Behold! The End of Days are Upon us!

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Feltan

Unless, of course, in the single instance that they happen to be correct. In which case, you will look a bit foolish and unenlightened.

Regards,
Feltan

You mean like the Railians happened to be correct? The Enlightenment that I recognize was an intellectual movement that advocated the triumph of rationality over superstition and medieval catholic dogma. That philosophy was a primary influence for most of the founding fathers of the United States, many of whom were not Christians, but Deists. If you consider these men foolish, then you may say that I prefer the company of fools.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by RebelFencer

Jesus can set fires with the power of his mind.

Been reading the childhood gospel of Thomas again, eh?

Anyway, I got the power to kill a yak from 200 yards away... with mind bullets! That's telekinesis, RF.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by RebelFencer

Jesus can set fires with the power of his mind.

I can divide by zero.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by fencingfrog

im very sorry. but its the same difference if it's paul or timothy not the Lord speaking.

Look, first you say that the Bible--all of it--is the Word of God, then you say that you don't have to pay attention to the parts you don't like because they're not the word of God! Who's in denial?

And I beg to differ with you. Ask your priest or minister or whoever you get your garbled version of theology from whether or not Paul speaks for the
Lord. You'll be surprised at the answer.

the reason we're debating is because all christian basic beliefs should be pretty much the same.

The reason we're debating is because you think all christian basic beliefs should be the same as yours, which is unmitigated hubris--but not unprecedented.

thank you! there's hope for you yet!!

Alas, I fear there is none for you.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

... which is unmitigated hubris...

Wait, is there such a thing as mitigated hubris?

And hubris, the pride that goeth before a fall, is my middle name. I don't think he was quite in my league there.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Wait, is there such a thing as mitigated hubris?

Depends on how cute she is.

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

...The Enlightenment that I recognize was an intellectual movement that advocated the triumph of rationality over superstition and medieval catholic dogma...

Well bully for you.

If the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of religiion is the Railians, then you have a rather unique perspective on things. I wish you well.

Regards,
Feltan

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Feltan

Well bully for you.

If the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of religion is the Railians, then you have a rather unique perspective on things. I wish you well.

Regards,
Feltan

It's not the first thing that comes to mind. They are just one of many examples of the potential disastrous consequences of fixation on a paradise that exists somewhere other than the world we live in. I think that everyone would agree that the Railians were way out of the mainstream of conventional religious belief, but my point is that once you go beyond the boundaries of scientific objectivity there is no reason to consider their beliefs to be any less rational than say an Islamic fundamentalist suicide bomber, a Jim Jones acolyte or an apocalyptic Christian who prays for Armageddon, except that perhaps the Christian is less willing to "walk the walk".

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

It's not the first thing that comes to mind. They are just one of many examples of the potential disastrous consequences of fixation on a paradise that exists somewhere other than the world we live in. I think that everyone would agree that the Railians were way out of the mainstream of conventional religious belief, but my point is that once you go beyond the boundaries of scientific objectivity there is no reason to consider their beliefs to be any less rational than say an Islamic fundamentalist suicide bomber, a Jim Jones acolyte or an apocalyptic Christian who prays for Armageddon, except that perhaps the Christian is less willing to "walk the walk".

So then, if this life is all you have, why should you be a nice person and lead a virtuous life? Why not just sit around screwing women all day? Why work?

James.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Why not just sit around screwing women all day? Why work?

A question I have asked myself many times...

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by jBirch

So then, if this life is all you have, why should you be a nice person and lead a virtuous life? Why not just sit around screwing women all day? Why work?

James.

Why? Precisely because it is all we have, so we must do all we can to make our lives and this world as virtuous and as just as possible. Because the measure of our value in the universe can only be determined by what we do to make our corner of it as good as it can be for all it's inhabitants - human, animal or vegetable. Because our personal well being is dependent on that of all others who share this planet. Because right and wrong are objective values that can be determined by how lives on this Earth are affected. We shouldn't need the threat of eternal damnation to coerce us into doing what is right.

[latenight]

Originally Posted by jBirch

So then, if this life is all you have, why should you be a nice person and lead a virtuous life? Why not just sit around screwing women all day? Why work?

James.

Sign me up for THAT religion!

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

A question I have asked myself many times...

Lochinvar, the answer to the work question is obvious. Practically speaking, you need the work to earn the money to attract the women.

BTW, J. Birch, how did having sex get put in the category of non-virtuous activity? Isn't one's behavior before and after having sex what determines whether or not one is virtuous?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

BTW, J. Birch, how did having sex get put in the category of non-virtuous activity? Isn't one's behavior before and after having sex what determines whether or not one is virtuous?

Not at all. If there is no uber-being then there are no ramifications to our actions. "It's not illegal if you don't get caught." Hedonism, in other words. Lots of sex (since genetic procreation is the only viable evolutionary advantage) and only enough work to get the girls to get the sex.

So the question is, why bother being good? Why not be bad? Why bother "getting the girls" why not just take them? What's wrong with rape?

And what exactly, is virtuous behaviour and why (if there is no God) is it a good thing?

James.

[TrainingDummy]

Originally Posted by jBirch

(since genetic procreation is the only viable evolutionary advantage)

According to Darwin, maybe. Not so for most scientists of evolution today. Non-procreating sexual activity in humans helps forge and maintain an emotional bond between two people, often leading them to share resources for their common good and the good of their offspring. Monogamous sexual activity strongly implies that neither party will divert their resources, be they reproductive, tangible, or emotional, to a different member of the opposite sex.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by TrainingDummy

According to Darwin, maybe. Not so for most scientists of evolution today. Non-procreating sexual activity in humans helps forge and maintain an emotional bond between two people, often leading them to share resources for their common good and the good of their offspring. Monogamous sexual activity strongly implies that neither party will divert their resources, be they reproductive, tangible, or emotional, to a different member of the opposite sex.

Right, this is the "stronger offspring" evolutionary strategy. It relies on a smaller number of more able offspring rather then a larger number of less able offspring.

The human race, though, tends to look after ALL offspring. For a modern human then, the evolutionary advantage is in large numbers of offspring that the parents don't need to spend any resources to look after. Again, if there is no moral authority, rape (sex without regard to love or consent) is the most advantageous way for a male to produce offspring. So, if there is no moral arbiter, no punishment for undetected wrong action, why not live that way?

James.

[TrainingDummy]

Meh, I'm an atheist who primarily follows utilitarian logic when deciding what's right or wrong. Different for all of us, I suppose. From what I've seen, this seems to be pretty typical among atheists and agnostics, though. I don't need ten rules set in tablets to know what is harmful to other people and my environment.

[EDIT]: As far as the modern environment goes, people adapt to their modern environment up to a point. Generations of hunter/gatherer living and mindset still has a powerful effect on the way we live our lives. While the human race does look after all offspring (at least in some countries), people definitely favor their own sons and daughters over others, at least for the most part. And the edit is longer than the original post...beautiful.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Not at all. If there is no uber-being then there are no ramifications to our actions. "It's not illegal if you don't get caught." Hedonism, in other words. Lots of sex (since genetic procreation is the only viable evolutionary advantage) and only enough work to get the girls to get the sex.

So the question is, why bother being good? Why not be bad? Why bother "getting the girls" why not just take them? What's wrong with rape?

And what exactly, is virtuous behaviour and why (if there is no God) is it a good thing?

James.

I guess you didn't read my previous thread. I already stated my answer to that question. Consider this: if the only reason you have for behaving a certain way is that someone commanded you to, then what is the moral foundation of your actions. You haven't made a moral choice, you are just following orders. What happens when you must make difficult moral decisions about situations that aren't addressed in the scriptures?

I believe one can differentiate right from wrong in a universe with a disinterested or nonexistant Architect. I do it every day and I teach my children to do so as well. I don't threaten to spank them if they're bad. I don't have to. I teach them to examine their motives and take responsibility for their actions. I teach them to have empathy for others and that by lifting up others we lift up ourselves. They got it right away.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by TrainingDummy

Meh, I'm an atheist who primarily follows utilitarian logic when deciding what's right or wrong. Different for all of us, I suppose. From what I've seen, this seems to be pretty typical among atheists and agnostics, though. I don't need ten rules set in tablets to know what is harmful to other people and my environment.

My sentiments exactly. I take "utilitarian logic" to be pretty much the same as "common sense", something sadly lacking amonst many of those who leave the brainwork to a higher power.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

I guess you didn't read my previous thread. I already stated my answer to that question. Consider this: if the only reason you have for behaving a certain way is that someone commanded you to, then what is the moral foundation of your actions. You haven't made a moral choice, you are just following orders. What happens when you must make difficult moral decisions about situations that aren't addressed in the scriptures?

Oh absolutely. Without a firm acceptance of the underlying principals all you're doing is abdicating moral responsibility to a higher power (It's not my fault, God told me to do it!)

I believe one can differentiate right from wrong in a universe with a disinterested or nonexistant Architect. I do it every day and I teach my children to do so as well. I don't threaten to spank them if they're bad. I don't have to. I teach them to examine their motives and take responsibility for their actions. I teach them to have empathy for others and that by lifting up others we lift up ourselves. They got it right away.

The concept is simple. The logic is not. WHY is good better then bad? (As Lord Helmet says, "Evil always wins because Good is stupid.") What possible benefit (if you don't believe in any higher power) is there in living a virtuous life? All you've done is squandered your opportunities to procreate.

James.