The Atheist Challenge

1. 60

   Thom Carnesposted 16 years ago

   Of course, this isn't in any way an original idea: Plato posed exactly the same question over two thousand years ago in his "Euthypryo" dialogue: Does God choose what is good because it is good - or is it good because God chooses it?
   
   I think this poses a real dilemma for religious believers who like to maintain that morality derives from God - if only they would take the trouble to think about it.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Thom Carnes wrote:

      Of course, this isn't in any way an original idea: Plato posed exactly the same question over two thousand years ago in his "Euthypryo" dialogue: Does God choose what is good because it is good - or is it good because God chooses it?---------Thom Carnes.
      
      Right, but to be fair in a fair debate,  then I think it deserves a well thought out answer as well.  So if you could answer that question, then maybe it would be easier to answer the first question. 
      
      Personally, it is good because I think it is good, not God, same with bad, it's bad cause I think it is bad, God just gave me a brain to use and an environment to base my decisions on. 
      
      It's like mercy,  I hit a dog and it didn't die, do I go back and put it out of it's misery or give it a chance to survive?
      
      My answer is put it out of it's misery, because that is good to me.  But someone else could say, you should have taken it to the vet, instead of killing it but that's because they think it is good, but when it comes to religion,  dogs don't mean shit, so they would probably just leave it there and let someone have to make the decision. 
      
      God is a choice.

      replyreport
2. 66

   Bonnie Ramseyposted 16 years ago

   I will proudly state to anyone that I am a believer in God. I do not, however, argue with anyone over his existance because, just as a non-believer will never convince me He doesn't exist, a believer will never convince a non-believer that he does. When and if anyone accepts that fact is merely a choice. In the same light, it is not my place to judge anyone for their non-belief just as I should not be judged for my belief.
   
   I choose to do good things because that is what makes me feel good. If that gets me closer to God then I am grateful. But my actions are just that...MY choice. If I do something wrong, I can't blame God for that. I made that choice and I did it so I will suffer whatever consequences comes from that choice.
   
   I treat people as equals because that is how I want to be treated and it would be foolish to expect to be treated any differently than I treat others. Personally, I would prefer to live my life as if God exists only to find out that he doesn't than to live as if he doesn't only to find out that He does. That is my choice. Anyone who prefers otherwise has every right and is just as human (in my opinion) as those others who do.
   
   The reason that religeon is such a debated topic is simply because people choose to debate about it. Again, a choice. But the fact remains that some will believe and some won't. That does not make anyone on either side any better than the other. I choose to love people for who they are and NOT what they believe. I have friends of many different beliefs and it is not the religeon that causes so many problems but the fanatics who use that religeon to justify their actions, regardless of what belief or non-belief they practice.
   
   If we simply treat people as we, ourselves would like to be treated, what difference would it make what belief any of us have?
   
   Bonnie

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      aawww Bonnie, what a sweet heart!  kisses and hugs.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Thom Carnesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Your comments about "choice" are very interesting - and it's something that no one has really picked up on before.
      
      Yes, whether we are atheists or believers, we cannot avoid the responsibility of choice. Even a believer, if asked to perform a certain deed by the God s/he believes in, still has to exercise a degree of moral choice over whether or not to carry out that deed.
      
      It's the choice that Abraham made when told to sacrifice his son ...
      
      As Woody Allen said in his short story about Abraham and Isaac:
      
      "Some men will follow any order no matter how asinine as long as it comes from a resonant, well-modulated voice."

      replyreport
3. 0

   sandra rinckposted 16 years ago

   wow, this thread is getting tastier by the post.

   replyreport
4. 72

   Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years ago

   Coming back to the challenge, Mark.
   Frankly, that challenge cannot be met. And needn't. It's a challenge of logic, and I think spirituality, love and emotions need not be challenged.
   When I love a girl, I am not in teh game of proving to the world or even to her that I feel love. Same goes for my spirituality.
   Only science needs proofs to survive, not spirituality.
   Only my opinion, of course.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      wow Kenny, you are a fascinating being.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         Hope nice and fascinating, not funnily fascinating, or worse, Sandra.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Fascinating like the Buddha, top notch, fantastic thought. 

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Thom Carnesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting point - but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion.
      
      Would a girl believe that you love her without any evidence (not proof, necessarily) to that effect?
      
      And without such evidence - in both directions - how long do you think the love would survive?
      
      I don't think you can make something real and true simply by enunciating it.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         She might not, but sometimes we just love unconditionally. Love can survive even when not reciprocated. And I beg to disagree: Something comes into existence the moment someone enunciates it, reality and truth being relative concepts.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Thom Carnesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Personally, I don't believe that love exists if the only place it manifests itself is in your mind: all you have in your mind is the *concept* of love.
            
            Of course, you may believe (many people do) that there isn't a great deal of difference between love and the concept of love. I just don't buy that. I believe that love can only manifest itself through action.
            
            I would have thought that most religious believers would agree with that - but, then again, who knows?

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this

               I'm with you on this one, Thom - and anyone who has ever had a relationship with an alcoholic or addict will be with you on this one, too.
               
               I really don't care what warm and fuzzy feelings delight your insides when you think about me - that does nothing for me whatsoever at all.
               
               When you spend time with me, when you listen to my thoughts and feelings and try to understand me, when you offer me practical or emotional support - THEN you are loving me.
               
               Love which only manifests in your mind and doesn't have any visible effect in the space between you and me bears the same relationship to real love as masturbation bears to real sexual union.
               
               Nice enough in its own way, but no substitute for the real thing.
               
               Or, in other words, a bit of a wank.
               
               YMMV, of course ...
               
               Jenny

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Thom Carnesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh, that's a great analogy, Jenny!

                  replyreport
      2. 0

         sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         On behalf of Kenny,  a spritual person knows exactly what he is talking about.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Thom Carnesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            I'm sure he does.
            
            The question is: does anybody else?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

               I do!  I think you said back on this thread somewhere, who says and atheist can't be spiritual. 
               
               There are spiritual people out there who don't believe in God.  Or what God is defined by, my idea, is not a Christain God.  More like a soul of the molecular structure (something) that made it happen.  I don't really think we will find it, defies law all together, but I love science, without it,  how could I see or know about all the things in life, created by man or God, doesnt matter, but it's a wonder to wonder about the things in a spiritual light.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Thom Carnesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  It wasn't a crirticism, Sandra. Each and every one of us can believe and understand what we ourselves  are talking about. The problem comes in communicating those beliefs and understandings to other people.
                  
                  Some people are able to communicate their spiritual feelings and experiences by simple force of character and personality - and other people will believe and accept what they say *because* of that force of character.
                  
                  But some of us require and expect a little more than that. We require *evidence*. Personal testimony (however genuine and sincere) is simply not acceptable as evidence, because it has a track record of often being unreliable.
                  
                  And you are perfectly right, of course: spirituality is not the monopoly of religious believers.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh no critism taken, hope you aren't taking my questions this way either. 
                     
                     
                     I just think instead of having a ( religion ) based on not believing in God, a better way to go would be to shake your head yes, humor it and say whateva.  It works for me. 
                     
                     I would prefer a world that didn't talk about God so that no one would argue over it, but either, 1. someone would say that it's my right to talk about God.
                     2. it is evil
                     3. those are things the anti-christ would say
                     4. christianity has a way of making all things that are good and putting an anit-christ label on it and then telling their flock of chickens, I mean lambs that anyone who comes in great peace and unity is a product of Satan, so don't believe it.
                     5. any conversation that comes up about God, can almost gurantee a Christian fanatic will come in and say, no that is not what God said, then another would say,  no that is not what God said etc...
                     6. that person isn't chosen
                     7. we are all inherent sinners
                     8. law is justified by God, but only by the words of the Bible, no more no less.
                     9. it is not right to change the Bible to make it reflect what works for you, but everyone does it, even the Pope, President, all church leaders and everyone who has read it. 
                     10. telling people in anyway that thier way is right, ( in my opinion ) is to me saying you want power, you want people to be just like me etc.  you need to be justified or something.
                     
                     Don't take the statements personally, if were talking about empicle evidence, then these are the things that I have seen and heard. 
                     
                     -Peter, don't take it personally, it's in general and not a direct reflection on you.
                     
                     Polictics these days can't get around saying anything at all without offending someone. 

                     replyreport
                     1. 72

                        Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                        You put it better than I did, Sandra. I agree, and I feel God would prefer it that way, too.

                        replyreport
               2. 72

                  Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  Right. In India, we have the Jains, who are spiritual and religious but don't believe in God. They believe in a soul, though.

                  replyreport
5. 61

   College politicoposted 16 years ago

   Boy... I forgot about this thread for a moment... I'll have to go back and look at the responses to my last post when I have time.

   replyreport
6. 72

   Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years ago

   Thanks, both of you. Sandra, honoured, and hope the Buddha doesn't mind.
   What I love here is the way both of you argue. Cool and respectful.
   
   Thom, what I meant was that someone who believes in God is ill-equipped to convince someone who believes in proof and logic. I can only convince you of the sincerity of my belief, but not of what I believe in.
   For example, when I tell a girl that I love her, she could tell me that what I feel are just biological and chemical reactions in my body, though I might believe in the magic of love.
   
   God exists, in my experience only. When I try to reach Him with my logic, I fail. There's no proof that He exists. I just take it for granted and tell my brain: "It's okay, you don't have to do any work there. Busy yourself somewhere else."
   
   For that reason, I can't meet that atheist's challenge. I leave it to God

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Thom Carnesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Kenny, I think we are both touching on, and skirting around, a very important and interesting issue here: the basis of religious belief.
      
      You don't necessarily have to convince me of the sincerity of your beliefs. Why wouldn't I believe that you are sincere? What you might have to explain to me, however, is the actual basis for those beliefs: not *what* you believe, but *why* you believe it.
      
      You would be quite justified, I suppose, in telling me  to go away and mind my own business as your beliefs have got nothing to do with me. And, in a way, you would be right.
      
      But I can't get rid of the feeling that intelligent, rational people should be able to *explain* why they believe certain things - and the fact that they are often unable (or unwilling) to do so tends, I think, to undermine, and raise justifiable suspicions about, those very beliefs.
      
      I hope this makes some sort of sense. What I am trying to say, I suppose, without being too disrespectful, is that any belief which cannot be explained rationally runs the risk of being declared essentially meaningless.
      
      Or is that going too far?

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         No, no, you are not going too far; you are asking me a decent question. I'm not offended because I was an atheist for many years.
         What I am trying to say is that just like an intelligent, rational person can fall in love and behave irrationally or stupidly, a believer suspends his logics and intelligence when he believes.
         All belief is illogical because belief means to shut out all other possibilities. Belief is outside science and logic. A scientist can only be convinced of things that can be proved. A believer does not need proof. His belief stems from experiences.
         For example, a friend of mine believes that food cooked with love and affection tastes better than mechanically cooked food. A logician will pooh-pooh that belief, won't he?
         I have experienced God, and I believe. I am not saying that I need not give you proof: I am saying that I cannot give you proof.
         You may ask me anything and I will answer to the best of my ability, happily.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Thom Carnesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Kenny Wordsmith wrote:

            
            
            Thanks for that, Kenny. Believe me - I do understand what you mean.The Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga talks about faith as: "a special source of knowledge, knowledge that can't be arrived at by way of reason alone" - and this seems to describe very well what you are talking about.
            
            If your religious belief is built on this sort of "knowledge" than it obviously follows not only that no amount of rational argument by atheists will ever succeed in undermining your belief, but also that you are under no obligation to put forward any rational argument of your own to support it. It just *is*!
            
            Well, on one hand, I don't see how anyone (least of all me) could have any problem with that kind of conviction (and I certainly have no desire whatever to undermine it - even if I could!).
            
            On the other hand, however, I do believe that, as a general rule of thumb, we should all be extremely careful about things that cannot be doubted. I think it's a "risky" road to follow, and can lead us (any of us) in all kinds of dubious and potentially dangerous directions.
            
            There are enough examples all around us of people whose sincere and deeply-held beliefs (beliefs that cannot be shaken by any reasoned argument) lead them to perform terrible acts of violence and aggression.
            
            For an atheist like me, the very fact that certain people are able use the principle of "personal and unshakeable conviction" to justify such actions makes me seriously doubt that such conviction should ever be the basis for anything whatsoever.
            
            I am sure you understand very well that it is just the general principle I am talking about here, and that no personal comments are intended.

            replyreport
7. 0

   sandra rinckposted 16 years ago

   I know right...how can love be a concept. That aint love.

   replyreport
8. 72

   Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years ago

   You are right about the dangers, Thom. I am aware of them. I'm all for 'private' religion and against conversion. I am also for equality for all, and hope these policies will insure me and people around from the dangers of my belief.

   replyreport
9. 0

   sandra rinckposted 16 years ago

   My thought for the day as something I can feel, as well as observe.  People in real spirit never fight with each other. Maybe others at times, but never with each other, the unsaid brothers and sisters in the same spirit. 
   It's an anomally. 
   
   I was wondering if you had ever noticed this too Kenny?

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Slight tangent, Sandra:
      I notice that people who are insecure about their belief rush to defend it. All fights are outgrowths of insecurity, and so I agree with you. Suppose you like to eat Italian and I prefer Chinese, why should we fight about it? I respect your taste and you respect mine.
      
      You are right in another way. The spirits are more in harmony with each other, it's the mind and the body that have problems. When we realize that we are all the same deep inside, we don't fight.
      Thanks for making me think!

      replyreport
10. 63

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    Yeah guys, you are right - and I think however it has another dimension. We are trained from the childhood to divide people into us and them. "Us" do what we do and feel like we feel and can be trusted - and evil "them" do and feel the opposite. "Them" are enemies and therefore should be fought and converted into us... The divisions are countless, and religion is just one of the possible divisions...

    replyreport
11. 0

    sandra rinckposted 16 years ago

    I was getting tired of the other atheism forum, it's the same thing over and over again. 
    So back to the atheist challenge.  What can a believer do or say that a non believer can't do as well?
    
    
    The only thing an athiest can not do is see God.  If you don't believe in God, you will never see God, so saying I will change my mind when I see God, will never happen unless you believe first.  Then even if you did, you would exchange it for some scientific excuse that it was not God, but to be honest, when you see God, it can not be explained, it can't be anylized and it can not be proven.  But for believers, there never was need for proof. 
    
    I don't take offense to athiesm, but in some way I do take offense because ( i believe ) that it is wrong to try and wash away peoples hopes.  Even thought things are completly out of control because of God, God is also thier hope and reason for living.  Don't try to take it away.  Atheism just adds fuel to the fire and causes these extremely vulnerable people to come with swards to protect the last hope that they have because, life is not that great. 
    
    So the one thing that an athiest can not do is show compassion and true understanding to the people who believe in God.  Because without understanding what God is to each and every person in the world, you can never understand what God means.

    replyreport
    1. 72

       Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       I don't know. I don't "believe in" God, but I have certainly seen/experienced that thing that people call "God". I agree it is ineffable, and I suspect that Mark has experienced it too, and would also agree that it is ineffable.
       
       
       
       Again, I'm not sure about this. I think people who have a fixed notion of what "God" is find it much harder to show compassion and understanding for the varying ideas of others that don't match their own.
       
       In my experience, it is the people WITHOUT a firm position of "belief" who find it easiest to show compassion and true understanding. Those who realise that the greatest wisdom is acknowledging that we know nothing at all ...
       
       Fundamentalists of any stripe - atheist, scientific materialist, Christian, communist, or nationalist - find it much harder to show compassion and true understanding, because fundamentalism is driven by fear, and fear kills compassion.
       
       Jenny

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Patience Virtueposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          There is no way that ethical actions are somehow the dividing line between Christians and non-Christians, religious and non-religious, or even the spiritual and not-so-spiritual.  We are all humans and all (at least theoretically) capable of pretty much the same kinds of actions.  Hitchens made his point fairly well I'd say.
          
          Which is the sad thing about religion: it appears to be all about doing good things, but in the end the religious don't really get more good things done than the non-religious.  It does make one wonder about these religions, whether they really are about helping people or whether they are just about developing oneself but not helping the world.  Kind of makes religion look a little selfish...
          
          But, on the other hand, if the point in all of this is to prove that God doesn't exist, I don't think that proves anything.  Maybe that's just because it is a lot harder to prove the non-existence of something than the existence of something.  I don't think that it's quite fair, though, to say that God doesn't exist because humans screwed up religion.  If God exists, is he really responsible for the actions of human beings?  I hope not, because he would sure have a lot of explaining to do!
          
          (Crusades, Holocaust, slavery, racism, oppression of women...)

          replyreport
12. 71

    funneboneposted 16 years ago

    When Oprah featured the book The Secret on her show thousands of people went out and bought it, even though it was a best seller at that point. The concept is the Law of Attraction. This idea revolves around the universe providing whatever it is that you ask for. People gobbled the book up because it promised to teach you the secret to fulfilling your dreams. For some reason they could get away with pointing to " the universe" as a provider and nobody cried foul yet if someone points to the Bible, people freak out. It is a battle of nomenclature not concepts. To assume that religion, God, morality, and ethics can be casually interchanged is ignorant at best. It is egocentric to think that you are born with preprogrammed ethics and morals yet you can define someone else as being immoral. Without some higher authority how do you determine what is right?
    
    One of the contributors to the secret is Ester Hicks. Someone asked her about religion once and she said " God made man in his image, and ever since man has struggled to create god in mans image" This can explain the perversion of Gods word through religion and or extreme individuals, but it can not be used to define God, his word or his will.
    
    To discredit an individuals faith just because you can't see it is paramount to me telling you blue doesn't exist because I am colorblind. If a tree falls in the woods....
    
    As to the original question...ethics was an improper word choice since they refer usually to a group, namely a profession. Ethic may be influenced my morals which of course are dictated by right and wrong. Being that  they have yet to identify the " karma" gene, and we are burdened with being mortal, something, somewhere has to be programming us. granted some better than others.

    replyreport
13. 71

    funneboneposted 16 years ago

    "Crusades, Holocaust, slavery, racism, oppression of women"
    
    here we go again. Can you explain to me how people can use the crazy, extreme worst examples of something in order to define the whole concept? Isn't that what racism and sexism is?

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       The Nazis had a lot going for them too. Hitler turned Germany around and was a major positive influence on re-building the country. At the time, he was considered to be a great statesman. What do you most remember about the Nazi regime ?
       
       Glossing over and pretending things like these didn't happen is dangerous. People bring these things up in the hope that they won't be repeated.

       replyreport
14. 0

    sandra rinckposted 16 years ago

    Maybe I have been the only one giving the question some real thought and trying to answer it, but I guess even trying to answer doesn't get much action because, well...I don't know.  hmm, whateva. 

    replyreport
15. 61

    mohitmisraposted 16 years ago

    My name is Mohit.K.Misra Poet author of Ponder Awhile a full time poet for over five years.
    I got Enlightened at the age of twenty four while sailing in the Merchant Navy as a Second officer.
    My book has been ranked 1 for 2006 in Poetry books on Best Book Buys.
    I was an atheist till I had my Spiritual experience.
    My book deals with God and Religions.
    Christopher Hichtens time will come.We all come from the Light or God and will go back to it.
    
    All religions are good a poem Religions from my book Ponder Awhile.
    
    
    RELIGIONS
    
    
    The entire Buddhist monk’s life is but a preparation,
    For his Death Point or moment of separation.
    
    The Jains have santhara,
    Quitting life consciously to join with the paramatma.
    
    Hindus go into Samadhi,
    Where there is no Congress, Shiv Sena , BJP or Samajwadi.
    
    The Christian merges with the Holy Spirit,
    Peace, no more desperate.
    
    The Sufi mystic to become one,
    Dances, twirls, prays, trances to get the job done.
    
    Aghora means Illumined with Light,
    Longing for Shiva in whom they delight.
    
    Shamanism or the Art of Ecstasy,
    The ultimate being one with the super entity.
    
    There is no need to change your faith,
    And on your old religion lay a wreath.

    replyreport
16. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    Raven. I know you directed this at Thom but I couldn't resist
    
    There are all sorts of prayers:
    
    http://www.larryflynt.com/national_prayer_day.html
    
    Some of which you may class as unethical?
    
    And like many others, you are confusing the act of not believing in something with believing that something is not.
    
    I don't "believe," there is no god. I have become convinced that there is no god. ( see Atheism Rules!) And, as we have agreed, it is very difficult to prove the non-existence of something in the face of a faith-based belief that there is.
    
    Does your idea of atheism mean that if I don't think something exists, I therefore "believe," in that? So, I believe that there is no flying spaghetti monster or I believe I don't have a Ferrari in the garage, or  all the other things that I think don't exist are actually beliefs?
    
    The only possible reason for "believing," there is no god is if some one else is insisting that it does exist.
    
    You can tell me as often as you like that you "believe" I own a Ferrari - it won't make it true.
    
    I do not own a Ferrari. This is not a "belief." It just isn't. No matter how hard I pray, it just never materializes. (Red would be good please)
    
    As to praying being an ethical act. If nothing happens, how can it be ethical? Or even an act, because you do not have to get down on your hands and knees to pray.
    
    I could just as easily say that when I clean the kitchen floor, I get down on my hands and knees and something positive comes out of it, therefore it is an "ethical," act.
    
    Now I am not saying that positive thought does not make a difference. I am also not saying that it is not possible to manifest something in what we call the real world by doing certain actions and having certain thoughts.
    
    But in my belief system, (and I do have one - "atheism," is the best label I could find) the universe makes no distinction between ethical or un-ethical. No distinction between "good," or "bad."
    
    So, I agree with you that we first need a clear definition of ethical. But I do not see praying as ethical as you describe it.
    
    I could see perhaps praying in front of a tank to try to stop a war and getting squished to death under the tracks as being an ethical act, but you do not need to believe in god to do this.
    
    Edit - As I think about this one (the tank) you could actually argue that an act like this by a non-believer is the more ethical act.

    replyreport
17. 60

    Thom Carnesposted 16 years ago

    Raven - Many thanks for your very thoughtful and considered response.
    
    I'm not saying that I totally disagree with you. As you yourself acknowledge, what you are saying makes perfect sense within a pre-determined belief system - and I cannot deny that most people in the world share that belief-system in one form or another (which, of course, doesn't mean that it's true - just that it's very attractive).
    
    I'm not sure that "love" is something that exists solely in a person's mind or thoughts. Sure, the idea of love, the "feeling" of love, can exist in someone's mind, but I believe that love can only really exist through action: that there are, in the widest possible sense, only "acts" of love....
    
    And yes, you are exactly right. As an atheist I believe in many things - but only what reason and evidence tell me to. Although atheism is often defined as the absence of belief, it does have its basis in a very real and clear belief: that only the natural world exists, and that this world can be accessed through reason, evidence and assessable argument only.
    
    So you are right: we are all believers. It's just the criteria behind those beliefs which differ.
    
    Many thanks once again for your extremely interesting and thought-provoking contributions. I look forward to hearing more from you ....

    replyreport
18. 60

    Thom Carnesposted 16 years ago

    You are exactly right, Jenny - as always!
    
    It is rather a futile exercise to begin a debate/ discussion without formulating some initial "point of agreement"  - otherwise we all go off in ever-diverging, never-converging tangents (as per the ongoing evolution -vs- creation debate).
    
    But, then again, I suppose that's what makes it all so fascinating!

    replyreport
19. 60

    knolyourselfposted 16 years ago

    An 'ethical act' might be to do what is correct regardless of the advantage or disadvantage to oneself. The question and quagmire of course might be what exactly is correct?

    replyreport
20. 63

    Mishaposted 16 years ago

    What God you are talking about Jay? Every single one of them have different standards
    
    And yes, on the great scale of things term ethical is irrelevant, because it is relative to a particular culture, and what is ethical for Christian might not be ethical for Muslim or Buddhist, and vice versa...
    
    Good night anyway

    replyreport
21. 0

    sandra rinckposted 16 years ago

    You know, Mark, your are right, I know your right, there is without a doubt in my mind that we are nothing, we are less than a grain of sand scattered in something, we are  just dust.  I know what you are saying.  Literally this is what we are.  It's messed up, it messed up on an non fundemental level, it's messed up on a sane level. 
    
    There is something on the spiritual side.  It seem insistant that as small as we are, we will become again.  We will just at some point in "time", no matter how it get's mixed end up here again.  it makes perfect sense, physically cosmicly, matters, particals, etc. everything will eventually meet up again, so this is as real as it gets.  So I could say, we will meet again. 
    
    If that force shakes our universe, were fu**ed, whatever is out there has complete control of our existence.  If we are living in a cosmic cylindar as particals of microbes or atoms or whatever, outer universal force, that is God to me. 
    
    And it exist between space that makes space functional, why I don't know.   
    
    I can't say I know for sure what Jesus is and I can't really say for certain why we have a mind, but for whatever reason, I still believe that we are the marvel, the opposite of God who marvel at God. 
    
    
    
    

    replyreport