| auto119042@gmail.com |
I've reported this ****head to the administrator in hopes of getting
him terminated.
Go pitch your bull**** to the Muslims in Iraq.
|
|
|
| Rudi |
In article <1116642885.625087.110330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
auto119042@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I've reported this ****head to the administrator in hopes of getting
> him terminated.
>
> Go pitch your bull**** to the Muslims in Iraq.
Zzzz.
|
|
|
| Frank ess |
auto119042@gmail.com wrote:
> I've reported this ****head to the administrator in hopes of getting
> him terminated.
>
> Go pitch your bull**** to the Muslims in Iraq.
sh
|
|
|
| Rudi |
In article <ktedncEeIuGaJhPfRVn-jg@giganews.com>
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
> auto119042@gmail.com wrote:
> > I've reported this ****head to the administrator in hopes of getting
> > him terminated.
> >
> > Go pitch your bull**** to the Muslims in Iraq.
>
> sh
??
|
|
|
| Dave Smith |
auto119042@gmail.com wrote:
> I've reported this ****head to the administrator in hopes of getting
> him terminated.
>
> Go pitch your bull**** to the Muslims in Iraq.
I had him filtered, and had to do it in each of the news groups that I
read. Then then the asshole changed his name to get through the filter.
|
|
|
| Tony P. |
In article <1116642885.625087.110330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
auto119042@gmail.com says...
> I've reported this ****head to the administrator in hopes of getting
> him terminated.
>
> Go pitch your bull**** to the Muslims in Iraq.
The problem is that they'll only terminate the account, not the
****head.
|
|
|
| Rudi |
In article <428F3966.503078AF@sympatico.ca>
Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> auto119042@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I've reported this ****head to the administrator in hopes of getting
> > him terminated.
> >
> > Go pitch your bull**** to the Muslims in Iraq.
>
> I had him filtered, and had to do it in each of the news groups that I
> read. Then then the asshole changed his name to get through the filter.
That asshole has been spamming for weeks now.
|
|
|
| Dave Smith |
Rudi wrote:
>
> > > Go pitch your bull**** to the Muslims in Iraq.
> >
> > I had him filtered, and had to do it in each of the news groups that I
> > read. Then then the asshole changed his name to get through the filter.
>
> That asshole has been spamming for weeks now.
It's a shame the poor idiot doesn't realize that his efforts to preach his
religious tripe is more likely to turn people off than on.
|
|
|
| cathyxyz |
Dave Smith wrote:
>
> It's a shame the poor idiot doesn't realize that his efforts to preach his
> religious tripe is more likely to turn people off than on.
>
>
Amen to that!
Cathy
--
I don't suffer from insanity - I enjoy every minute of it
|
|
|
| sf |
On 20 May 2005 19:34:45 -0700, auto119042@gmail.com wrote:
> I've reported this ****head to the administrator in hopes of getting
> him terminated.
>
> Go pitch your bull**** to the Muslims in Iraq.
Correction: Send to Saudi Arabia
c/o the Wahabi school of religion.
|
|
|
| Rudi |
In article <428F4887.57BA2AAD@sympatico.ca>
Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Rudi wrote:
>
> >
> > > > Go pitch your bull**** to the Muslims in Iraq.
> > >
> > > I had him filtered, and had to do it in each of the news groups that I
> > > read. Then then the asshole changed his name to get through the filter.
> >
> > That asshole has been spamming for weeks now.
>
> It's a shame the poor idiot doesn't realize that his efforts to preach his
> religious tripe is more likely to turn people off than on.
Bingo!
|
|
|
| Greg Evans |
Dave Smith wrote:
> It's a shame the poor idiot doesn't realize that his efforts to
> preach his religious tripe is more likely to turn people off than on.
But I'd be willing to bet the "poor idiot" DOES realize that he can get
multiple newsgroups riled up and responding to him with enraged but
ultimately ineffectual posts. Guess what? He wins. Just don't feed the
trolls, people. It's wasted effort.
|
|
|
| TrollHunter |
In article <428F3966.503078AF@sympatico.ca>,
Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> auto119042@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I've reported this ****head to the administrator in hopes of getting
> > him terminated.
> >
> > Go pitch your bull**** to the Muslims in Iraq.
>
> I had him filtered, and had to do it in each of the news groups that I
> read. Then then the asshole changed his name to get through the filter.
That is typical troll behavior...
I just re-killfile them.
--
TH
Life is a sexually transmitted disease...
and..... it is terminal..... --~*~R~*~
|
|
|
| TrollHunter |
In article <428F4887.57BA2AAD@sympatico.ca>,
Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Rudi wrote:
>
> >
> > > > Go pitch your bull**** to the Muslims in Iraq.
> > >
> > > I had him filtered, and had to do it in each of the news groups that I
> > > read. Then then the asshole changed his name to get through the filter.
> >
> > That asshole has been spamming for weeks now.
>
> It's a shame the poor idiot doesn't realize that his efforts to preach his
> religious tripe is more likely to turn people off than on.
>
>
Excactly my viewpoint.
These people are SO ignorant!
And do NOT do the lords work. :-(
Just the opposite.
--
TH
Life is a sexually transmitted disease...
and..... it is terminal..... --~*~R~*~
|
|
|
| p53a |
There is no Lord to do the work of. It is a fantasy.
|
|
|
| oldmanknows |
can i get an amen
oh ya Frank ess can you say anthing other than shhh
|
|
|
| Shaun aRe |
"oldmanknows" <littlebigmail@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1116715119.589869.276010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> can i get an amen
Only if you pay.
> oh ya Frank ess can you say anthing other than shhh
If he can, I've never seen it. Probably about the lamest troll shtick I've
ever come across.
Shaun aRe
|
|
|
| Shaun aRe |
"p53a" <veverpath@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116713877.667669.14070@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> There is no Lord to do the work of. It is a fantasy.
Here you got - the official God FAQ: http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
Shaun aRe
|
|
|
| Brian Siano |
Dave Smith wrote:
> Rudi wrote:
>
>
>>>>Go pitch your bull**** to the Muslims in Iraq.
>>>
>>>I had him filtered, and had to do it in each of the news groups that I
>>>read. Then then the asshole changed his name to get through the filter.
>>
>>That asshole has been spamming for weeks now.
>
>
> It's a shame the poor idiot doesn't realize that his efforts to preach his
> religious tripe is more likely to turn people off than on.
We can only hope.
Personally, I promote atheism by setting a decent example.
|
|
|
| Greg Evans |
Brian Siano wrote:
> Personally, I promote atheism by setting a decent example.
Well then God bless you, sir!
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:08:59 -0400, "Greg Evans"
<gregIGNOREevans@charter.BLATHER.net> wrote:
>Brian Siano wrote:
>
>> Personally, I promote atheism by setting a decent example.
>
>Well then God bless you, sir!
I do the same thing, Greg. Most of my evangelical Christian neighbors
get confused since a heathen like me does a lot more charitable work
and helping-thy-brother than they do.
I secretly suspect they just pay a lot of lip service to Christianity.
|
|
|
| Greg Evans |
Larry Krzewinski wrote:
> I secretly suspect they just pay a lot of lip service to Christianity.
I thought that's what got all those priests in trouble....
|
|
|
| Robert |
In article <3fmvp9F8kt52U1@individual.net>
"Greg Evans" <gregIGNOREevans@charter.BLATHER.net> wrote:
>
> Brian Siano wrote:
>
> > Personally, I promote atheism by setting a decent example.
>
> Well then God bless you, sir!
Zzzz.
|
|
|
| Greg Evans |
Robert wrote:
>>> Personally, I promote atheism by setting a decent example.
>> Well then God bless you, sir!
>
> Zzzz.
Good idea, Robert; you go back to sleep so you won't have to feel stupid for
missing out on the satire.
|
|
|
| Mos |
"Greg Evans" <gregIGNOREevans@charter.BLATHER.net> wrote in
message news:3fniofF8go69U1@individual.net
> Robert wrote:
>
>>>> Personally, I promote atheism by setting a decent
>>>> example.
>>> Well then God bless you, sir!
>>
>> Zzzz.
>
> Good idea, Robert; you go back to sleep so you won't have
> to feel stupid for missing out on the satire.
Sleeping ? I thought it was his lame impersonation
of a chain saw.
|
|
|
| Brian Siano |
Xref: 127.0.0.1 rec.humor:522880 rec.woodworking:1044196 rec.photo.digital:1146957 rec.music.phish:1537861 rec.food.cooking:1078649
Greg Evans wrote:
> Brian Siano wrote:
>
>
>>Personally, I promote atheism by setting a decent example.
>
>
> Well then God bless you, sir!
>
And I give you joy of it, sir!
(I'm also a Patrick O'Brian fan.)
|
|
|
| Brian Siano |
Mos wrote:
>>>Zzzz.
>>
>>Good idea, Robert; you go back to sleep so you won't have
>>to feel stupid for missing out on the satire.
>
> Sleeping ? I thought it was his lame impersonation
> of a chain saw.
Or a good impression of a lame chainsaw.
|
|
|
| Jim Spaza |
Larry Krzewinski wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:08:59 -0400, "Greg Evans"
> <gregIGNOREevans@charter.BLATHER.net> wrote:
>
> >Brian Siano wrote:
> >
> >> Personally, I promote atheism by setting a decent example.
> >
> >Well then God bless you, sir!
>
> I do the same thing, Greg. Most of my evangelical Christian neighbors
> get confused since a heathen like me does a lot more charitable work
> and helping-thy-brother than they do.
>
> I secretly suspect they just pay a lot of lip service to Christianity.
If there is no God, then why do all the charitable work? Because it
makes you feel good?
|
|
|
| Greg Evans |
Jim Spaza wrote:
> If there is no God, then why do all the charitable
> work? Because it makes you feel good?
There may be no God, but there *is* such a thing as Tax Deductible
Charities!
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On 27 May 2005 09:41:58 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Larry Krzewinski wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:08:59 -0400, "Greg Evans"
>> <gregIGNOREevans@charter.BLATHER.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Brian Siano wrote:
>> >
>> >> Personally, I promote atheism by setting a decent example.
>> >
>> >Well then God bless you, sir!
>>
>> I do the same thing, Greg. Most of my evangelical Christian neighbors
>> get confused since a heathen like me does a lot more charitable work
>> and helping-thy-brother than they do.
>>
>> I secretly suspect they just pay a lot of lip service to Christianity.
>
>If there is no God, then why do all the charitable work? Because it
>makes you feel good?
Exactly. I enjoy helping others in need. One can derive joy from
being altruistic with no imaginary super being required. I have met
a lot of religious hypocrites.
|
|
|
| ynotssor |
"Greg Evans" <misterx@larkbooks.com> wrote in message
news:3fp18lF8u44qU1@individual.net
>> If there is no God, then why do all the charitable
>> work? Because it makes you feel good?
>
> There may be no God, but there *is* such a thing as Tax Deductible
> Charities!
It's a great way to meet homeless chicks, too.
|
|
|
| Jim Spaza |
Larry Krzewinski wrote:
> On 27 May 2005 09:41:58 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Larry Krzewinski wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:08:59 -0400, "Greg Evans"
> >> <gregIGNOREevans@charter.BLATHER.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Brian Siano wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Personally, I promote atheism by setting a decent example.
> >> >
> >> >Well then God bless you, sir!
> >>
> >> I do the same thing, Greg. Most of my evangelical Christian neighbors
> >> get confused since a heathen like me does a lot more charitable work
> >> and helping-thy-brother than they do.
> >>
> >> I secretly suspect they just pay a lot of lip service to Christianity.
> >
> >If there is no God, then why do all the charitable work? Because it
> >makes you feel good?
>
> Exactly. I enjoy helping others in need. One can derive joy from
> being altruistic with no imaginary super being required. I have met
> a lot of religious hypocrites.
Really? So, you help others because it makes you feel good...as
opposed to simply making someone else's life better without regard for
yourself.
Would you help others if it didn't make you feel good?
What if you had to really sacrifice something that you owned, worked
hard for, or really enjoyed yourself?
Would you say that someone who enjoys going out of his way to
purposefully NOT help others is wrong?
|
|
|
| Jim Spaza |
Greg Evans wrote:
> Jim Spaza wrote:
>
> > If there is no God, then why do all the charitable
> > work? Because it makes you feel good?
>
> There may be no God, but there *is* such a thing as Tax Deductible
> Charities!
So, you help people because it is financially beneficial for you.
Would you help others if you gained absolutely nothing for yourself?
|
|
|
| Brian Siano |
Jim Spaza wrote:
> If there is no God, then why do all the charitable work? Because it
> makes you feel good?
That's part of it. Other parts include empathy for others, a desire to
improve the world, and lots of other reasons.
But every time I see a question like this-- some variation on "If you
don't believe in God, then why do you do good things?"-- I'm amazed.
You see, it rests on the presumption that the main reason people do good
things is because they believe in some sort of God. And when you think
about it, this is an _amazing_ insult against religious people. It's
saying that religious people are not decent and good people _in and of
themselves_-- they _require_ the fear of God to behave themselves.
Even though I'm an atheist, I usually have to explain to religious
people that this is _not_ true about them. I usually say, "Well, if you
got excellent proof that there was no God, would you start doing evil
things?" (Granted, some religious people will do evil things, but that's
usually when they _think_ they're doing good things. But that's beside
th point here.)
|
|
|
| Brian Siano |
Jim Spaza wrote:
> Really? So, you help others because it makes you feel good...as
> opposed to simply making someone else's life better without regard for
> yourself.
>
> Would you help others if it didn't make you feel good?
This is, frankly, one of the cheapest arguments on the subject. That's
because there really is no such thing as perfect, unalloyed altruism.
So, if someone says they like to do good deeds, you challenge them by
saying, "So, you don't do them because they're good-- you do them
because they make you feel good."
Well, _yes_. This is true for _everyone_, so trying to portray it as a
kind of craven greediness is pretty dishonest. One might as well say
that Jesus wasn't completely selfless; after all, he did it for a
purpose that made him feel it was worthwhile, and since he's the
Son'o'God, he knew he'd get to live in heaven forever aferward.
Basically, it rests on a wholly unrealistic idea of what altruism or
"helping others" is.
> What if you had to really sacrifice something that you owned, worked
> hard for, or really enjoyed yourself?
And once again, we have a cheap argument. People gauge how much they
want to help people. Some people make great sacrifices, others manage to
do what they're comfortable with. Some people tithe five percent,
others'll give up a kidney for a stranger. This is human nature.
The cheapness of the argument comes from the assumption that, for good
deeds or charity to 'count,' they must be completely selfless, or so
generous as to be saintly.
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On 27 May 2005 10:42:04 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Personally, I promote atheism by setting a decent example.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well then God bless you, sir!
>> >>
>> >> I do the same thing, Greg. Most of my evangelical Christian neighbors
>> >> get confused since a heathen like me does a lot more charitable work
>> >> and helping-thy-brother than they do.
>> >>
>> >> I secretly suspect they just pay a lot of lip service to Christianity.
>> >
>> >If there is no God, then why do all the charitable work? Because it
>> >makes you feel good?
>>
>> Exactly. I enjoy helping others in need. One can derive joy from
>> being altruistic with no imaginary super being required. I have met
>> a lot of religious hypocrites.
>
>Really? So, you help others because it makes you feel good...as
>opposed to simply making someone else's life better without regard for
>yourself.
I was once in extremely dire circumstances through no fault of my own.
I happened to be in a place with others that were in the those same
circumstances. Everyone was playing the "why me" game and trying to
understand how their lives had been utterly torn apart with no
warning. I looked around and saw that although I was a total mess
that others were worse off than I. I began helping others. I found
that helping others helped me as well. You should try it. It might
help you.
>Would you help others if it didn't make you feel good?
Yes, but I find it hard to imagine how one could actually accomplish
that unless one was forced into doing so. At that point it would not
be altruism.
>What if you had to really sacrifice something that you owned, worked
>hard for, or really enjoyed yourself?
I've already done that. Have you?
>Would you say that someone who enjoys going out of his way to
>purposefully NOT help others is wrong?
Yes, I would. Although we all have choices we can make, watching
others suffer when we have the ability to help is cruel. While it is
true that I certainly can't help everyone on the planet that need
help, true charitable works by individuals towards others seems to be
something that is in short supply. Perhaps you feel that putting a
few bucks in your church's collection basket is helping out or
donating some money to organized charities. Try personally helping
someone else in need. I think you'll find there is a great difference
between those two types of giving.
|
|
|
| Jim Spaza |
Brian Siano wrote:
> Jim Spaza wrote:
> > Really? So, you help others because it makes you feel good...as
> > opposed to simply making someone else's life better without regard for
> > yourself.
> >
> > Would you help others if it didn't make you feel good?
>
> This is, frankly, one of the cheapest arguments on the subject. That's
> because there really is no such thing as perfect, unalloyed altruism.
Says who? If there is no God, then human beings create their own ideas
of right and wrong, truth and falsehood...including the very definition
of "perfect", "unalloyed", and "altruism".
>
> So, if someone says they like to do good deeds, you challenge them by
> saying, "So, you don't do them because they're good-- you do them
> because they make you feel good."
No, I challenge them to say why something is even good in the first
place if they say that there is no God.
>
> Well, _yes_. This is true for _everyone_, so trying to portray it as a
> kind of craven greediness is pretty dishonest. One might as well say
> that Jesus wasn't completely selfless; after all, he did it for a
> purpose that made him feel it was worthwhile, and since he's the
> Son'o'God, he knew he'd get to live in heaven forever aferward.
>
I never tried to portray this as "craven greediness". Maybe others
have or maybe your own conscience got to you. I don't know which.
What Jesus did was not for Himself. It was intended for His Father in
Heaven and for us regular mortals on Earth.
> Basically, it rests on a wholly unrealistic idea of what altruism or
> "helping others" is.
True for an atheist given that there are no absolute right and wrongs
if God doesn't exist. Not true for someone who believes in God because
then the altruism, as you put it, has been established by an authority
greater than humanity.
>
> > What if you had to really sacrifice something that you owned, worked
> > hard for, or really enjoyed yourself?
>
> And once again, we have a cheap argument. People gauge how much they
> want to help people. Some people make great sacrifices, others manage to
> do what they're comfortable with. Some people tithe five percent,
> others'll give up a kidney for a stranger. This is human nature.
The argument is not cheap at all. The response to the question shows
how much of the person's thinking is devoted to other people versus
himself. The response shows whether a person believes in moral
concepts beyond his own existence or looks to his own desires, will,
and heart for standards of behavior.
>
> The cheapness of the argument comes from the assumption that, for good
> deeds or charity to 'count,' they must be completely selfless, or so
> generous as to be saintly.
I don't assume anything. However, what is meant by "count" if there is
no God to do the counting?
|
|
|
| Jim Spaza |
Larry Krzewinski wrote:
> On 27 May 2005 10:42:04 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Personally, I promote atheism by setting a decent example.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Well then God bless you, sir!
> >> >>
> >> >> I do the same thing, Greg. Most of my evangelical Christian neighbors
> >> >> get confused since a heathen like me does a lot more charitable work
> >> >> and helping-thy-brother than they do.
> >> >>
> >> >> I secretly suspect they just pay a lot of lip service to Christianity.
> >> >
> >> >If there is no God, then why do all the charitable work? Because it
> >> >makes you feel good?
> >>
> >> Exactly. I enjoy helping others in need. One can derive joy from
> >> being altruistic with no imaginary super being required. I have met
> >> a lot of religious hypocrites.
> >
> >Really? So, you help others because it makes you feel good...as
> >opposed to simply making someone else's life better without regard for
> >yourself.
>
> I was once in extremely dire circumstances through no fault of my own.
> I happened to be in a place with others that were in the those same
> circumstances. Everyone was playing the "why me" game and trying to
> understand how their lives had been utterly torn apart with no
> warning. I looked around and saw that although I was a total mess
> that others were worse off than I. I began helping others. I found
> that helping others helped me as well. You should try it. It might
> help you.
>
If I didn't believe in God, then I might take your position of intended
to help myself by helping others.
> >Would you help others if it didn't make you feel good?
>
> Yes, but I find it hard to imagine how one could actually accomplish
> that unless one was forced into doing so. At that point it would not
> be altruism.
If there is no God, then one's feelings would be all that matters...so
I can understand how some would feel that way.
Do you really not see how people do things that they dislike for good
which is beyond their own gratification?
Also, are you saying that the altruism about helping others becomes
void when personal benefit is removed?
>
> >What if you had to really sacrifice something that you owned, worked
> >hard for, or really enjoyed yourself?
>
> I've already done that. Have you?
Yes, thanks for asking.
>
> >Would you say that someone who enjoys going out of his way to
> >purposefully NOT help others is wrong?
>
> Yes, I would. Although we all have choices we can make, watching
> others suffer when we have the ability to help is cruel. While it is
> true that I certainly can't help everyone on the planet that need
> help, true charitable works by individuals towards others seems to be
> something that is in short supply. Perhaps you feel that putting a
> few bucks in your church's collection basket is helping out or
> donating some money to organized charities. Try personally helping
> someone else in need. I think you'll find there is a great difference
> between those two types of giving.
If there is no God, then who are you to say what is wrong? Without a
cosmic standard of good and evil, then people on their own determine
was is cruel, inhumane, or evil, right?
In my opinion, putting excess cash into some basket that is
conveniently passed by me in some church service is about the lowest
form of charity that there is.
You're correct about the different levels of service. One requires a
little bit of excess money and a convenient basket. The other demands
time, energy, money that could be used elsewhere, and discomfort.
But, if there is no God, then what does charity matter anyway?
|
|
|
| p53a |
Timeless argument. You make a moral judgment everyday about the
goodness of God don't you? I mean you wouldn't worship your God if you
didn't think it/he was good would you? You must believe in the Devil
yet you don't worship the devil do you? Why? Because you perceive the
Devil to be evil. Do you ritualisticaly dash the heads of babies as was
so often commanded by your God in the Old Testament? I would hope not
but God said to do it so it must be Good right? My guess is you don't
loot a pilage and rape and steal either even though your God commanded
those things as well. You must be making an independent moral judgement
about those acts that doesn't rest on God. If God was the final arbiter
of good and evil and you follwed his example you would be a monster.
Charity, compassion etc do not require God. They require empathy.
Morals and what is good is a function of the society you happen to live
in at whatever time in history you happen to live in it. God is
superfluous.
Jim Spaza wrote:
> Brian Siano wrote:
> > Jim Spaza wrote:
> > > Really? So, you help others because it makes you feel good...as
> > > opposed to simply making someone else's life better without regard for
> > > yourself.
> > >
> > > Would you help others if it didn't make you feel good?
> >
> > This is, frankly, one of the cheapest arguments on the subject. That's
> > because there really is no such thing as perfect, unalloyed altruism.
>
> Says who? If there is no God, then human beings create their own ideas
> of right and wrong, truth and falsehood...including the very definition
> of "perfect", "unalloyed", and "altruism".
>
> >
> > So, if someone says they like to do good deeds, you challenge them by
> > saying, "So, you don't do them because they're good-- you do them
> > because they make you feel good."
>
> No, I challenge them to say why something is even good in the first
> place if they say that there is no God.
>
> >
> > Well, _yes_. This is true for _everyone_, so trying to portray it as a
> > kind of craven greediness is pretty dishonest. One might as well say
> > that Jesus wasn't completely selfless; after all, he did it for a
> > purpose that made him feel it was worthwhile, and since he's the
> > Son'o'God, he knew he'd get to live in heaven forever aferward.
> >
>
> I never tried to portray this as "craven greediness". Maybe others
> have or maybe your own conscience got to you. I don't know which.
>
> What Jesus did was not for Himself. It was intended for His Father in
> Heaven and for us regular mortals on Earth.
>
> > Basically, it rests on a wholly unrealistic idea of what altruism or
> > "helping others" is.
>
> True for an atheist given that there are no absolute right and wrongs
> if God doesn't exist. Not true for someone who believes in God because
> then the altruism, as you put it, has been established by an authority
> greater than humanity.
>
> >
> > > What if you had to really sacrifice something that you owned, worked
> > > hard for, or really enjoyed yourself?
> >
> > And once again, we have a cheap argument. People gauge how much they
> > want to help people. Some people make great sacrifices, others manage to
> > do what they're comfortable with. Some people tithe five percent,
> > others'll give up a kidney for a stranger. This is human nature.
>
> The argument is not cheap at all. The response to the question shows
> how much of the person's thinking is devoted to other people versus
> himself. The response shows whether a person believes in moral
> concepts beyond his own existence or looks to his own desires, will,
> and heart for standards of behavior.
>
> >
> > The cheapness of the argument comes from the assumption that, for good
> > deeds or charity to 'count,' they must be completely selfless, or so
> > generous as to be saintly.
>
> I don't assume anything. However, what is meant by "count" if there is
> no God to do the counting?
|
|
|
| Jim Spaza |
Brian Siano wrote:
> Jim Spaza wrote:
>
> > If there is no God, then why do all the charitable work? Because it
> > makes you feel good?
>
> That's part of it. Other parts include empathy for others, a desire to
> improve the world, and lots of other reasons.
But, why do all these things if there is no God?
>
> But every time I see a question like this-- some variation on "If you
> don't believe in God, then why do you do good things?"-- I'm amazed.
>
> You see, it rests on the presumption that the main reason people do good
> things is because they believe in some sort of God. And when you think
> about it, this is an _amazing_ insult against religious people. It's
> saying that religious people are not decent and good people _in and of
> themselves_-- they _require_ the fear of God to behave themselves.
For some religious people, yes. For others, their belief in God is a
motivating factor to set aside feelings of laziness, selfishness, and
other bad human qualities and do the right thing anyway.
For the Christian who truly believes the Bible, human beings are seen
as having an easy time being selfish, mean liars. It takes effort to
be charitable, loving, truthful, kind, patient, and understanding. Do
children have to be taught to hoard their toys, lie to their parents,
and act before thinking? No. That's basic human nature which does NOT
stop when a person has his/her 18th birthday.
It's not that people can't do good things apart from a belief in God.
It's just that, for most Christians, the fact that God sees all good
and evil and will judge all thoughts, words, and deeds is a great
motivation to do the right thing even when they don't feel like it.
>
> Even though I'm an atheist, I usually have to explain to religious
> people that this is _not_ true about them. I usually say, "Well, if you
> got excellent proof that there was no God, would you start doing evil
> things?" (Granted, some religious people will do evil things, but that's
> usually when they _think_ they're doing good things. But that's beside
> th point here.)
Honestly, if God doesn't exist, then I would be much more likely to
lie, cheat on my wife, abuse my body with drugs and alcohol, hurt
others as I saw fit, and live for momentary pleasure. After all, if
God doesn't exist, then why not live such a lifestyle?
|
|
|
| Brian Siano |
Jim Spaza wrote:
>
> Brian Siano wrote:
>
>>Jim Spaza wrote:
>>
>>>Really? So, you help others because it makes you feel good...as
>>>opposed to simply making someone else's life better without regard for
>>>yourself.
>>>
>>>Would you help others if it didn't make you feel good?
>>
>>This is, frankly, one of the cheapest arguments on the subject. That's
>>because there really is no such thing as perfect, unalloyed altruism.
>
> Says who? If there is no God, then human beings create their own ideas
> of right and wrong, truth and falsehood...including the very definition
> of "perfect", "unalloyed", and "altruism".
Who says human beings "create their own ideas of right and wrong?" Where
did you _ever_ find the evidence to make this kind of a claim? Exactly
where does this solipsism come from?
It's perfectly plausible-- and there is considerable evidence to support
this-- that humans' ideas of right and wrong are considerably _innate_,
and have developed through our evolution. (You may want to read _Unto
Others_, a fine survey of evolutuonary theories regarding altruism.)
>>So, if someone says they like to do good deeds, you challenge them by
>>saying, "So, you don't do them because they're good-- you do them
>>because they make you feel good."
>
> No, I challenge them to say why something is even good in the first
> place if they say that there is no God.
Then you'd better clarify your argument here. Are you saying that the
existence of a God is needed in order for humans to have a moral sense?
Or are you saying that human beings require only the _belief_ in God to
have a moral sense?
Until you settle this issue properly, you ought to refrain from this
silly 'challenge,' which seems to be built on a lot of unfounded
assumptions.
> What Jesus did was not for Himself. It was intended for His Father in
> Heaven and for us regular mortals on Earth.
It wasn't much of a selfless act, then. If he was doing it for some
notion of a greater Good, then it was no more altruistic than a human
being sacrificing himself, or enduring some punishment, for some other
greater good.
Really, when you think about it, Jesus' "sacrifice' was on a
considerably _lower_ moral level than that of an ordinary mortal's. For
one thing; did Jesus _know_, for _certain_, that his act _would_ create
a greater good? If so, then he wasn't risking anything. A human being
has no _real_ certainty that his or her sacrifice _will_ be for the
greater good. Humans don't know if it'll succeed or not.
And Jesus is suposed to be the Son of God, right? That means he _knew_
that he would ascend into Heaven after doing a few painful hours on the
Cross. Compare that to the despair of an ordinary human; who may very
well be in complete despair that they will wind up in Hell. Frankly, I
have more respect for someone like Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King,
Jr.
>>Basically, it rests on a wholly unrealistic idea of what altruism or
>>"helping others" is.
>
> True for an atheist given that there are no absolute right and wrongs
> if God doesn't exist. Not true for someone who believes in God because
> then the altruism, as you put it, has been established by an authority
> greater than humanity.
Not at all. It's understood that the notion of 'pure' altruism, a
completely selfless act taken without any kind of material or spiritual
benefit, is pretty much impossible; we can always say that the person
got some spiritual benefit, i.e., they did it to feel good, or satisfy
their moral desires, etc. In other words, if Jesus took any pleasure in
thinking that his crucifixion was going to help mankind, then his act
was not _purely_ altruistic. Get the idea? It's a false and unreachable
standard.
But your entire argument rests on faulting the altruism of others for
not being this pure, unreachable altruism. It's a bit like faulting
atheists because they cannot levitate themselves into Heaven-- fine, but
who _can_ levitate themselves into Heaven?
|
|
|
| Jim Spaza |
p53a wrote:
> Timeless argument. You make a moral judgment everyday about the
> goodness of God don't you? I mean you wouldn't worship your God if you
> didn't think it/he was good would you? You must believe in the Devil
> yet you don't worship the devil do you? Why? Because you perceive the
> Devil to be evil. Do you ritualisticaly dash the heads of babies as was
> so often commanded by your God in the Old Testament? I would hope not
> but God said to do it so it must be Good right? My guess is you don't
> loot a pilage and rape and steal either even though your God commanded
> those things as well. You must be making an independent moral judgement
> about those acts that doesn't rest on God. If God was the final arbiter
> of good and evil and you follwed his example you would be a monster.
> Charity, compassion etc do not require God. They require empathy.
> Morals and what is good is a function of the society you happen to live
> in at whatever time in history you happen to live in it. God is
> superfluous.
Allow me to disagree.
I don't make any moral judgment about God's goodness...ever. He alone
determines right and wrong. So, if God were to dictate that human
sacrifice was to take place, I would oblige eventhough I would detest
every second of it.
Yes, I believe in a being called Satan. I don't worship him because
God said not to. If I made up my own right and wrong as I, myself, saw
fit, then I might be like one of those wacko Satan-worshippers.
Please indicate the Bible verse and context of the ancient accounts
where God commanded others to "ritualisticaly dash the heads of
babies".
When God commanded Israel to perform such seemingly evil deeds as
wiping out whole cities, Israel correctly obeyed. Why? One, whatever
God says to do, you do. He alone sets the standards for good and evil.
Two, wiping out an entire city, in these Biblical examples, was a good
thing as they had rebelled against God to such an extreme and for so
long that Divine judgment could no longer be withheld. Wrath and
judgment are just as much part of God's order of the universe as is
love and mercy.
I don't rape and pillage because God has never commanded me to do so.
I would find it odd if God were to order me to do so as this is not His
nature. If you are referring to the Old Testament account where Israel
attacked the Canaanites and took their property, you'd be mistaken to
assume that God ordered the taking of such property. God told Israel
to push the Canaanites, who were set against Him, out of the land and
NOT take anything of the Canaanites for themselves. Some Israelites
did, and God got ticked off.
You said that I would be a "monster" for following God's order to do
something generally viewed by society as evil. What is evil, then, if
not something that is against God's will?
You're correct about charity not requiring God. However, you're wrong
about charity needed empathy. A person does not have to understand or
even care about another person's status in life to be
charitable...unless you mean charity to be an action done in emotional
response to another's suffering or needs.
You say that morals and standards of good and evil are contructs of
culture and time. Then help me out here...
In some cultures, people respect and care for each other. In other
cultures, people kidnap, kill, and eat each other...all based on their
own notions of good and evil. Do you have a personal preference?
> Jim Spaza wrote:
> > Brian Siano wrote:
> > > Jim Spaza wrote:
> > > > Really? So, you help others because it makes you feel good...as
> > > > opposed to simply making someone else's life better without regard for
> > > > yourself.
> > > >
> > > > Would you help others if it didn't make you feel good?
> > >
> > > This is, frankly, one of the cheapest arguments on the subject. That's
> > > because there really is no such thing as perfect, unalloyed altruism.
> >
> > Says who? If there is no God, then human beings create their own ideas
> > of right and wrong, truth and falsehood...including the very definition
> > of "perfect", "unalloyed", and "altruism".
> >
> > >
> > > So, if someone says they like to do good deeds, you challenge them by
> > > saying, "So, you don't do them because they're good-- you do them
> > > because they make you feel good."
> >
> > No, I challenge them to say why something is even good in the first
> > place if they say that there is no God.
> >
> > >
> > > Well, _yes_. This is true for _everyone_, so trying to portray it as a
> > > kind of craven greediness is pretty dishonest. One might as well say
> > > that Jesus wasn't completely selfless; after all, he did it for a
> > > purpose that made him feel it was worthwhile, and since he's the
> > > Son'o'God, he knew he'd get to live in heaven forever aferward.
> > >
> >
> > I never tried to portray this as "craven greediness". Maybe others
> > have or maybe your own conscience got to you. I don't know which.
> >
> > What Jesus did was not for Himself. It was intended for His Father in
> > Heaven and for us regular mortals on Earth.
> >
> > > Basically, it rests on a wholly unrealistic idea of what altruism or
> > > "helping others" is.
> >
> > True for an atheist given that there are no absolute right and wrongs
> > if God doesn't exist. Not true for someone who believes in God because
> > then the altruism, as you put it, has been established by an authority
> > greater than humanity.
> >
> > >
> > > > What if you had to really sacrifice something that you owned, worked
> > > > hard for, or really enjoyed yourself?
> > >
> > > And once again, we have a cheap argument. People gauge how much they
> > > want to help people. Some people make great sacrifices, others manage to
> > > do what they're comfortable with. Some people tithe five percent,
> > > others'll give up a kidney for a stranger. This is human nature.
> >
> > The argument is not cheap at all. The response to the question shows
> > how much of the person's thinking is devoted to other people versus
> > himself. The response shows whether a person believes in moral
> > concepts beyond his own existence or looks to his own desires, will,
> > and heart for standards of behavior.
> >
> > >
> > > The cheapness of the argument comes from the assumption that, for good
> > > deeds or charity to 'count,' they must be completely selfless, or so
> > > generous as to be saintly.
> >
> > I don't assume anything. However, what is meant by "count" if there is
> > no God to do the counting?
|
|
|
| Brian Siano |
Jim Spaza wrote:
>
> Brian Siano wrote:
>
>>Jim Spaza wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If there is no God, then why do all the charitable work? Because it
>>>makes you feel good?
>>
>>That's part of it. Other parts include empathy for others, a desire to
>>improve the world, and lots of other reasons.
>
> But, why do all these things if there is no God?
You require a God in order to do these things? You're saying that you
are incapable of doing nice things unless there's some God telling you
to do them? That's pretty sad.
Me, I do then because I feel better when I do them, and they usually
improve the lives of others. I guess that means I'm intrinsically a
better person than you are.
|
|
|
| Brian Siano |
Substitute the words "Kim Jong-Il" for "God" in the following.
Jim Spaza wrote:
>
> Allow me to disagree.
>
> I don't make any moral judgment about God's goodness...ever. He alone
> determines right and wrong. So, if God were to dictate that human
> sacrifice was to take place, I would oblige eventhough I would detest
> every second of it.
>
> Yes, I believe in a being called Satan. I don't worship him because
> God said not to. If I made up my own right and wrong as I, myself, saw
> fit, then I might be like one of those wacko Satan-worshippers.
>
> Please indicate the Bible verse and context of the ancient accounts
> where God commanded others to "ritualisticaly dash the heads of
> babies".
>
> When God commanded Israel to perform such seemingly evil deeds as
> wiping out whole cities, Israel correctly obeyed. Why? One, whatever
> God says to do, you do. He alone sets the standards for good and evil.
> Two, wiping out an entire city, in these Biblical examples, was a good
> thing as they had rebelled against God to such an extreme and for so
> long that Divine judgment could no longer be withheld. Wrath and
> judgment are just as much part of God's order of the universe as is
> love and mercy.
>
> I don't rape and pillage because God has never commanded me to do so.
> I would find it odd if God were to order me to do so as this is not His
> nature. If you are referring to the Old Testament account where Israel
> attacked the Canaanites and took their property, you'd be mistaken to
> assume that God ordered the taking of such property. God told Israel
> to push the Canaanites, who were set against Him, out of the land and
> NOT take anything of the Canaanites for themselves. Some Israelites
> did, and God got ticked off.
>
> You said that I would be a "monster" for following God's order to do
> something generally viewed by society as evil. What is evil, then, if
> not something that is against God's will?
>
> You're correct about charity not requiring God. However, you're wrong
> about charity needed empathy. A person does not have to understand or
> even care about another person's status in life to be
> charitable...unless you mean charity to be an action done in emotional
> response to another's suffering or needs.
>
> You say that morals and standards of good and evil are contructs of
> culture and time. Then help me out here...
>
> In some cultures, people respect and care for each other. In other
> cultures, people kidnap, kill, and eat each other...all based on their
> own notions of good and evil. Do you have a personal preference?
>
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On 27 May 2005 11:57:11 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>But, if there is no God, then what does charity matter anyway?
Why must God figure into the equation? I get the feeling from you
that only if there is a God morals, kindness and charity come into
play. That isn't so.
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On 27 May 2005 11:45:09 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> So, if someone says they like to do good deeds, you challenge them by
>> saying, "So, you don't do them because they're good-- you do them
>> because they make you feel good."
>
>No, I challenge them to say why something is even good in the first
>place if they say that there is no God.
WOW! You mean if there was no God you couldn't tell the difference
between right and wrong or good and bad? You need a God to be your
moral compass? I feel sorry for you.
|
|
|
| p53a |
Jim you are arguing my point for me. You are assumimg that the dictates
of your God are good because God said it is good. You are accepting God
as the final arbiter because God just has to good or else he wouldn't
be a God worthy of you worship and obeidience. You are using circular
reasoning/ begging the question (whatever you want to call it)and don't
realize it. Or you really don't make a moral judgement about God as you
say which leads me to think you don't know right from wrong. You don't
question. You OBEY like a child. The Hebrews massacred hundreds of
nomadic tribes on their way to Canaan and repeatedly took their women
as spoils of war while killing the men and children indiscriminately.
You know this is true but you refuse to see the barbarism in this
because your God commanded them to do so. The answer to the question of
good and evil is simple. "It isn't so simple". Your example about
canabalism is a case in point. From our perspective it is reprehensible
but from their perspective it is not. It is relative. I know you have a
hard time with this concept living in the black and white world you
obviously think we live in but again, It isn't so simple. Some
canabalism was for survival and some was due to religious ritual. They
saw that person as a god and wanted to partake in the flesh of the god
(sound familiar). This has been going on for hundreds of thousands of
years (unless you think the earth is 4000 years old). It is only by
becoming less superstitious over time that societies have come to see
this practice as wrong. Obviously you believe what you believe and you
certainly are entitled to your beliefs but worshiping a 4000 year old
Middle-eastern tribal god named Yahweh, Elohim or Jehova is pointless
to me.
Jim Spaza wrote:
> p53a wrote:
> > Timeless argument. You make a moral judgment everyday about the
> > goodness of God don't you? I mean you wouldn't worship your God if you
> > didn't think it/he was good would you? You must believe in the Devil
> > yet you don't worship the devil do you? Why? Because you perceive the
> > Devil to be evil. Do you ritualisticaly dash the heads of babies as was
> > so often commanded by your God in the Old Testament? I would hope not
> > but God said to do it so it must be Good right? My guess is you don't
> > loot a pilage and rape and steal either even though your God commanded
> > those things as well. You must be making an independent moral judgement
> > about those acts that doesn't rest on God. If God was the final arbiter
> > of good and evil and you follwed his example you would be a monster.
> > Charity, compassion etc do not require God. They require empathy.
> > Morals and what is good is a function of the society you happen to live
> > in at whatever time in history you happen to live in it. God is
> > superfluous.
>
> Allow me to disagree.
>
> I don't make any moral judgment about God's goodness...ever. He alone
> determines right and wrong. So, if God were to dictate that human
> sacrifice was to take place, I would oblige eventhough I would detest
> every second of it.
>
> Yes, I believe in a being called Satan. I don't worship him because
> God said not to. If I made up my own right and wrong as I, myself, saw
> fit, then I might be like one of those wacko Satan-worshippers.
>
> Please indicate the Bible verse and context of the ancient accounts
> where God commanded others to "ritualisticaly dash the heads of
> babies".
>
> When God commanded Israel to perform such seemingly evil deeds as
> wiping out whole cities, Israel correctly obeyed. Why? One, whatever
> God says to do, you do. He alone sets the standards for good and evil.
> Two, wiping out an entire city, in these Biblical examples, was a good
> thing as they had rebelled against God to such an extreme and for so
> long that Divine judgment could no longer be withheld. Wrath and
> judgment are just as much part of God's order of the universe as is
> love and mercy.
>
> I don't rape and pillage because God has never commanded me to do so.
> I would find it odd if God were to order me to do so as this is not His
> nature. If you are referring to the Old Testament account where Israel
> attacked the Canaanites and took their property, you'd be mistaken to
> assume that God ordered the taking of such property. God told Israel
> to push the Canaanites, who were set against Him, out of the land and
> NOT take anything of the Canaanites for themselves. Some Israelites
> did, and God got ticked off.
>
> You said that I would be a "monster" for following God's order to do
> something generally viewed by society as evil. What is evil, then, if
> not something that is against God's will?
>
> You're correct about charity not requiring God. However, you're wrong
> about charity needed empathy. A person does not have to understand or
> even care about another person's status in life to be
> charitable...unless you mean charity to be an action done in emotional
> response to another's suffering or needs.
>
> You say that morals and standards of good and evil are contructs of
> culture and time. Then help me out here...
>
> In some cultures, people respect and care for each other. In other
> cultures, people kidnap, kill, and eat each other...all based on their
> own notions of good and evil. Do you have a personal preference?
>
> > Jim Spaza wrote:
> > > Brian Siano wrote:
> > > > Jim Spaza wrote:
> > > > > Really? So, you help others because it makes you feel good...as
> > > > > opposed to simply making someone else's life better without regard for
> > > > > yourself.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would you help others if it didn't make you feel good?
> > > >
> > > > This is, frankly, one of the cheapest arguments on the subject. That's
> > > > because there really is no such thing as perfect, unalloyed altruism.
> > >
> > > Says who? If there is no God, then human beings create their own ideas
> > > of right and wrong, truth and falsehood...including the very definition
> > > of "perfect", "unalloyed", and "altruism".
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So, if someone says they like to do good deeds, you challenge them by
> > > > saying, "So, you don't do them because they're good-- you do them
> > > > because they make you feel good."
> > >
> > > No, I challenge them to say why something is even good in the first
> > > place if they say that there is no God.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, _yes_. This is true for _everyone_, so trying to portray it as a
> > > > kind of craven greediness is pretty dishonest. One might as well say
> > > > that Jesus wasn't completely selfless; after all, he did it for a
> > > > purpose that made him feel it was worthwhile, and since he's the
> > > > Son'o'God, he knew he'd get to live in heaven forever aferward.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I never tried to portray this as "craven greediness". Maybe others
> > > have or maybe your own conscience got to you. I don't know which.
> > >
> > > What Jesus did was not for Himself. It was intended for His Father in
> > > Heaven and for us regular mortals on Earth.
> > >
> > > > Basically, it rests on a wholly unrealistic idea of what altruism or
> > > > "helping others" is.
> > >
> > > True for an atheist given that there are no absolute right and wrongs
> > > if God doesn't exist. Not true for someone who believes in God because
> > > then the altruism, as you put it, has been established by an authority
> > > greater than humanity.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > What if you had to really sacrifice something that you owned, worked
> > > > > hard for, or really enjoyed yourself?
> > > >
> > > > And once again, we have a cheap argument. People gauge how much they
> > > > want to help people. Some people make great sacrifices, others manage to
> > > > do what they're comfortable with. Some people tithe five percent,
> > > > others'll give up a kidney for a stranger. This is human nature.
> > >
> > > The argument is not cheap at all. The response to the question shows
> > > how much of the person's thinking is devoted to other people versus
> > > himself. The response shows whether a person believes in moral
> > > concepts beyond his own existence or looks to his own desires, will,
> > > and heart for standards of behavior.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The cheapness of the argument comes from the assumption that, for good
> > > > deeds or charity to 'count,' they must be completely selfless, or so
> > > > generous as to be saintly.
> > >
> > > I don't assume anything. However, what is meant by "count" if there is
> > > no God to do the counting?
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On 27 May 2005 11:45:09 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What Jesus did was not for Himself. It was intended for His Father in
>Heaven and for us regular mortals on Earth.
For you to blindly believe in what happened in an ancient time of
almost no medical science or technology that is described in a bible
that was heavily edited by those in power over the centuries is so
illogical that it boggles the mind.
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On 27 May 2005 11:45:09 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Basically, it rests on a wholly unrealistic idea of what altruism or
>> "helping others" is.
>
>True for an atheist given that there are no absolute right and wrongs
>if God doesn't exist. Not true for someone who believes in God because
>then the altruism, as you put it, has been established by an authority
>greater than humanity.
If you look up the definition of morality, which is what you are
describing, you'll find no mention of God.
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On 27 May 2005 11:45:09 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The cheapness of the argument comes from the assumption that, for good
>> deeds or charity to 'count,' they must be completely selfless, or so
>> generous as to be saintly.
>
>I don't assume anything. However, what is meant by "count" if there is
>no God to do the counting?
Can't you count?
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On 27 May 2005 12:33:31 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I don't make any moral judgment about God's goodness...ever. He alone
>determines right and wrong. So, if God were to dictate that human
>sacrifice was to take place, I would oblige eventhough I would detest
>every second of it.
You would do that? Unbelievable! Are you ever disillusioned. I
actually feel sorry for you that your faith in God is so strong you
would commit murder for it.
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On 27 May 2005 12:33:31 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You said that I would be a "monster" for following God's order to do
>something generally viewed by society as evil. What is evil, then, if
>not something that is against God's will?
You really don't know, do you?
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:32:31 -0400, Brian Siano
<siano@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Who says human beings "create their own ideas of right and wrong?" Where
>did you _ever_ find the evidence to make this kind of a claim? Exactly
>where does this solipsism come from?
>
>It's perfectly plausible-- and there is considerable evidence to support
>this-- that humans' ideas of right and wrong are considerably _innate_,
>and have developed through our evolution. (You may want to read _Unto
>Others_, a fine survey of evolutuonary theories regarding altruism.)
Brian, Jim is hopelessly brainwashed. He'll never understand our
point of view.
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On 27 May 2005 12:12:06 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > If there is no God, then why do all the charitable work? Because it
>> > makes you feel good?
>>
>> That's part of it. Other parts include empathy for others, a desire to
>> improve the world, and lots of other reasons.
>
>But, why do all these things if there is no God?
Why not is a better question.
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On 27 May 2005 12:12:06 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Honestly, if God doesn't exist, then I would be much more likely to
>lie, cheat on my wife, abuse my body with drugs and alcohol, hurt
>others as I saw fit, and live for momentary pleasure. After all, if
>God doesn't exist, then why not live such a lifestyle?
Would you really? I don't believe you.
|
|
|
| Jim Spaza |
Brian Siano wrote:
> Jim Spaza wrote:
> >
> > Brian Siano wrote:
> >
> >>Jim Spaza wrote:
> >>
> >>>Really? So, you help others because it makes you feel good...as
> >>>opposed to simply making someone else's life better without regard for
> >>>yourself.
> >>>
> >>>Would you help others if it didn't make you feel good?
> >>
> >>This is, frankly, one of the cheapest arguments on the subject. That's
> >>because there really is no such thing as perfect, unalloyed altruism.
> >
> > Says who? If there is no God, then human beings create their own ideas
> > of right and wrong, truth and falsehood...including the very definition
> > of "perfect", "unalloyed", and "altruism".
>
> Who says human beings "create their own ideas of right and wrong?" Where
> did you _ever_ find the evidence to make this kind of a claim? Exactly
> where does this solipsism come from?
Who says? Personal conversations with atheists, humanists, and
skeptics, as well as their websites. In my own logic, I don't know of
any source for the derivation of standards of good and evil other than
God and human beings. Finally, the Bible says that the people who do
not believe in God will rely on their own concepts of good and evil and
act on those concepts.
If there is no God to dictate what is right and wrong, then are not
humans left to their own abilities, logic, mental concepts, and genetic
influences to determine these things?
This belief that the self is the only real thing (solipsism) comes in
various forms and to differing extents when discussions of evidence,
proof, and validation occur with atheistic scientists. Most of these
science-minded atheists require a very high level of independent
evidentiary validation that God exists before they will even consider
changing their minds.
I like to ask them how they know that they, themselves, exist. The
reply, when they do reply to the question, is almost always a degree of
solipsms...I think/see/am conscious, so I exist. Most of them consider
nothing to positively exist until it is scientifically proven using
observable means in controlled conditions.
>
> It's perfectly plausible-- and there is considerable evidence to support
> this-- that humans' ideas of right and wrong are considerably _innate_,
> and have developed through our evolution. (You may want to read _Unto
> Others_, a fine survey of evolutuonary theories regarding altruism.)
I read a summary of this book. Very interesting. Correct me if I am
wrong, but even authors Elliott Sober and David Wilson could not find
the rationale behind such transfers of altruistic behavior (ostensibly
at the genetic level). All they could determine was that this transfer
seemed to exist.
>
> >>So, if someone says they like to do good deeds, you challenge them by
> >>saying, "So, you don't do them because they're good-- you do them
> >>because they make you feel good."
> >
> > No, I challenge them to say why something is even good in the first
> > place if they say that there is no God.
>
> Then you'd better clarify your argument here. Are you saying that the
> existence of a God is needed in order for humans to have a moral sense?
> Or are you saying that human beings require only the _belief_ in God to
> have a moral sense?
Honestly, I believe that a Supreme Being is the only legitimate
explanation for a moral sense in human beings. Just a belief in God is
not enough. An intellectual belief just shapes the logic and emotion.
There actually has to be something working at a level deeper than the
physical, emotional, and intellectual. The Bible refers to this level
as the human soul, a lifeforce, if you will, that is immortal and has
God's fingerprints upon it. It is this soul which causes conflict
within a human being's physical, emotional, and intellectual aspects
given that these aspects tend toward selfishness, greed, avarice,
laziness, etc.
>
> Until you settle this issue properly, you ought to refrain from this
> silly 'challenge,' which seems to be built on a lot of unfounded
> assumptions.
It can seem that way, can't it? Honestly, the existence of a human
soul is almost as difficult to prove as that of God.
>
> > What Jesus did was not for Himself. It was intended for His Father in
> > Heaven and for us regular mortals on Earth.
>
> It wasn't much of a selfless act, then. If he was doing it for some
> notion of a greater Good, then it was no more altruistic than a human
> being sacrificing himself, or enduring some punishment, for some other
> greater good.
>From your definition of altruism, yes.
>
> Really, when you think about it, Jesus' "sacrifice' was on a
> considerably _lower_ moral level than that of an ordinary mortal's. For
> one thing; did Jesus _know_, for _certain_, that his act _would_ create
> a greater good? If so, then he wasn't risking anything. A human being
> has no _real_ certainty that his or her sacrifice _will_ be for the
> greater good. Humans don't know if it'll succeed or not.
Yes, Jesus knew that His act would create a very good thing. But, the
risk of a good deed not amounting to anything has nothing to do with
the rationale or motivation behind the deed, does it?
Jesus, when He was here on Earth, had all the liabilities of being
human - doubt, limited knowledge, failing strength, etc. - because He
came as a human being. It was quite possible that every human being
from then on would never accept Him as Lord and Savior and thus be
condemned for how they lived their imperfect lives. But, Jesus knew,
as do many Christians today, that all He had to do was what God the
Father wanted Him to do...and trust God the Father for everything else.
>
> And Jesus is suposed to be the Son of God, right? That means he _knew_
> that he would ascend into Heaven after doing a few painful hours on the
> Cross. Compare that to the despair of an ordinary human; who may very
> well be in complete despair that they will wind up in Hell. Frankly, I
> have more respect for someone like Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King,
> Jr.
Yes, He knew, by faith not divine knowledge, that He would ascend.
However, the Bible said that He had His human frailties to contend
with. There was always some amount of human doubt in His mind that
everything was true. There is nothing wrong with doubt as long as you
don't give in to it. But, Jesus never waivered in His effort to obey
God the Father. Also, the Bible says that Jesus had all the sins of
humanity "placed" on Him while He was on the cross. And, at one point
right near the end, God the Father seemingly abandoned Jesus as though
Jesus were condemned. Thus, to Jesus' point of view, God the Father
had left Him forever. This had to occur given Jesus' mission to be the
sacrifice for all humanity's sins. Nevertheless, Jesus didn't abandon
His faith...and walked out the grave on the third day.
As to the issue of despair, that's the whole point of faith in God in
this life, isn't it? People do not have to despair that their whole
existence is going to be fruitless, meaningless, and then turn into
dust when they die. The Bible teaches that, by accepting Jesus as
Lord, ANY person can have a fruitful life here and now AND go to Heaven
for all eternity. Why despair when God has already set up a system for
successful, despair-free living?
I can understand how you would view the efforts of those with no hope
as more altruistically valiant as those with hope such as Jesus. In a
way, I guess you are correct. But, who cares how valiant someone is if
their soul is lost for all eternity when they die?
>
> >>Basically, it rests on a wholly unrealistic idea of what altruism or
> >>"helping others" is.
> >
> > True for an atheist given that there are no absolute right and wrongs
> > if God doesn't exist. Not true for someone who believes in God because
> > then the altruism, as you put it, has been established by an authority
> > greater than humanity.
>
> Not at all. It's understood that the notion of 'pure' altruism, a
> completely selfless act taken without any kind of material or spiritual
> benefit, is pretty much impossible; we can always say that the person
> got some spiritual benefit, i.e., they did it to feel good, or satisfy
> their moral desires, etc. In other words, if Jesus took any pleasure in
> thinking that his crucifixion was going to help mankind, then his act
> was not _purely_ altruistic. Get the idea? It's a false and unreachable
> standard.
Yes, I see your point. It is a logically consistent and legitimate
statement.
>
> But your entire argument rests on faulting the altruism of others for
> not being this pure, unreachable altruism. It's a bit like faulting
> atheists because they cannot levitate themselves into Heaven-- fine, but
> who _can_ levitate themselves into Heaven?
I don't fault others for not reaching this impossible goal. I'm was
just curious as to why others would even consider these charitable
endeavors if there is no God and they turn into dust when they die.
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:35:30 -0400, Brian Siano
<siano@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>>>If there is no God, then why do all the charitable work? Because it
>>>>makes you feel good?
>>>
>>>That's part of it. Other parts include empathy for others, a desire to
>>>improve the world, and lots of other reasons.
>>
>> But, why do all these things if there is no God?
>
>You require a God in order to do these things? You're saying that you
>are incapable of doing nice things unless there's some God telling you
>to do them? That's pretty sad.
>
>Me, I do then because I feel better when I do them, and they usually
>improve the lives of others. I guess that means I'm intrinsically a
>better person than you are.
And one who is not afraid to make his own choices in life based on his
innate ability to discern the difference between good and evil.
|
|
|
| Larry Krzewinski |
On 27 May 2005 13:20:47 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I like to ask them how they know that they, themselves, exist. The
>reply, when they do reply to the question, is almost always a degree of
>solipsms...I think/see/am conscious, so I exist. Most of them consider
>nothing to positively exist until it is scientifically proven using
>observable means in controlled conditions.
That sounds pretty darn logical to me. It also sounds as if you
aren't a fan of logic or science per se.
|
|
|
| Jim Spaza |
p53a wrote:
> Jim you are arguing my point for me. You are assumimg that the dictates
> of your God are good because God said it is good. You are accepting God
> as the final arbiter because God just has to good or else he wouldn't
> be a God worthy of you worship and obeidience. You are using circular
> reasoning/ begging the question (whatever you want to call it)and don't
> realize it. Or you really don't make a moral judgement about God as you
> say which leads me to think you don't know right from wrong. You don't
> question. You OBEY like a child. The Hebrews massacred hundreds of
> nomadic tribes on their way to Canaan and repeatedly took their women
> as spoils of war while killing the men and children indiscriminately.
> You know this is true but you refuse to see the barbarism in this
> because your God commanded them to do so. The answer to the question of
> good and evil is simple. "It isn't so simple". Your example about
> canabalism is a case in point. From our perspective it is reprehensible
> but from their perspective it is not. It is relative. I know you have a
> hard time with this concept living in the black and white world you
> obviously think we live in but again, It isn't so simple. Some
> canabalism was for survival and some was due to religious ritual. They
> saw that person as a god and wanted to partake in the flesh of the god
> (sound familiar). This has been going on for hundreds of thousands of
> years (unless you think the earth is 4000 years old). It is only by
> becoming less superstitious over time that societies have come to see
> this practice as wrong. Obviously you believe what you believe and you
> certainly are entitled to your beliefs but worshiping a 4000 year old
> Middle-eastern tribal god named Yahweh, Elohim or Jehova is pointless
> to me.
I understand what you're saying. It's not that I don't or can't
generate my own or adhere to someone else's ideas of good and evil. I
just choose to put my own notions aside and submit myself to what I
believe God wants.
If there is no God, then you'd be right about the circular reasoning.
Then, I'd be adhering to a set of rules which I, through my own belief,
create for myself. If there is no God, then nothing is black and white
as you say, and your description of changing beliefs in right and wrong
over time and culture are accurate.
If there is a God as I believe, then these standards of good and evil
are just as real as the chair that you are sitting in right now. And
when instances of supposed barbarism come into play, such as your
Biblical example, then it is a form of worship when we obey anyway.
As an aside, I think that I am correct in saying that culture was much
different in ancient Israel as in the rest of the world. War, killing,
and pillaging was much more commonplace at that time and did not have
the shock value that it does on modern society. Thus, to the Hebrews
at the time, such orders from God would not have generated these
intense feelings of discomfort and antagonism that such an order would
cause today, even among the most hardcore, evangelical Christians.
Your points are all well taken, though.
> Jim Spaza wrote:
> > p53a wrote:
> > > Timeless argument. You make a moral judgment everyday about the
> > > goodness of God don't you? I mean you wouldn't worship your God if you
> > > didn't think it/he was good would you? You must believe in the Devil
> > > yet you don't worship the devil do you? Why? Because you perceive the
> > > Devil to be evil. Do you ritualisticaly dash the heads of babies as was
> > > so often commanded by your God in the Old Testament? I would hope not
> > > but God said to do it so it must be Good right? My guess is you don't
> > > loot a pilage and rape and steal either even though your God commanded
> > > those things as well. You must be making an independent moral judgement
> > > about those acts that doesn't rest on God. If God was the final arbiter
> > > of good and evil and you follwed his example you would be a monster.
> > > Charity, compassion etc do not require God. They require empathy.
> > > Morals and what is good is a function of the society you happen to live
> > > in at whatever time in history you happen to live in it. God is
> > > superfluous.
> >
> > Allow me to disagree.
> >
> > I don't make a | | | |
