show a person that they must live to the highest standard of their understanding of their duty. This passage does not reference beating in the  New Living Translation. I wouldn't argue the insanity of any text in the Old Testament by our standards today.

        1. TahoeDoc profile image95
          TahoeDocposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I know JustCurious, it's a "parable" involving slaves. But here's my problem..


          Say I'm the supreme, all-powerful creator of the universe. I think I could make my point without referencing slaves AT ALL.
          Further, I would use this opportunity, with my audience to say

          Oh, I forgot the commandment "Thou shall not OWN another person, ever", by the way.

          The apologists' explanation that it's a "just a parable" about beating or punishing slaves or whatever version you choose to 'accept'does not make it any more palatable to me. It references owning another human. And, yes, the apologists will come back with it wasn't really 'ownership', it was paying off debts -- whatever, I don't buy that, either. It's all sugar-coated now that our collective morals have changed to where slave-ownership is unacceptable. The bible is being rewritten/reinterpreted to make it more acceptable to people who KNOW right from wrong IN SPITE OF, not BECAUSE of the bible.

          1. TahoeDoc profile image95
            TahoeDocposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, and you don't have to apologize for disagreeing. I'm happy to prove you wrong with my superior logic smile Just kidding, JustCurious (sort of).

            Did you watch the video? It's quite genius and pokes good fun at the Old T.

            Nice to 'see' you again J.C. (love those initials for you)

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
              Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I am a slave to my employer and the IRS, and probably a few others.

              1. 0
                Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                you get paid by your employer, so you are not a slave

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                  Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I am not advocating slavery and neither did Jesus.

                  But its what was happening all over the Middle East ,then the UK, finally Amercia.

                  Surely you dont think God made all those people all create those laws.

                  Definately not.

                  Jesus was not lying ,but trying to teach the  people using current examples of their everyday environment-slavery was one of them.

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    All I know is God knows best. Last thing I want to do is show up at His door telling Him it's all His fault. I'll admit, I fear God. Planets can crush things...

                    smile

                2. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Then your a slave to money. That sum it up for you?

                  smile

                  1. 0
                    Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    nope.  I know plenty of christians that are much more materialistic & after money & status than I am

          2. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            To set the record straight, it is not my intent to apologize for the behavior of the society during the  rule of the roman empire. I don't know why I would be expected to apologize. I was simply staying that to take something out of context, in an attempt to twist the intent lacks integrity.

            Now that you have stated your stand, you have cleared up this problem. smile

        2. superwags profile image83
          superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It was this kind of ambiguity which allowed the slave trade to continue with the church's blessings for hundreds of years.

          If people think that morality is meant to be written in stone and applied from the times where watching people fight to the death in arenas was considered fun, then they shouldn't come lecturing people on how to achieve an understanding of right and wrong.

          p.s. I don't aim that at you, but the original poster.

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Good shot. smile

          2. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No wags. This was not ambiguity. This was simply a reflection of the society Jesus walked in. It was not within the power of a Jewish teacher to change Roman laws. Unless someone knows something about history that I am not aware of.

            His message was to the individual. And there is no message to the individual to beat another. To take something out of context is as dishonest as the fundamentalists are being. In my opinion. smile

            1. TahoeDoc profile image95
              TahoeDocposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And...how do you know your interpretation of the "context" is more correct than mine or the fundies, anyway?

              1. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It is not interpretation on this point. It is simply reading the whole thing. You are bright enough to know this. I believe. You cannot argue a lie with any integrity. Sorry.

                1. TahoeDoc profile image95
                  TahoeDocposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  What is the lie? That Jesus talked about slaves? That he talked about beating them? That he is widely perceived to be one-and-the-same God that made the OT rules? That Jesus/God is perceived and proclaimed (in this very thread) by many people to be the best guide for morality?

                  Which of those is a lie?

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The lie, as I so see it,  is the ommission of simple facts. If you were to look up a course of treatment for a patient and follow half of the suggested course, but not the whole, I wonder if you would feel that you had done your best.

                    You have the right to believe anything you want. You have the obligation to show integrity when standing up for that right. At the least, this is how I believe it should be. But hey, I don't have the power to change the world; so it is simply my opinion.

      3. hanging out profile image60
        hanging outposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Also, importantly, if your daughter is raped, please do not worry about her. If the rapist pays you 5o silver pieces, she gets to marry him (lucky, lucky girl). But at least, she is not stoned to death like the rape victim who was raped inside the city but did not cry out for help.
        Deuteronomy 22:28-29
        and Deuteronomy 22:23-24

        lol
        ignorant and unlearned savage.

        the reason for the payment and the marriage is because the woman having her virginity ruined is unfit for marriage. Virginity is a special item that the woman carries with her into the bedroom on wedding night and if it is not there, then cause for divorce is prevalent. If you think the rapist got off easy, try living with her relatives after you raped their daughter... lol

        I wish people would stop spouting off about the bible when they know not even the basics.

        1. TahoeDoc profile image95
          TahoeDocposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          haha..for a minute there, I thought you were actually DEFENDING this practice because the rapist ruined her, he was now saving her since she would otherwise be unmarry-able.

          Then I realized it had to be a joke. A breath of fresh air, though, by claiming that this was actually a good thing, rather than the usual apologetics.

        2. TahoeDoc profile image95
          TahoeDocposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ...and a woman not being a virgin on her wedding night was not cause for divorce, it was cause for being stoned to death.

          "But if this charge is true, and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst."  (Deuteronomy  22:20-21)

          I wish people would stop spouting off about the bible when they know not even the basics.

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Its the Internet

            A little bit of Google and everyones an expert lol

            1. TahoeDoc profile image95
              TahoeDocposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Haha - Eagle...Google can make searching for the exact scripture faster, but many of them are rote from study and discussion and debate over several years with educated apologists.

              Ironically, that last sentence was a quote from the original poster about what he/she perceived to be my lack of knowledge about the bible. Just a return volley from me. I don't 'spout'. wink

              1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Good for you.

                Hey Google is a mighty fine tool indeed smile

    3. Eaglekiwi profile image76
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No,but I feel you will.

      The Earth is not that old btw.

      1. superwags profile image83
        superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You're right, I rounded down; I should have said 4.54 billion years. I guess 40,000,000 years does have a bearing when we're on human timescales.

  7. TahoeDoc profile image95
    TahoeDocposted 5 years ago via iphone

    You started Your response with "I'm sorry for disagreeing..." That was why I said that. I was also attempting to be friendly and keep things a bit lighter since you usually seem to be fairly non-abrasive in your replies as well. I guess the context wasn't clear wink I hate when that happens. It leads to misunderstandings and such...

  8. TahoeDoc profile image95
    TahoeDocposted 5 years ago via iphone

    And you may believe Jesus was a Jewish teacher. Others believe he WAS god, just in flesh and blood, which gives him a lot of 'splainin' to do.

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      He was both.

      Yes that did ,still does upset some Jewish people.

    2. hanging out profile image60
      hanging outposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No it gives him NO explaining to do.

      jesus started as a teacher
      he died as priest
      he comes back as king

      jesus' 3 offices are progressive.

      the fact that he was/is God is correct we just need to remove the taught wrongly catholic doctrine to find the truth in the bible scriptures.

      1. Woman Of Courage profile image60
        Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Amen.

  9. Eaglekiwi profile image76
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    yes, you should Superwags, because you forgot that Jesus, the epitome of morality, taught that if your slave disobeys you but didn't know they were doing it , you should beat him less severely than the slave who willfully disobeyed you.
    (Luke 12:47-48)

    Below is the correct translation:
      47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

    Note Jesus is preaching on what is already in place. Bit like a President speaking to Senators ( on decisions they already have in place0 or another words-Freedom.

    Jesus came to preach/teach and guide NOT dictate and terrorise people into submission wink

    1. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      all this reference to beating of slaves...the bible is rather out of date, isn't it?

      1. superwags profile image83
        superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Precisely!

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's your humanity that you claim is so great which caused slavery. God said love your neighbor as yourself.

          People screwed up history, not God. He just wrote a book trying to keep the peace between the ding dongs that screwed the whole idea up.

          smile

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No god wrote any book, but nice try. lol

            All books in existence were written by man. wink

            1. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks for straightening everyone out and telling them like it is.

              They don't deserve opinions anyhow right?

              smile

              1. Cagsil profile image84
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Opinions? Everyone has an opinion on some topic, then again, some people only speak opinions, and some only speak about beliefs, and then again, some people don't bother spreading their opinions or beliefs to others, but do in fact spread learned knowledge and discerned wisdom. wink

                1. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh cags. Please tell me you aren't claiming to be the bearer of the learned knowledge and discerned wisdom. That would be too rich. lol

          2. Beelzedad profile image61
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  Leviticus 25:44-46

               When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  Exodus 21:7-11 NLT


            Well, at least one good thing is that you can buy your daughter back and she can't be sold to foreigners. smile

            1. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hmm, I guess the good thing is we see you like to pick out what you like huh?

              smile

              1. Beelzedad profile image61
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Why would anyone like that stuff? It's pure evil, and it comes from the bible, gods word, supposedly.

                Notice how it shows that slavery is condoned by your god? So much for your assertion about humanity. smile

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                  Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Beezeldad you have shown you misunderstand other scripture ,not lookin good on this one either-sorry, thats reality I guess.

                  1. Beelzedad profile image61
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah right, I don't understand the words written there.

                    ...everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

                    "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death...


                    You must have some other understanding of the words, "shall be put to death"  lol

            2. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "Well, at least one good thing is that you can buy your daughter back and she can't be sold to foreigners."
              -Beelzedad

              Well, I can assure you Christ Jesus doesn't endorse slavery, and since you brought up the touchy subject I figured I'd give everybody curious some interesting reading.

              http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

              Lots of good info there, you guys dig in...

              smile

              1. Beelzedad profile image61
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you!

                A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

                Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)



                    Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1Tim. 6:1-5)

                Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)

                Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

                Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)

                The slave should be resigned to his lot, in obeying his master he is obeying God... (Saint John Chrysostom)

                ...slavery is now penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance. (Saint Augustine)

                The Freedom which Christianity gives, is a Freedom from the Bondage of Sin and Satan, and from the Dominion of Men's Lusts and Passions and inordinate Desires; but as to their outward Condition, whatever that was before, whether bond or free, their being baptized, and becoming Christians, makes no manner of Change in it.  (Edmund Gibson, Anglican Bishop)

                ...when southern clergy became ardent defenders of slavery, the master class could look upon organized religion as an ally ...the gospel, instead of becoming a mean of creating trouble and strive, was really the best instrument to preserve peace and good conduct among the negroes. (Kenneth Stamp on Christianity adding value to slaves)




                There is much more, shall I go on? smile

                1. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Certainly. I wouldn't want anyone here to think they couldn't click a link. I posted just for that purpose. Go on and pick out what you like. Enjoy.

                  smile

                  1. Beelzedad profile image61
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    How can anyone like that garbage? It's pure evil. It condones the buying and selling of human beings.

                    That's gods love for you. smile

          3. superwags profile image83
            superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No I don't claim humanism is all that brilliant either, I'm just saying that it is human's that cause the shifting improvment in peoples' morals, not holy scripture.

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You are exactly right. The scripture has been used at every turn to fight the movement toward equality for the races, for the sexes, and now they're beating the homosexuals up with it. As long as they twist them for hatred they hurt us all.

      2. hanging out profile image60
        hanging outposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        slaves back then is equal to servants today.. servants the rich can afford, like a maid and a butler. We can have those to, if we pay for them.

        back then people were sold into slavery to pay off debts that the family might want to purchase or slaves were taken in wars. Some slaves were good and some were bad. Since one could not take a slave to court and sue them or return them previous to the fulfillment of the debt or just let them go free.. one had to make them do their chores.. beating was the only way... if they were inclined to be stubborn. Different times, different ways.

        also God instituted jubilee years every 49th year the next year was to be a year of setting the slaves and captives free. This was so people were not enslaved their whole lifetimes.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Im a slave to my boss.

        2. Beelzedad profile image61
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, they were never equal as there were paid servants back then, too. Slaves are slaves, by definition.



          How very sad it is for believers to defend their gods righteousness for the buying and selling of humans. Did your god actually make slaves for others to buy?



          Gosh, what a loving and thoughtful god, create slaves to live out their lives in utter despair allowing the odd one here and there to be set free.


          "All men lose when they die and all men die.
          But a slave and a free man lose different things.
          They both lose life.
          When a free man dies, he loses the pleasure of life.
          A slave loses his pain.
          Death is the only freedom a slave knows.
          That's why he's not afraid of it.
          That's why we'll win."

          ~~Spartacus  smile

    2. superwags profile image83
      superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ah, but you see the point I was making is that this is not applicable to the modern world by and large. There are plenty of edorsements of slavery right the way through the bible.

      You can't base your morals on an iron age document because that way madness lies. Any book would be the same because it's outdated the second it's written. Morals and attitudes have shifted massively since the time the bible was written. It is utterly obselete now.

      1. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hi wags. You are exactly correct. (sorry to butt in). Anyone using this text, as written, for guidance can easily fall into an archaic trap if they don't use the lessons history has taught us, the compassion we were meant to develop and their brain to see what is fair and right. The world has changed. For the better in many more respects than not.

        1. superwags profile image83
          superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So why bother with the bible anymore if we've moved on? Or religion?

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I agree. Religion as an institution is outdated and counter productive in many ways, but I do know people that show a need for a firm, guiding hand. For some bizarre reason, they can't make moral decisions for themselves without some type of reward/punishment system in place beyond the laws we have. I doesn't know, maybe we do need to find some replacement.

            1. superwags profile image83
              superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I think we generally have, to be honest. I find it very bizarre that in modern, rich societies people still need this crutch.

              1. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know that it so bizarre. My general observation has been that church is a social club. People go where they think they should be seen, or where they enjoy the atmosphere. There does not appear to be a search for spirituality. But, there are those who do stop drinking and driving, who step away from drugs, who stop doing a lot of things you would have expected them to know better than to do in the first place.

                I don't know that we have an alternative system in place for these people. You couldn't pay me to step inside a church, but I'm comfortable enough with who I am to believe I have no need for what they offer.

                1. superwags profile image83
                  superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I get it in a sense for non-indigenous people - this is the only catergory of people my age in my country who still have any kind of a belief in god(s). But there are other ways of meeting people nowadays, it doesn't have to be underpinned with something that I suspect many people don't believe in anyway.

                  I can see how social norms persist - my siblings and I were christened despite the fact my parents are probably less religious than me. Actually I think the term ignostic fits better with them.

                  I'll be subjected to even more weirdness when I get married as my partner is Sikh!

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Cool. My husband and I took an online quiz to see where our philosophies lined up. His came back Sikh. He was horrified, but he was raised in a Bible thumping environment. It's been a challenge to argue with him that it's all bogus. He calls me a heretic when I tell him what I think, and I only tell him the half of it.

                    I do honestly believe we are slowly moving away from the organized church, but it will take a few more generations to see its demise here in America. We just have to raise our children with our skepticism, and let them build on it. It will eventually run its course.

  10. pisean282311 profile image56
    pisean282311posted 5 years ago

    recent stats shows that crime rate are far lesser in religiously non inclined countries than religious countries which shows that morality ,ethics and religion are two different things...yes religion tries to promote morality but that makes sense only as long as fear exist...true test of ethics would be eliminate premise of judgment day , hell , reward like heaven to see how much people still remain ethical...that would be true triumph of humans as race...

  11. 0
    jomineposted 5 years ago

    Who is 'not believing' what?
    What is god?
    If it is a creator you mean, there is no rational explanation for such a thing, so don't accept your(anybody's) claim.
    Morality?
    Moral law giver?
    Every humans(why, even lions, in fact all animals that live as a group), have a sense of morality. Its part of evolution which is based on  a sense of general well being. Without that the group will get extinct! No need of any law giver there...

  12. Trish_M profile image87
    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago

    It is a complete myth that we cannot have morality without God / religion. Sadly, too many people believe it. They then assume that any non-believer, or doubter, is full of sin ~ and basking in that sin.

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I dont assume that.

      What I do assume is that you have made a choice. Sometimes Im curious how you or any one comes to that decision ,but I dont lose sleep over it. smile

    2. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's why humanity is still letting millions die from lack of food? Because humanity can be moral without God?

      Without one person to guide the body of humanity, they will follow their own desires. Of course their are people who still have morals, but without a single voice to follow then not all people will agree, hence the starvation and genocides which so many claim are caused by Christianity. (Beelzedad)

      The truth is no matter what you bring up in the Old Testament of the Bible you cannot justify yourselves as a human race, maybe try to justify yourself but even then your morals lack at one point or another by someone else's definition. And what does that lead to? Oh yeah, disagreement, which is the beginning of the cause of wars. When people agree there is no fighting, when they don't it DOES escalate and anyone can deny it but they are wrong. Watch the news... You'll see something that happened on a large scale of which began as a simple disagreement on a idea between two people.

      Atheist's please feel free to jump on the opportunity. I won't argue back I promise you can have the last word...

      smile

      ~Daniel

      1. Beelzedad profile image61
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You are free to deny the atrocities and genocides committed by Christianity in the name of Jesus. That isn't anything new.  smile

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          From Religion to Christian ,interesting change of label now..hmm?

  13. Trish_M profile image87
    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago

    I haven't made a choice to be immoral

  14. vector7 profile image60
    vector7posted 5 years ago

    If humanity could be ethical without God there would not be people dying unnecessarily every day from malnutrition, while loaded men die with bank accounts large enough to feed the entire world for 12 years.

    Of course the athiest will say that 'we can't control them' or something to the effect, the bottom line is that if we listen to 'our creator' then we would love one another and everyone would be equal.

    That's ethics.

    Matthew 22:36

    37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

    Apparently we can't accomplish this on our own, so God sent Christ Jesus to try to tell us. And they still don't listen. So much for human ethics.

    smile

    Love you all..

    ~Daniel

    1. Woman Of Courage profile image60
      Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No we can't accomplish this on our own.

  15. Trish_M profile image87
    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago

    The thing is, Daniel, mankind doesn't seem to be able to accomplish this, even ~ supposedly ~ with the help of God / Jesus.

    And I am not talking about atheists, agnostics, etc, I am talking about Christians, who have carried out some horrific atrocities ~ as well as more minor unpleasantness.

    As for setting a good example, the Bible is full of terrible atrocities, carried out, supposedly, in the name of God or on his orders. (The slaughter of innocent Amalekites, for example)

    1. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wrong again. Those that carry out your "atrocities" are NOT true followers of my God. Maybe they thought they were, or maybe they misused His name, but assuredly let me insist that God knows the evil from the good. And not to mention, with all the liars in the world you guys actually think there aren't bound to be some people misrepresenting God for self gain? Seriously?

      And with the help of God we certainly could have accomplished this. The problem is people telling God He doesn't exist, or to shove off. Then guess what, separate moral guidelines for separate cultures. Then disagreement... Then war.... (Pride ensures that they don't back down)

      God is not responsible for people who will not listen.

      And as for the atrocities you claim God enacted. Well, I can't tell you His purposes, but can assure you that they didn't just cease to exist. They went to see Him. So how again is it so evil to bring those you create to talk to you personally I ask? And also, how are you aware they were innocent? I'm guessing you read a diary or something maybe? By the way... We have all disobeyed God at least once in our life, so I think you might want to reconsider the innocent thing.

      smile

      1. qwark profile image60
        qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Vec:

        You offer more meaningless "prattle" which is entertaining to read.

        I try to understand the kind of mind mind that can produce such highly imaginative and entertaining garble.   smile:

        Qwark

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "highly imaginative and entertaining"

          Why thank you. Grab a bag of popcorn.

          smile

          1. qwark profile image60
            qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hahaha...Vector:
            Mine's popped...I'll even share!  smile:
            Qwark

  16. Woman Of Courage profile image60
    Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago

    No one can establish the standards of what is right. Only the creator of all reality can do that. The human mind isn't automatically equipped with morals. Jeremiah 10:23, Proverbs 20:24. God's word is the only moral way of living whether one choose to do so or not. The bible serves as the operating manual for human behavior. I am not forming my own opinions, but presenting the amazing true facts in the word of God. Some desire to rebel against God's word because they prefer to do things their own way by making up their own morals which is doing the wrong things.

    1. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, one must actually use their minds, first. smile

      1. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe you should elaborate on the implication so everyone fully understands your intention or meaning?

        smile

      2. hanging out profile image60
        hanging outposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        he wasn't thinking when he wrote that

  17. Eaglekiwi profile image76
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    Written with a human hand
    Inspired by God smile

    1. Woman Of Courage profile image60
      Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Amen big_smile

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        big_smile

        Thinks we should move to the top of the class -lol

        1. Woman Of Courage profile image60
          Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol smile

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            God is certainly very pleased with both of you...

            smile

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Burble, burble, burble.

              Iz the majik god thingy displeezed wiv me? Is it gonna hurt me when I ded?

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Magic?    lol

                You got the wrong crowd little buddy.

                We still love you. I'm sure the other two agree.

                smile

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No. You do not. If I feel it as animosity - then it is not love is it? Do you love me enough to tell me what I should be doing? For my own good? sad

                  1. AtYourService profile image59
                    AtYourServiceposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey Mr. Knowles, I forgot one thing in my message to you, and since I can't seem to reply to your comment on my own response above, I figured I'd just tack it on here.  At the end of your last message you said "No wonder your religion causes so many wars."  Who ever said I subscribe to a religion?

                  2. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No Mark, you have heard what I would share and you utterly reject it.

                    I simply love you. Period. Feel however you wish. I still love you. I love you. I love you. I love you. And... I love you.

                    No animosity. No attempted correction. Your funny sometimes actually.

                    By the way. I love you..

                    smile

                2. Woman Of Courage profile image60
                  Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  vector, Agreed. I still love him smile

  18. 67
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    Is There a God?/ Why Do You Believe There Isn't a God

    Yes, the Merciful and Kind Creator-God does exist:

    [14:11] Their Messengers said, ‘Are you in doubt concerning Allah, Maker of the heavens and the earth? He calls you that He may forgive you your sins, and grant you respite till an appointed term.’ They said, ‘You are but men like ourselves; you desire to turn us away from that which our fathers used to worship. Bring us, then, a clear proof.’

    http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=10

  19. Jen Buczynski profile image60
    Jen Buczynskiposted 5 years ago

    I just wanna know why people won't just straightforwardly answer a question without mocking it.

  20. TahoeDoc profile image95
    TahoeDocposted 5 years ago

    To the Christians, Paarsurrey has quoted a passage from a book that a large portion of humans on earth believe whole-heartedly to be divine from Allah.

    Why do you not accept what he has quoted. It's an ancient book that states it's from God and a lot of people believe it. Many, many muslims 'feel' connected to their God and there is no doubt in their mind that they are right. There is much evidence that to them, clearly proves that Allah is at work.

    Paar- hello there. There are many Christians here who passionately believe that their book is the only truth, that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.  Why not believe them? Their book is also old and claimed to be from God.

    When you understand why you reject each other's explanations, you may begin to understand why some of us reject all of them.

    1. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I believe in books that tell of the future. The Bible has done this hundreds of times.

      smile

    2. 67
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus was surely a Messiah but Bible was not written by him or anybody authorised by him. The sinful scribes wrote in Jesus's name whatever came to their siful minds; they were not even eye-witnesses of the event of crucifixion.

      Jesus's Second Coming is not physical; it is metaphorical only to recity the wrongs scribes wrote in his name.

      I don't reject Jesus; Jesus is part of my faith.

      1. TahoeDoc profile image95
        TahoeDocposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But I'm guessing as a Muslim, you don't believe Jesus is God or is part of God as Christians do. You do not accept Jesus Christ as the one and only savior and path to eternal life, and Christians don't believe Allah is the same God that they worship. You have different books and rules that are part of your religion, right?

        My only point was this...

        You each have reasons for deciding that the other religion isn't correct. Atheists feel the same way as you do about the 'other' religion. We also feel the same way about your religion, though. ,just disbelieving one more religion than you.

        Does that make any more sense?

        1. 67
          paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You are right that we don't believe that Jesus was god or son of god; even Jesus himself didn't believe that he was a Christian; he was a Jew and he believed in only ONE-True-God. He did not believe in Trinity; all these creeds are invented by the cunning Paul and the sinful Church.
          We have everything common with truthful Jesus and truthful Moses; and that is what matters most.

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hey Paar, you don't even understand the time frame in which Mohammad lived, so please don't try to understand the time frame in which Jesus lived. lol

            1. 67
              paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              What is wrong with the time frame? Please elaborate.

              1. Cagsil profile image84
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You lack the knowledge needed to understand where the human brain and mind were at the time that Mohammad lived, just like Christians lack the knowledge in the same area with regards to Jesus. wink

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                  Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  For the record ,accepting Gods grace it is not necessary to be proficent in History.

                  God accepts according to His standards-Not mans.

                  Just sayin smile

      2. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Whle I am certain "Jesus" was not the mans name, I do agree on a few points.

        Paul & Others, wrote those letters to one another nearly 50 years post event, to instigate/alarm Rome --and they succeeded in forming a religion, uniting the Greco-Roman ideologies with the Sect. As even the correspondences claim, the members of this Sect were first called "Christians" in Antioch, one of the most bloody, lawless, pagan "holistic" cities in the empire. Like Vegas only no neon lights.

        One reason they did, was because the original evidence of the Spirit that revealed itself to those in the "upper room" had been reduced to nothing by religious practices and a massive lack of faith.

        A 2nd Coming is never mentioned my Him, nor that in any way, shape or form was he to be worshiped. This is the mistake of the sect and the tool used by the scribes --funded in part by the Sanhedrin-- to achieve power.

        His work tells a completely different story than most care to believe and why he considered himself equal to us --because he was a man. Not just an ordinary man, but a man consumed by Grace. As he is called: the 2nd Adam.

        James.

        1. 67
          paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The name of the man is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908); he is Jesus in Second Coming symbolically, not literally.

          Thanks for agreeing on a few points.

    3. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      that is one of the questions I asked myself when I started to doubt - all these different religions & even different sects of same religion all claiming to be right and everyone else is wrong - how can they all be right?  Maybe they're all wrong?

      1. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Just because a bunch of people are wrong doesn't mean there isn't a truth out there.

        If everyone here couldn't agree on what a tree was, does that mean that everyone is wrong and there's no such thing as a tree?

        Don't fool yourself. Just because people make up lies, doesn't mean there isn't a truth.

        smile

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          When people perpetuate lies that are 2000 years old for their own purposes, that doesn't make it truth either. wink

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Referring to the Bible I'm sure. Those are called historical documents. And are proven accurate by secularist and atheist scientists might I add.

            Any other misconceptions you have?

            smile

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Again, you don't listen well. Go do some research on your precious book. Then come back and we might have something to discuss. Other than that, all you are doing is blowing smoke.

              At least then you might actually be on solid ground instead of being in the mysticism grip on you presently. lol

            2. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I challenge that! Please indicate where you gleaned your information, because it does not match what I have seen. smile

  21. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    I believe there is a God because I can feel it.

    1. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I can too. 

      smile

    2. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So, what do gods "feel" like? smile

      1. Woman Of Courage profile image60
        Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Seek God and you will find out. smile

        1. 0
          Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          again, side-stepping the question

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Nothing new. Are you surprised? lol

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
              Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Since BB didnt believe Christians from her past ,it doesnt surprise me that she would believe any on here lol either.

              1. Cagsil profile image84
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                roll

              2. 0
                Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I used to be too trusting & never question it.

          2. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Deleted

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Excuse you and your implied insult.

              And, your point? If you have one please try to make it without making yourself sound like a fool. wink

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Wow your like a little lightning bolt. lol

                I decided I was wrong in my statement. Not that I don't believe it. Just that I was wrong in posting it, especially in that fashion.

                Calling me a fool does not make me one.

                smile

                1. Cagsil profile image84
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I didn't call you a fool. I asked you to reply without making yourself look like one.

                  Please do try and read the words in the sentences I post. It would be helpful. wink

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, it is called an implication. Please pay attention.

                    I certainly read them, hence the reply points that fact out.

                    smile

              2. 0
                Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I see it was directed at me, but is deleted.  I didn't get to read it

                1. Cagsil profile image84
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey Bailey, you said that WOC side stepped answering. I posted a comment to you with regards to that. Look for my post, because it hasn't been deleted. Vector was talking to me, because of what I said. In Vector's response to my post to you, is where you are missing something.

                  My post to Vector was for Vector and not you. smile

                  1. 0
                    Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    ok - these threads can be a bit confusing.  I didn't see why I was given an insult - see that happens a lot with religion - people get their emotions in the way of debate of ideas

                  2. Woman Of Courage profile image60
                    Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Cagsil, I disagree with the false comment. Thanks for the sarcastic insult. I love you anyway. smile

          3. Woman Of Courage profile image60
            Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Bailey, I don't think I side-step the question. God reveals himself to those who seek him. God never fails. It's a spiritual connection. Other christians testify of the same personal experience with God.

            1. 0
              Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              well, that didn't work for me

    3. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually PDH, that would be your own human sense of life you're feeling. You're attributing it to god to make yourself feel better, because you don't understand it. wink

      1. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "You're attributing it to god to make yourself feel better..."

        And if she feels better what is it to you. You want to take away her happiness Cagsil? That's very mean.

        "...because you don't understand it."

        Implying someone is ignorant or stupid is very demeaning. Also very mean Cagsil. Shame on you.

        smile

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, your perception is skewed about my comments, but I guess that would be nothing new for you.

          However, I find your comments about my comments to PrettyDarkHorse, completely out of line, considering I wanted her to respond to my comment.

          If you really must know- selfish people justify their actions for all the wrong reasons and one of those reasons is called chosen ignorance. They choose to be ignorant about their own life. If you don't like TRUTH, then too bad.

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Whatever you say Cagsil.

            I love you..

            smile

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I appreciate your love and I can honestly say that I love you as well. However, as a non-believer speaking to a believer, I don't expect you to believe me. wink

      2. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Cags are you trying to tell someone else what they feel?

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No EK, I'm explaining the same exact feeling every other person on the planet feels. It's common and been discovered to be what I explained it to be. But, nice try at twisting what I'm talking about. wink

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No you said ......did you not?  Pretty feels something she didnt understand ,therefore attributed it to God?

            I dont care what everyone else says, I just responded to what you said smile

  22. Eaglekiwi profile image76
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    'every other person on the planet'

    My goodness you know eveyone on the planet Cags.

    Im good .but not that good lol

    1. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Again, nice twisting of what is said.

      Human species- sense of life is all the same. Do try to keep up. wink


      Edit: (not self promotion)- Here is a hub written, so you can learn about what I am talking about?

      http://hubpages.com/hub/Explanation-Human-Sense-of-Life

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh Im keeping up my friend ,and wallpapering at the same time!

        (Although the latter may be suspect in the morning) rest assured the former is spot on.

        Yes ,I will take a look at your hub, so you can quit critising me.

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not criticizing you EK. I'm just explaining. wink

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Then leave out the sarcasm when you explain ,and I will listen wink

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I'll try. Okay. wink

              1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I read your Hub and left a comment. Its awaiting approval (or rejection) smile

                1. Cagsil profile image84
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you for taking time to read it and comment. Much appreciated. smile

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Great communication via your hub Cags, helps me understand where youre coming from a little better smile.

                    By the way feel free to swing by mine. Onein particular was contraversial,though it was not my intention.
                    I just wrote what had  been on my heart,in my mind  for some time.



                    Though of course you do relise I hail from the land that bought the USA Zena Princess Warrior.

                    Wait til Beezle and Mark read that one lol

          2. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm starting to think your smiley's right eye is poked out. lol

            Just kidding Cag..

            smile

      2. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Cute self help hub. But I have God. lol

        smile

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What god? You make a broad based assertion for which you cannot prove. Nothing new for believers.

          And, yes I'm aware that you will play the game and attempt to turn it around, like you have with others, and say prove "God doesn't exist". Yet, you fail to realize I don't have to prove your assertion doesn't exist, since it doesn't.

          The "proof" is on YOU, since you've open your mouth to make the assertion. You are making the assertion, not I.

          I only asked "what god". Now, you can go about your speaking of "god", but no matter what, at the end of the day, you'll fail to point it out or prove your assertion is actually real in any way, shape or form.

          But, I'm sure you'll try. Not to mention, I've actually read a couple of your hubs recently, since you have been coming to the forum and you are no different than any other believer on the planet- you assume your assertion is real. And, to top that off, you lack any knowledge with regard to Jesus.

          I'm sorry to inform you, but I've done the research on Jesus, and what you believe him to be is completely out of context, considering you didn't do the research with regards to his actual life. So, you in essence know nothing more than the average believer who has been deceived. Nothing new.

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't read much. Just "What God?"

            The God you don't know or believe in.

            It's ok, I completely understand and know why you don't.

            I hope you do too one day.

            smile

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, you would be clueless, besides, I'm not selfish like a believer. So, with that said. I've had my fill with enough dishonesty today. Enjoy yourself.

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Let me help everyone understand you:

                "you would be clueless"

                An assumption, made by Cag as to what I know and don't. A demeaning adjective applied to me.

                "I'm not selfish like a believer."

                A stereotype made by Cag, that all who believe in God are selfish. Another demeaning statement.

                "I've had my fill with enough dishonesty today"

                A statement made by Cag, by which he is stating I'm dishonest. Of which he has no proof.

                smile

  23. Eaglekiwi profile image76
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    Hey Vector S'up  tongue oh didnt mean the tongue one ,oh well lol


    Did you get my email re Hubpages Ads etc?

    I hope I didnt hit reply -lemme know

    1. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol  Your a nut....

      And yep. I sure did. Thanks a lot Kiwi...

      big_smile

  24. Eaglekiwi profile image76
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    Oh analyse me Cags.

    Do you think I am dishonest at my core.

    Ignore that ,but your post to ,W.O.C got me thinking some.

    If we all analysed each other ,kinda became judge ,jury all in our heads,why would we ever need to communicate ( I mean this all in a general manner)...



    I guess what Im trying to say is 'I only know how people think on here ,by what they tell me or openly share via other topics or hubs. Sometimes I glean a personality and after a while certain characteristics become apparent.

    But for instance if you tell me your a Hindu, live in China and believe women are inferior, that us all I know.

    Yet ,constantly I hear Non-believer assuming to know the opinions ( or mind) of Christians.

    If I am being assessed by Gods standards ,wouldnt it be right that God do that?

    Alternately ,we all should never assume to know what the other person is thinking.

    Least thats what I think lol

    1. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hey EK, it's not analysis of the person, which is your first mistake. It's an analysis of the belief itself.
      Again, it's not about the person themselves, it is about recognizing the belief is dishonest.
      I'm sure and I'm glad. wink
      You should be analyzing yourself and others wouldn't do it for you. wink
      But, you can distinguish between honesty and dishonesty by the words they use.
      Again, see the words, as actions. Actions are judged.
      Many people who are not religious are able to determine honesty and dishonesty, much easier than the religious can. Why? Because, most religious cannot see their own actions, which are dishonest.
      What god? The only standards one is required to live by is their conscience.
      That would be nice, except when you type, it comes from conscious thought, so it is giving you what they think. wink
      I appreciate the conversation. smile

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nooooooooo..thats not quite how you said it (original post) but no matter I got the gist of it.

        Why do I feel I just walked out of a shrinks office lol

        Next you'll be sending me an invoice! roll

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry to disappoint, but you can rest assure, there isn't an invoice on the way. tongue

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Im sure Ill get over it lol

    2. Woman Of Courage profile image60
      Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Eaglekiwi, Agreed. It's very disrespectful to assume what others are thinking. Assumptions are not always correct.

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Did you bother reading my response or did you just skip over it? There was NO assumption.

        1. Woman Of Courage profile image60
          Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Cagsil, I read your post and felt it would be a waste of time in responding. You seem to be anxious for an answer, so I will respond here. God created all of us. This is why you have the ability to show love to the people of your choice. Take care.

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            roll Alrighty then. Since you have trouble being honest with yourself, I don't expect you to be honest with me. Oh well, I figured I give it a shot.

  25. Eaglekiwi profile image76
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    So Cags are you saying that because you feel Christianity is a lie ,then people who adhere to its teachings therefore are dishonest for (in your opinion) believing it?

  26. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Time to mention the top 10 reasons that keep the holy rollers afloat.
    Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian




    10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

    9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

    8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

    7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

    6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

    5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

    4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering.  And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


    3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

    2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers.  You consider that to be evidence that prayer works.  And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

    1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

    1. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      10's wrong. lol

      I could care less if you deny Him. Doesn't change anything.

      Reply away...

      smile

  27. Eaglekiwi profile image76
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    Ok well I will walk where angels fear too tread smile

    The world behind me ,the Cross before me.

    No turning back ,No turning back.


    While you may analyse my reasons for doing so ,I will never deny the prescence of Jesus in my life.

    He is my friend.

    He was my friend when I had none.
    Father to the fatherless
    Faithful when I was unfaithful.
    Merciful when I showed no mercy.
    Truthful when others lied.
    Loyal when I was disloyal.

    Because of what Jesus did for me, I can confidently say my life has purpose, I am the apple of his eye and He died that I might live again..smile


    Jesus came to set people free,free from the burden of anything holding them back from being loving ,healthy joyful and peaceful,

    Allow me to insert one scripture that I like alot

    Jesus said ..'My peace I give unto you, not a peace that the world can take away ,because the world didnt give it to you.

    So you see Earnest all of mans theories matter little to me,when I found my life changed as a result of a personal encounter.

    Proof is in the pudding as the saying goes.

    Not exactly Hollywood material, or worthy of a bestseller ,but what price could you ever put on peace or eternal love for that matter.

    Names cant hurt me either, because my friend has been through it all before, for me wink

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not going to address the top ten then? smile

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I didnt need too.

        My faith is complete in what I presented.

        By the way Earnest ,why are you here ,like why do you exist?

        Do you know wink

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Certainly I know! I have produced children who have children, heaps of em! I live with my grandchildren and have no doubt why I am here. smile
          My life has been wonderful so far, apart from a belt from supposedly fatal cancer many years ago. I got over it quickly and survived because I refused to die and leave my loved ones. Not ready to die yet, life is fantastic! smile The top ten is pretty damning isn't it? I don't blame you for ignoring it, it rips your beliefs to shreds!

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Good for you surving the nasties!

            Truly I am happy for you ( My Mum died of cancer @44yrs)


            No I sincerely responded with my testimony.

            I dont do the academic thing.
            Guess Im not the Intellectual type.

            But hey at least I dignified your post with a reply smile

            1. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry you lost your mom so early.
              My mom and dad are long gone.

              I lost my beautiful 30 year old daughter in law to a heart problem 3 years ago. I still think about her every day. smile

              1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That bites.Beautiful people leave poignant memories.

                I wrote a poem for my mum (hub).

                http://hubpages.com/hub/Today-I-Cried

                Discovered Im not a poet lol but family will always remain ,if we desire it.

                1. earnestshub profile image88
                  earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I read it and cried. A beautiful tribute to your mom, thank you. smile

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
                    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Aww thanks for taking the time ,appreciate that smile

        2. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ooo.. OOO... I addressed one of the top ten..

          But just for fun, that's the extent of it as I'm not aguing..

          big_smile

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Not keen to address all of them? I still haven't seen where you addressed any of it. smile

            1. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Please look again. Directly under the post.

              smile

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I saw that before. I didn't understand if you were addressing number ten or all of it.
                It is hardly a rebuttal! smile

                1. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Please note the whole post. As it wasn't a sincere address to your post.

                  And the reason for it not being sincere, as I'm not arguing.

                  smile

                  1. earnestshub profile image88
                    earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    OK smile

    2. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Seems this one would fit nicely with your post. smile

      "3. While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity."

  28. 60
    blogger111posted 5 years ago

    God MAY Be real. There's no proof, unless you count the bible as one.

    1. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No proof He isn't there either.

      smile

      1. dingdondingdon profile image60
        dingdondingdonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But the burden of proof isn't on atheists. If you say "the sky is pink" and I say "I don't believe you", the burden of proof is on you to prove what you just said, not on me to disprove it.

        1. 60
          blogger111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Your right

  29. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago
  30. dingdondingdon profile image60
    dingdondingdonposted 5 years ago

    I've never been given proof that God exists.

    1. UzumakiFizzles profile image61
      UzumakiFizzlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'd say let's do an experiment. Get enough wooden plank to build a boat and put them out in your garden. Leave it there and see what happens the next day.

      1. dingdondingdon profile image60
        dingdondingdonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm guessing what happens the next day is I walk outside and exclaim "Since when do I have a garden? I live in an apartment!"

        1. UzumakiFizzles profile image61
          UzumakiFizzlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          oh man.. You're missing the point here.. What i'm trying to get at is that no.. nothing's gonna happen.. No one is gonna make it into a boat unless a carpenter comes and creates a boat out of it.

          The same goes for this universe. Someone did create this universe. We can't just happen to exist without someone making us exist.

          1. dingdondingdon profile image60
            dingdondingdonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Why do theists always use this rule? There is no logic to it. Let's go by your logic for a second and say, yes, everything - everything ever - has to have a creator. And that has to mean everything, okay?

            Okay. So the universe has to have a creator. Let's say that's God. But wait, the rule we just made says EVERYTHING has to have a creator, so God has to have a creator. And it all falls apart in one fell swoop.

            The universe was created by the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang there was literally nothing. We did just happen to come into existence, just like we experience lots of tiny coincidences (I just happen to find a dollar, so I buy something with it) every day.

            1. UzumakiFizzles profile image61
              UzumakiFizzlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              True that.. True that.. That's a very good point. But I have always looked at it this way.. Imagine the complexity of creating this universe, from the big, massive things to the complexity of creating just a single tiny atom.. I would say it's too much to handle such complexity and I've always think "No weak beings could've ever created this universe to the best of detail" and leads me to the conclusion that God is majestic, perfect and  powerful. So, i have never see a problem in accepting God without a creator and i believe in One God. What do you think?

              I'm a muslim btw.. I find lots of people saying islam is a bad religion and i find it really sad.. As a muslim, as what i've been taught, it's every muslim's obligation to tell people about the "One-ness of God". If people accepts it, good! But, if they don't, it's fine, we're still friends and heck, i'll still invite them to my birthday party! wink

              I'm being carried away aren't i? But that aside, i really wish everyone finds what they're looking for! When all else fail, some things, you just have to listen to your heart. I mean literally, lie down on a grass field~ looking at the clouds~ stars~ you know the scenario and just have a sincere heart to know the truth. Maybe, just maybe, you'll find your way.

          2. Beelzedad profile image61
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Why not? smile

            1. UzumakiFizzles profile image61
              UzumakiFizzlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I made an assumption based on the logic that "what existed must have a creator". But, if we keep on using this assumption, it leads to an infinite cycle of creation and creator. For example, universe created by God, and God created by GodCreator1, GodCreator 1 created by GodCreator2 and so on...

              I understand some people say "Universe is created from nothing and it's fine to accept that" i.e. not obeying the logic "what existed must have a creator" at all. And some people say "Universe is created by a God" i.e. obeying the logic "what existed must have a creator" but who created God then? sad That goes to what i've said above. We terminate the cycle there. haha.. Saying this makes me think of the limits for summation. tongue

              Nevertheless, it's still an ongoing debate about this existence of God. We could be repeating this process of making a theory based on logic and such but people will still argue about it. In the end, It all comes to the individual's point of view. Anyhow, hope everyone finds what they're looking for! I've found it. I've found everything in islam. wink

              **And no.. I'm not that "typical muslim" you heard on tv and such.. Sigh.. It always made me sad thinking about it..

          3. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And, you can support that with some sort of proof, or just blowing smoke like all religious.

            Really, says who exactly? You?

            1. UzumakiFizzles profile image61
              UzumakiFizzlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Cagsil!

              It would be better if you could explain your understandings to me.  wink because i'm not quite sure what is it that you want to know.

              1. Cagsil profile image84
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I can see from your posting, you've nothing to add to the knowledge I've already obtained. I was just curious if you would answer the questions, but as I said, you cannot, so I guess the point is moot regardless.

                By the way, I noticed you mentioned the existence of a god. But, I am curious- what god would you be referring to? Or better yet, making an assertion to?

                If you're like most religious, you'll gladly admit that your god lives outside of reality, which begs to ask the question- What's outside of reality?

  31. CCNEWS profile image59
    CCNEWSposted 5 years ago

    I know god is real. But no one understands what are ufo's and also why in the bible it will not explain. Well i have a great article that has some shocking info on ufo's

  32. hanwillingham profile image61
    hanwillinghamposted 5 years ago

    In my own opinion, there are some things here in the world that science could not explain. Thus, I strongly believe that God exists and no man could ever understand such things EXCEPT God.He created the world,so knows everything.

    1. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is a sad state of affairs when all the answers in the universe are not made readily available to those who would immediately invoke magic as the answer.

      The "opinion" stated would run along the same lines as when people believed the earth was flat. smile

 
working