Gov. Shutdown?

[mrs.b]

Grant for a moment that there is a God. Grant that He's created things a certain way, that he's created people in His own image. If that were true, then people would agree that murder, stealing, etc. were wrong. In a fallen, sinful state, they may not know why they tend to hold to these truths. They may even say that "sane people around the world can agree..." without fully grasping why they feel that way.

In other words, it's plausible that there's more to it than just "sane people" agreeing to something without a deeper reason why.

...

And you're ignoring (conveniently) the fact that in a world without absolute truth, hurting someone is okay if "my truth" says its okay. Why is societies truth to be accepted over mine (because they are all relative)?

I'll grant there is a God, because I am a believer in a brand of the Christian faith, and feel obligated to say that since I'm about to argue many of the Christian-based arguments to correct a personal pet peeve. That pet peeve is trying to use the existence of Universal Truths to justify the existence of one's preferred higher power. The definition of Universal Truth is that said truth does not change over time or with the passing of generations. All the provided examples of societal norms have, in fact, changed over time. Gravity, momentum, etc...those are Universal Truths. Societal norms, however, frequently change and mutate as generations and time passes.

Proscribed murder is one of those supposed truths that has had so many caveats attached to it over the years that you must reference a specific timeframe to discuss, including the times defined as Biblical where the Judeo-Christian God reputedly had the most direct hand in events. Once upon a time, it was considered protecting the virtue of a society to drown or burn at the stake people who followed a different faith in the name of God. Once upon a time, adultery was a stoning offense in the name of God. These practices are no longer accepted in society, thus demonstrating a change in acceptable forms of murder.

Dueteronomy 22:20-21 said women who go to their marriage bed without their virginity intact should be stoned to death. As the recognized text of the Judeo-Christian faith which is predominant in the world today, does this mean society should revisit its customs and return to a time when women were property with a sole value of breeding stock who should have rocks lobbed at them if they behaved as men? In fact, it is not a societal norm now, again demonstrating a mutation of acceptable standards of behavior that eliminate it as an argument of Universal Truth.

Also, think of stoning . . . to do that, you had to have two witnesses that could recount the same story. There was no putting someone on death row because of DNA evidence or fingerprints, or any of that. Again, we in modern times are more likely to find someone guilty today than they would have been.

And, with stoning itself . . . it was a group activity. It wasn't easy and simple like lethal injection where it happens by one person in the middle of the night. This was up front, personal, and made you think. Again, it could be a safe-guard against being too quick to judgement. You didn't get to wash your hands of the thing if you handed down a guilty verdict in a capital case. You had to be part of the execution.

John 8:7 made it pretty clear that execution for adultery (previously deemed a capital offense per Old Testament's Leviticus 20), regardless of willingness to lob a rock, was not considered appropriate behavior. Despite that directive, today needles are put in arms of convicted criminals in the name of protecting a God-fearing society, and it is self-described Christians that tend to be the loudest advocates of capital punishment in contradiction of the verse often discussed on Sunday mornings around the world. This demonstrates to me that many decisions made in the name of a deity tend to be arbitrary, mutable over time, and I daresay hypocritical; the standard changed between the times of Old and New Testament, again since then countless times. It appears to depend on the whims of the societal majority as to which standard will be selected to dictate that society's behavior, and that is changeable as those people change.

This, to me, demonstrates why societal norms or believed existence of a given deity cannot be used to demonstrate Universal Truth. It contradicts the definition of Universal Truth since it has and continues to change over time.

All of that said, it does not (to me, at least) invalidate the existence of a higher power. Faith is believing in something with or without proof, occasionally in opposition of logic or evidence, and no logical or illogical arguments can take Faith away. It's why debates surrounding Faith (a required facet of Religion) tend to be circular and volatile. The only variable I've witnessed in evidence tends to be whether or not people will eventually become so emotional over the differences of opinion that violence ensues. That, at least, is a Universal Truth related to Faith that I would accept because evidence exists throughout time. Wars have been fought, people have been murdered (justifiably and not, depending on the given rules of the society at the time), and societies have been torn apart over differences in religious opinion that, if one looks closely, were often reasonably minor.

Ok, I'm confused, how has the government shutdown come to be about what I believe about the bible or God Isn't this a separate topic?

Absolutely no connection, other than much of the personal decisions made in the name of politics is claimed to be directed by religious belief. Or the alignment of stars (which is also a religion). Or where a dart lands on a dartboard. Or who is paying the most for an opinion today. Pick your poison.

Or it could be that the opposition of Obamacare by a large section of Christian proponents could be seen as flying in the face of the directives given by that religion. I'm pretty sure the Bible mentions a time or two minor details about caring for sick, needy neighbors. These details seem to get sketchy in our memories when we're called upon to fund them, though.

[sanantone]

I finally have my computers back!

Grant for a moment that there is a God. Grant that He's created things a certain way, that he's created people in His own image. If that were true, then people would agree that murder, stealing, etc. were wrong. In a fallen, sinful state, they may not know why they tend to hold to these truths. They may even say that "sane people around the world can agree..." without fully grasping why they feel that way.

Humans and other animals have the natural instinct to survive. It's biologically ingrained in us. As highly intelligent social animals, we have learned things through trial and error and passed those things down to our children. Other highly intelligent animals have social structures, and they don't follow any religion. All you have to do is take a look at the great apes.

How can you prove that? (Hint: you can't.) And you're ignoring (conveniently) the fact that in a world without absolute truth, hurting someone is okay if "my truth" says its okay. Why is societies truth to be accepted over mine (because they are all relative)?

If you go against society, you will face consequences.

Not at all. Most atheists are conveniently inconsistent at this point. They want the benefits of absolute truth (reason and order), with out the responsibility (answering to God and following what He way).

What is wrong with someone who doesn't follow a god that can't be proved to exist wanting social order?

Perhaps before Judaism was "formalized." I was thinking of it more back to the time of Abraham.

Laws were starting to be coded around the time of Abraham, but it wasn't because of the God of Abraham. These people were pagans. Before coded laws, people would seek revenge on each other for perceived wrongs and this would lead to vendettas. Rulers got tired of the disorder and started coding laws.

Slavery (max 7 years for debt) in a Biblical sense is not so bad, if you really think about it.

This rule only applied to the Hebrews. Foreigners and slaves of war could be kept forever. People could also sell their own children into slavery to pay their debts.

We do far worse now with 30 mortgages, bankruptcies that can haunt you for a long time, etc.

This is not even close to slavery where the person is owned instead of an inanimate object (house) is owned. A bank might be able to take away your house, but you still have personal freedom and don't have to serve anyone. I don't know about you, but I'd rather that my parents have their house foreclosed on than to have them sell me into slavery in order to pay their debts.

In the Old Testament system, everything was returned to everyone at set intervals. You couldn't ever lose it all permanently. In that way, the Old Testament system was more compassionate than what we have now.

Again, foreigners and slaves of war who owed no debts could be kept as slaves forever.

Also, think of stoning . . . to do that, you had to have two witnesses that could recount the same story. There was no putting someone on death row because of DNA evidence or fingerprints, or any of that. Again, we in modern times are more likely to find someone guilty today than they would have been.

I think you should watch the Stoning of Soraya M. which is based on a true story that happened in modern times.

And, with stoning itself . . . it was a group activity. It wasn't easy and simple like lethal injection where it happens by one person in the middle of the night. This was up front, personal, and made you think. Again, it could be a safe-guard against being too quick to judgement. You didn't get to wash your hands of the thing if you handed down a guilty verdict in a capital case. You had to be part of the execution.

Death by stoning is cruel and unusual punishment. This group activity actually encourages group think (this is when those who disagree are afraid to speak out in fear of causing conflict and being put in the out group) and mob mentality. As an example, mob mentality in fairly modern times led to lynchings.

Polygamy isn't Biblically condoned (doesn't mean it didn't happen, but the precedent of Adam and Eve set the standard for man and woman)

There was no law against it in the Old Testament. It must not have been an important issue.

You cannot prove one doesn't. And no, that is not a weaker argument. Furthermore, as I've said many times now, you cannot have logic as we know it, without absolutes. Using this line of thought, you want "sane people to agree" to form an absolute. That's like saying, Some A is B and Some more A is B. Therefore all A is B. It doesn't work like that.

Anyone can make up anything and say that we can't prove it doesn't exist. We can't prove that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, the Loch Ness Monster, the chupacabra, aliens, and Big Foot don't exist. Some people believe that what ancient people saw as gods and angels were actually extraterrestrials.

To say it does, means you have to throw out all logic as we know it (and that means disposing of science, which is built off of logical reasoning). Do you really want to do that?

Many scientists believe that believing in something that can't even be observed indirectly defies logic. It is believed that religions were made to explain a world we did not understand. We now have scientific explanations for most of the main phenomena.

If something is consistently wrong, it cannot be because any group of people have said so. It must have come from a universal source. This is undeniable (or you must throw away all reason).

Why? Because you say so? Nothing is absolute in the social sciences and there is nothing wrong with that. Humans can only do their best to try to make sure that individuals are free to pursue happiness.

Here you are correct. Logic cannot tell me that Jesus is Christ. Logic can show me that a God must exist. That is all it can do. To see that God is who he is requires faith and belief.

This is not logic; it's an excuse. Again, people can make up anything and give the excuse that it can't be proven so belief in it requires faith.

Straw man argument.

It's not a straw man argument; it's an example how any group of people can make up a religion and make up the words of their god. How is this absolute truth?

[Westerner]

Why? Because you say so? Nothing is absolute in the social sciences and there is nothing wrong with that. Humans can only do their best to try to make sure that individuals are free to pursue happiness.

But that's the thing. If there's no absolute, what's to say one person can't fulfill their "happiness" even if it breaks a rule or hurts someone else (i.e. abortion, pedophilia, child abuse)?

This is not logic; it's an excuse. Again, people can make up anything and give the excuse that it can't be proven so belief in it requires faith.

Well, faith goes both ways. You can have faith that God is real, or you can have faith that He isn't.

P. S. Should we start another thread about the topic "Absolutes"?

[sanantone]

But that's the thing. If there's no absolute, what's to say one person can't fulfill their "happiness" even if it breaks a rule or hurts someone else (i.e. abortion, pedophilia, child abuse)?


Well, faith goes both ways. You can have faith that God is real, or you can have faith that He isn't.

P. S. Should we start another thread about the topic "Absolutes"?

People should have the freedom to pursue happiness as long as they don't get in the way of some other person's pursuit of happiness.

It is more logical to not believe in something that had never been observed. According to your reasoning, it takes faith to believe unicorns are not real.

can we all just agree that the natural order of things is for white people to rule the earth

history tells us that is the natural order of things, and it is obvious black people in africa were better off when white people were in charge

I hope you're being sarcastic. Africa was better off before it was exploited by Europeans. It is estimated that the Belgian King Leopold was responsible for the deaths of 10 to 15 million people in the Congo.

[EI2HCB]

Bluebooger, I think that you'll find that few people would agree with you. If you phrased it that values enshrined in British colonial policy resulted in better lifestyles for Africans you may have some who would agree. (insert European overlord nation as you see fit) The issue has always been about rule of law and the power to enforce it. The British always used the power of the musket to enforce the rule of law on the societies they controlled (Stationing on troops in Boston is but one example) It was never about colour of skin but about the power to force people to conform. Pigmentation has nothing to do with natural order, although Darwin did espouse it in his writings.

[Jonathan Whatley]

can we all just agree that the natural order of things is for white people to rule the earth

history tells us that is the natural order of things, and it is obvious black people in africa were better off when white people were in charge

In reply,

I hope you're being sarcastic. Africa was better off before it was exploited by Europeans. It is estimated that the Belgian King Leopold was responsible for the deaths of 10 to 15 million people in the Congo.

I also hope the poster is being sarcastic.

There is a racist fallacy that starts with problems in Africa, blames the problems mostly or entirely on post-colonial African leadership, then imagines that life was better under colonialism and apartheid. Through this chain of misrepresentation, any problem in Africa is spun into support for White supremacy.

For anyone who falls for this, I wonder who you would have supported between the Roman Empire, and Jesus of Nazareth.

[jmeitrem]

It is more logical to not believe in something that had never been observed. According to your reasoning, it takes faith to believe unicorns are not real.

Correct, and yet the Big Bang has never been observed. I believe it takes more faith to believe that everything came from nothing but an infinitely dense point of singularity than to believe in creationism.

[bluebooger]

People should have the freedom to pursue happiness as long as they don't get in the way of some other person's pursuit of happiness.

says who ?

just because that's your point of view doesn't make it the correct point of view

and it certainly isn't the point of view demonstrated by people through out history
the definitions of "happiness", "freedom, and even "person" has always been defined by the time and place and people involved

The french empire, the british empire, the spanish empire, the mongol empire, greeks, the babylonians ...

it certainly seems to me that by looking at history and nature the natural order of things is to conquer, the strong survive

It is more logical to not believe in something that had never been observed.

you certainly seem to believe in some magical, "everybody lives happily ever after fairy tale"

but like you said let's look at what's observed

Humans and other animals have the natural instinct to survive. It's biologically ingrained in us. As highly intelligent social animals, we have learned things through trial and error and passed those things down to our children. Other highly intelligent animals have social structures, and they don't follow any religion. All you have to do is take a look at the great apes.

yes, let's look at, observe those great apes

---------------------
Primate Behavior: Social Structure

"An even darker side of male chimpanzee behavior is that they occasionally murder members of other chimpanzee communities. Groups of males periodically go on aggressive raids into neighboring territories where they isolate individual males and then violently beat and bite them to death. Over time, these marauding gangs will kill all of the males in the targeted communities if they can. They also have been observed eating the infants there"
---------------------

primates.com : great apes : gorillas

"Lone silver-back males will challenge a resident silver-back and try to get the females to come with him (Estes, 1991). The resident male does actively prevent the females from going with him, but rather performs elaborate displays to keep the lone silver-back from approaching (Estes, 1991). A lone silver-back will generally approach a group that has a female undergoing estrus (Estes, 1991). Infanticide has been known to occur when a lone silver-back challenges the resident silver-back, he would do this because a female will start estrus sooner if her infant has died and is no longer nursing (Estes, 1991)."
---------------------

infanticide, cannibalism, war, challenges for power

there is your NATURAL order

human are trying to evolve the most UNnatural order imaginable

Bluebooger, I think that you'll find that few people would agree with you. If you phrased it that values enshrined in British colonial policy resulted in better lifestyles for Africans you may have some who would agree. (insert European overlord nation as you see fit) The issue has always been about rule of law and the power to enforce it. The British always used the power of the musket to enforce the rule of law on the societies they controlled (Stationing on troops in Boston is but one example) It was never about colour of skin but about the power to force people to conform. Pigmentation has nothing to do with natural order, although Darwin did espouse it in his writings.

whether people today would agree with me or not doesn't matter
what's important is people (insert European overlord nation as you see fit) at the time agreed with me

they surely didn't believe "People should have the freedom to pursue happiness as long as they don't get in the way of some other person's pursuit of happiness."

they believed in the natural order

so if anyone doesn't want to believe in god, that's fine
I don't care

but if you don't believe in a god then don't come up with this crap about freedom and rights and social justice and the natural order is to do good

Why ?

because as sanantone himself says
"Nothing is absolute in the social sciences and there is nothing wrong with that."

of course he immediately contradicts himself by stating this as an absolute
"Humans can only do their best to try to make sure that individuals are free to pursue happiness. "

when its nothing more than his opinion
an opinion that has not been prevalent in history and is not present in the natural world

if there is no god, then I agree with sanantone on only one point
"Nothing is absolute in the social sciences and there is nothing wrong with that."

[Jonathan Whatley]

[To sanantone's statement "People should…"]

says who ?

just because that's your point of view doesn't make it the correct point of view

Psst: That's what people are doing when they use the word "should," they're expressing a point of view.

The french empire, the british empire, the spanish empire, the mongol empire, greeks, the babylonians ...

it certainly seems to me that by looking at history and nature the natural order of things is to conquer, the strong survive

Dude, your argument is terrible. Every empire you list clearly FAILED to survive as an empire.

What succeeded in the seat of each empire? France survives as a democracy. Britain survives as a democracy. Spain survives as a democracy. Mongolia survives as a democracy. Greece survives as a democracy. The successor to Babylonia, Iraq, is re-emerging as a democracy, holding multi-party elections regularly since January 2005.

What stands now in almost every former colony of the empires you list? Independent states, many of them democratic and most evidently moving more towards democracy than away from it.

you certainly seem to believe in some magical, "everybody lives happily ever after fairy tale"

but like you said let's look at what's observed

You haven't read sanantone much, have you.

In particular, you're ignoring sanantone in the next paragraph where she describes the deaths of 10 to 15 million people in the Congo under Belgian rule. Clearly not an "everybody lives happily ever fairy tale." Ignoring this is very convenient for you because it exposes your argument about life being better under colonialism.

[Immediately following.] yes, let's look at, observe those great apes

So you're providing terrible arguments about human affairs, ignoring evidence about human affairs, and throwing to chimpanzees and gorillas.

whether people today would agree with me or not doesn't matter

Good for you, because I'm sure you aren't convincing anyone.

what's important is people (insert European overlord nation as you see fit) at the time agreed with me

"At the time." "European overlord nations:" What happened with that?

but if you don't believe in a god then don't come up with this crap about freedom and rights and social justice and the natural order is to do good

Why ?

because as sanantone himself says
"Nothing is absolute in the social sciences and there is nothing wrong with that."

of course he immediately contradicts himself by stating this as an absolute
"Humans can only do their best to try to make sure that individuals are free to pursue happiness. "

"Humans can only do their best" is not an absolute! Wow.

when its nothing more than his opinion
an opinion that has not been prevalent in history and is not present in the natural world

Thank you Dr. Dolittle, who knows the opinions of animals.

Altruism in animals (Wikipedia)

Your arguments are terrible. Your basic logic and reading comprehension here are poor, and/or you're being intellectually dishonest.

[sanantone]

Correct, and yet the Big Bang has never been observed. I believe it takes more faith to believe that everything came from nothing but an infinitely dense point of singularity than to believe in creationism.

The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. It would not be called a theory if it were proven as fact. I asked my ultra-religious friend once how God came into existence. He said that God always was because He exists outside of time and space. In other words, there is no explanation for how a supernatural being of no mass came into existence and how He created matter. I don't see how this is any easier to believe than the Big Bang Theory.

says who ?

just because that's your point of view doesn't make it the correct point of view

and it certainly isn't the point of view demonstrated by people through out history
the definitions of "happiness", "freedom, and even "person" has always been defined by the time and place and people involved

That has been my argument all along. Remember, many of these people were following the same religions we follow now.

The french empire, the british empire, the spanish empire, the mongol empire, greeks, the babylonians ...

it certainly seems to me that by looking at history and nature the natural order of things is to conquer, the strong survive

More religious people who did ungodly things. The Moors also came out of Africa and ruled parts of Europe for several decades.

you certainly seem to believe in some magical, "everybody lives happily ever after fairy tale"

Where are you getting this from? I have came up with several examples of people not following social norms or even their own religions.

but like you said let's look at what's observed



yes, let's look at, observe those great apes

---------------------
Primate Behavior: Social Structure

"An even darker side of male chimpanzee behavior is that they occasionally murder members of other chimpanzee communities. Groups of males periodically go on aggressive raids into neighboring territories where they isolate individual males and then violently beat and bite them to death. Over time, these marauding gangs will kill all of the males in the targeted communities if they can. They also have been observed eating the infants there"
---------------------

primates.com : great apes : gorillas

"Lone silver-back males will challenge a resident silver-back and try to get the females to come with him (Estes, 1991). The resident male does actively prevent the females from going with him, but rather performs elaborate displays to keep the lone silver-back from approaching (Estes, 1991). A lone silver-back will generally approach a group that has a female undergoing estrus (Estes, 1991). Infanticide has been known to occur when a lone silver-back challenges the resident silver-back, he would do this because a female will start estrus sooner if her infant has died and is no longer nursing (Estes, 1991)."
---------------------

infanticide, cannibalism, war, challenges for power

there is your NATURAL order

human are trying to evolve the most UNnatural order imaginable

Yes, they are a lot like humans except they don't pretend that religion makes them more civilized. Of course, humans have the intelligence to write laws and maintain the order that has made us successful as a species. Human intelligence is natural. These conquests you love to talk about so much were of outgroups to protect the interests of ingroups. Some of them were also done to expand the ingroup. This goes back to me talking about humans making sure their communities (social groups) survive.

whether people today would agree with me or not doesn't matter
what's important is people (insert European overlord nation as you see fit) at the time agreed with me

they surely didn't believe "People should have the freedom to pursue happiness as long as they don't get in the way of some other person's pursuit of happiness."

they believed in the natural order

They also believed in God and that their rulers had the divine right to rule. You're also ignoring the fact that some wars had a religious component. Some wars were fought to spread a religion, because people thought they were their god's or gods' chosen people and were superior to everyone else, because their god(s) told them to, and to gain control of holy lands. Obviously, the absolute or universal truths of religion are often not followed by those who believe in them, therefore, they are failing as control mechanisms. Secular democracies are less likely to fight offensive wars.

of course he immediately contradicts himself by stating this as an absolute
"Humans can only do their best to try to make sure that individuals are free to pursue happiness. "

How is that a statement of something absolute?