Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey man, you could do a lot worse than Thor.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" could easily be understood to mean that there are other powers out there. Pick a team.

On a more serious note though, God was originally reffered to as 'The God in the Mountains', by the Egyptians I believe. I can't recall Moses' response to that though.

Yea but Christianity kicked the crap of the Norse gods so...

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" could easily be understood to mean that there are other powers out there. Pick a team.

On a more serious note though, God was originally reffered to as 'The God in the Mountains', by the Egyptians I believe. I can't recall Moses' response to that though.

Yea but Christianity kicked the crap of the Norse gods so...

Well... technically the Norse gods sent their armies of Germanians and Vikings and other Norse folk, beat the crap out of the Christians, and then converted. Apparently the Christians were good talkers

Germans are Norse, thats news to me. Still smarting from that whole crossing the Rhine thing...


I came. I saw. I noodled.
-Julius's younger brother Bob Caesar, on crossing the Rhine.

Frazzled wrote:Germans are Norse, thats news to me. Still smarting from that whole crossing the Rhine thing...


I came. I saw. I noodled.
-Julius's younger brother Bob Caesar, on crossing the Rhine.

The Romans were still pagan at the time of Gaius Julius. So Christianity can't take the credit for that one... Christianity didn't even exist yet... EDIT: By the time Christianity became the predominant religion of the Empire it had already passed its peak.

The Germans had similar religious practices. Many of the same gods, slightly different names.

LordofHats wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Germans are Norse, thats news to me. Still smarting from that whole crossing the Rhine thing...


I came. I saw. I noodled.
-Julius's younger brother Bob Caesar, on crossing the Rhine.

The Romans were still pagan at the time of Gaius Julius. So Christianity can't take the credit for that one... Christianity didn't even exist yet... EDIT: By the time Christianity became the predominant religion of the Empire it had already passed its peak.

You're taking this internet thing just a little too seriously aren't you there Vern?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" could easily be understood to mean that there are other powers out there. Pick a team.

On a more serious note though, God was originally reffered to as 'The God in the Mountains', by the Egyptians I believe. I can't recall Moses' response to that though.

When Moses asked God who should he say he was coming in the name of....God said tell them "I AM" sent you. My God is so awesome He just IS. He doesn't need a name even though we have given Him names such as Yahweh which simply means "The Lord".

GG

Frazzled wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Germans are Norse, thats news to me. Still smarting from that whole crossing the Rhine thing...


I came. I saw. I noodled.
-Julius's younger brother Bob Caesar, on crossing the Rhine.

The Romans were still pagan at the time of Gaius Julius. So Christianity can't take the credit for that one... Christianity didn't even exist yet... EDIT: By the time Christianity became the predominant religion of the Empire it had already passed its peak.

You're taking this internet thing just a little too seriously aren't you there Vern?

Probably... It's finals week. What can I say, I'm bored

frgsinwntr wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

If God does not exist than everything is permissible...Dostoyevsky

GG


Now I'm off to watch MAN-U beat Arsenal

Well I haven't read the whole thread. BUT i've seen you're argument before that atheism is a type of faith. The argument falls apart when you think of the implications that faith is a type of atheism.

frigs it would really help if you did read the thread as we have allready talked about the stuff you are bringing up. I recommend you go back and read it.

GG

This picture sums up this thread pretty well.

I didn't know the Pope was trained in the ways of the force. No wonder he's so convincing!

How do you think he's able to hush a shouting crowd just by raising his hand?

"You will be silent."

generalgrog wrote:YeOne point I would like to address that has come up. And that is the notion that athiests can be good people and because they can be good people there is no need for a God. I would like to ask a few questions on this point.
A: Where did the athiest get the "will" to do good?

There has been a massive amount of research and philosophical thought put into it. It's worth taking some time to study. The short version of one of the major theories, basically, is that coorperating and working together is to our mutual benefit as a social species. Honesty, not murdering each other, and all the most common elements between different moral and ethical systems can be explained under this principle. Enlightened self interest.

generalgrog wrote:B: If there is no God and if our actions/behaviors are the result of purely random/inherited traits from our DNA through our ancestors, how can you say that there is evil? It seems to me that a consistent athiest would say that there is no good or evil and therefore there is no need to punish people for doing what they do "naturally". Why was Stalin/Moa/Pol Pot wrong for doing what they did? They were just excersizing there evolutionary right to engage in survival of the fittest.

This is a perverse notion, and I have to say I'm kind of insulted on the atheists' behalf. You can't possibly believe that the actions of mass murderers are in any way related to "survival of the fittest." That's insane. Those acts are repugnant, antisocial, and counter to the general welfare regardless of which ethical or moral system you follow.

generalgrog wrote:Why should an athiest care about morals and good works? (also before people start hand wringing about my survival of the fittest example, I'm not saying that survival of the fittest is evil, just the the way it was applied in athiestic societies)

They should care about morals and good works because they are to everyone's benefit as a society. Life is better for us all when we cooperate and act in a benevolent manner.

generalgrog wrote:If God does not exist than everything is permissible...Dostoyevsky

A morally idiotic statement. If a person's only motivation for doing the right thing is the fear of punishment/promise of reward, something is desperately wrong with that person.

Seriously, this turned into to a thread about god's existence?

Can we not use words like "Christianity" without arguing about it? Oh well.

Mike Noble wrote:

Seriously, this turned into to a thread about god's existence?

Can we not use words like "Christianity" without arguing about it? Oh well.

Unfortuantely it always boils into that.

Mike Noble wrote:
Seriously, this turned into to a thread about god's existence?

Can we not use words like "Christianity" without arguing about it? Oh well.

Actually it tuned into a thread about the nature of faith.

No one is debating Gods existence. No one is arguing about Christianity either.

the thread is actually pretty deep in my opinion.

GG

So why not look up faith and belief in a dictionary, compare the terms, and come to a conclusion.

Why don't we just agree that Atheism is not a religion, but still has some faith in it. Basically, if you deny the existence of any god, you have faith that there is none. If you believe that there is no god, but admit it could be possible, thats more of your own belief.

Simple enough really.

So why come in to the thread complaining about the topic and then make the exact same point we've been making for 2 pages?

generalgrog wrote:YeOne point I would like to address that has come up. And that is the notion that athiests can be good people and because they can be good people there is no need for a God. I would like to ask a few questions on this point.
A: Where did the athiest get the "will" to do good?

Mannahnin wrote:
There has been a massive amount of research and philosophical thought put into it. It's worth taking some time to study. The short version of one of the major theories, basically, is that coorperating and working together is to our mutual benefit as a social species. Honesty, not murdering each other, and all the most common elements between different moral and ethical systems can be explained under this principle. Enlightened self interest.

I wasn't asking the question looking for answer...I know what certain athiests believe on the subject. The question was asked to get people to think a little, witht he idea of showing what a different world view looks like. Of course Christian theology teaches that the will to do good comes from man being created in God's image. Again you need to excersize faith to accept either principle

generalgrog wrote:B: If there is no God and if our actions/behaviors are the result of purely random/inherited traits from our DNA through our ancestors, how can you say that there is evil? It seems to me that a consistent athiest would say that there is no good or evil and therefore there is no need to punish people for doing what they do "naturally". Why was Stalin/Moa/Pol Pot wrong for doing what they did? They were just excersizing there evolutionary right to engage in survival of the fittest.

Mannahnin wrote:
This is a perverse notion, and I have to say I'm kind of insulted on the atheists' behalf. You can't possibly believe that the actions of mass murderers are in any way related to "survival of the fittest." That's insane. Those acts are repugnant, antisocial, and counter to the general welfare regardless of which ethical or moral system you follow.

Of course it is a perverse notion, but there are perverse people out there. Stalin, Mao,Pol Pot for example. Was Stalins 5 year plans not beneficial to soviet russia? It could be argued that they made huge leaps forward economically due his atheistic inspired agenda. Also I never said that every atheist is a Stalin.

generalgrog wrote:Why should an athiest care about morals and good works? (also before people start hand wringing about my survival of the fittest example, I'm not saying that survival of the fittest is evil, just the the way it was applied in athiestic societies)

Mannahnin wrote:
They should care about morals and good works because they are to everyone's benefit as a society. Life is better for us all when we cooperate and act in a benevolent manner.

Than why don't we?

GG

generalgrog wrote:One point I would like to address that has come up. And that is the notion that athiests can be good people and because they can be good people there is no need for a God. I would like to ask a few questions on this point.
A: Where did the athiest get the "will" to do good?
B: If there is no God and if our actions/behaviors are the result of purely random/inherited traits from our DNA through our ancestors, how can you say that there is evil? It seems to me that a consistent athiest would say that there is no good or evil and therefore there is no need to punish people for doing what they do "naturally". Why was Stalin/Moa/Pol Pot wrong for doing what they did? They were just excersizing there evolutionary right to engage in survival of the fittest. Why should an athiest care about morals and good works? (also before people start hand wringing about my survival of the fittest example, I'm not saying that survival of the fittest is evil, just the the way it was applied in athiestic societies)

You know what, I seriously don't fething get this line of argument. Are you claiming that if you didn't believe in God and divine punishment, you'd be going around killing people for the change in their pockets, whenever you felt you could get away with it? Seriously?

Because I am an atheist, but I still have empathy, I still know that when I do bad things other people suffer, and whether or not there is a God to punish me, I still consider the welfare of other people when I take my actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Of course it is a perverse notion, but there are perverse people out there. Stalin, Mao,Pol Pot for example. Was Stalins 5 year plans not beneficial to soviet russia? It could be argued that they made huge leaps forward economically due his atheistic inspired agenda. Also I never said that every atheist is a Stalin.

But you are claiming Stalin was inspired by atheism. Which is ridiculous, as you cannot be inspired by a non-belief. Stalin was certainly aggressively in his persecution of the church, and utterly wrong for it, but this was part of his belief in communism, not his belief in atheism.

Atheism does not prompt one towards good acts or towards bad ones. It can't.

Monster Rain wrote:So why come in to the thread complaining about the topic and then make the exact same point we've been making for 2 pages?

I was simply saying that it seems like a simple thing even though we've spent the last several pages talking about it.

Did someone cut down an ancient and symbolic tree or am I missing the point of the thread?

Honestly, if you started a discussion in off-topic about the soothing merits of a nice cup of Darjeeling it would end up as a big barney about the existence or otherwise of atheists.

The Germanic and Norse gods are one and the same Frazzled.

Orlanth wrote:
That makes no sense, either the argument is irrelevant or it is relevant. If the argument is irrelevant it would not engage you.
This is clearly at some level a heart issue for you, that is no condemnation, its ultimately a heart issue for anyone.

Yes, you're correct, but relevance isn't necessarily determined by my interest in a specific topic of argument.

I'm interested in argument and logic, it generally comes with be a logician, what that argument and logic might be applied to is nearly irrelevant to me.

I honestly can't explain it more clearly than that, and it really seems that this is more a matter of your projecting your own reason for engaging the topic onto me, rather than attempting to understand where I'm coming from.

Orlanth wrote:
How can they? There is no categoric no because there is no proof in no-God.
There is only a personal choice to disbelieve.

Which is all that's necessary to make a categorical statement. For example, God doesn't exist because I think God is supernatural, and no supernatural things exist.

Orlanth wrote:
Likewise any yes is also not categoric, it involves a personal choice.

Those aren't mutually exclusive things.

Orlanth wrote:
Both can be backed up with the evidence of ones choice, depending on what you prefer to beleive. Neither are categorically proven.

First, that standard of what constitues categorical proof is untenable. If you can offer evidence for something, you can categorically prove something; because proof is fundamentally about individual standards of evidence.

Second, a categorical statement doe not have to be proven to be made.

Orlanth wrote:
There is no neutral option, this point you are ignoring the fact that the question exists on a different scale to other choices. As the concept of the existance of God, or not, effects everything then any look at anything has to take into account ones choice in the matter.

Sure, but you're still not getting it. Simply not believing in something is not the same as believing that thing does not exist. I cannot explain it more clearly, its simply a self-evident truth.

The neutral option is the absence of a belief.

Orlanth wrote:
The only way to have a neutral option is not never have heard of the concept of an onmipresent God, or to have completely forgotten it. At which point one may be a pure atheist, but would undoubtably not be aware of such.

No, that's absolutely false. I can be fully aware that there is a concept of an omnipresent God, and simply not believe in it. This is, again, not the same thing as believing in the absence of such a God. Not believing in something allows for the possibility that it might exist, believing that in its absence does not.

Orlanth wrote:
There is evidence to back this up, the fervour with which this debate is addressed. There is no such thing as fervid indifference, either one is indifferent or one has fervour.

It isn't as though there is only one reason that someone might engage with the question "Do you believe in God?" As such, you cannot presume fervency to be indicative of a given person's belief with respect to the matter.

Orlanth wrote:
For emotions to be engaged a personal choice has to be engaged. After all we are not robots.

No, that's not true at all. Emotions can also be engaged by valuation, which isn't necessarily related to choice.

Unless we're going to posit that we somehow choose to value things like our parents, friends, etc.

So to sum up this thread, some jerks mucked up an historical monument and everyone with any sense, regardless of faith, thought it was a pretty crappy thing to do.

Ahtman wrote:So to sum up this thread, some jerks mucked up an historical monument and everyone with any sense, regardless of faith, thought it was a pretty crappy thing to do.

So long as the Pope isn't using his Jedi mind trick to make us think that

generalgrog wrote:
Of course it is a perverse notion, but there are perverse people out there. Stalin, Mao,Pol Pot for example. Was Stalins 5 year plans not beneficial to soviet russia? It could be argued that they made huge leaps forward economically due his atheistic inspired agenda. Also I never said that every atheist is a Stalin.

Stalin's action were inspired by his lack of belief (or belief in the lack of) in God? I thought his actions were inspired by the presence of a belief in Communism, mixed with a desire for power?

But, to answer your original question, there is no reason to punish anyone if nothing will be accomplished in doing so. Sometimes what is accomplished is simply the provision of catharsis to the mob such that order is maintained, other times its the creation of negative exemplars; just to name two things.

If you want a straight answer with respect to the belif in good and evil, then its simply that atheists aren't required to lack belief in either. Only relativists are required to believe that, well, at least insofar as good and evil are thought of as immutable.

generalgrog wrote:
Than why don't we?

GG

We don't? I thought there were hundreds of charity organizations, secular and otherwise, in addition to a large number of people who behave in a caring fashion with respect to family and friends; plus quite a few more that are at least not malicious with respect to random people.

People do bad things, and people do good things. On one hand this can be explained by the murky nature of morality, on the other it can be said that moral impulses need not be universal in order to be intrinsic characteristics of humanity.

generalgrog wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Where did the athiest get the "will" to do good?

Mannahnin wrote:There has been a massive amount of research and philosophical thought put into it. It's worth taking some time to study. The short version of one of the major theories, basically, is that coorperating and working together is to our mutual benefit as a social species. .

I wasn't asking the question looking for answer...I know what certain athiests believe on the subject. The question was asked to get people to think a little, witht he idea of showing what a different world view looks like. Of course Christian theology teaches that the will to do good comes from man being created in God's image. Again you need to excersize faith to accept either principle

Okay, I have multiple problems with what you just wrote here. First, I tried to politely point out that the development of ethics and morals CAN have an entirely secular basis, and that there's a lot of writing and research on the subject. If you were already aware of this, you asking the above as a rhetorical question makes no sense, and comes across as kind of dishonest. Second, what does "what certain athiests believe on the subject" have anything to do with it? I was summarizing a scientific theory; some of the people who think that theory makes sense are religious, and some aren't. Atheism has nothing to do with that theory. Third, you DON'T need faith to accept a scientific theory about human behavior. You do need a greater or lesser degree of faith to be CERTAIN that a given theory is correct, depending on how much evidence there is, but you don't need certainty.

generalgrog wrote:

generalgrog wrote:B: If there is no God and if our actions/behaviors are the result of purely random/inherited traits from our DNA through our ancestors, how can you say that there is evil? It seems to me that a consistent athiest would say that there is no good or evil and therefore there is no need to punish people for doing what they do "naturally". Why was Stalin/Moa/Pol Pot wrong for doing what they did? They were just excersizing there evolutionary right to engage in survival of the fittest.

Mannahnin wrote:This is a perverse notion, and I have to say I'm kind of insulted on the atheists' behalf. You can't possibly believe that the actions of mass murderers are in any way related to "survival of the fittest." That's insane. Those acts are repugnant, antisocial, and counter to the general welfare regardless of which ethical or moral system you follow.

Of course it is a perverse notion, but there are perverse people out there. Stalin, Mao,Pol Pot for example. Was Stalins 5 year plans not beneficial to soviet russia? It could be argued that they made huge leaps forward economically due his atheistic inspired agenda. Also I never said that every atheist is a Stalin.

I'm saying that YOUR association of "survival of the fittest", and Atheism, with the behavior of genoicidal dictators is perverse and insulting to a lot of people. Stalin's agenda wasn't inspired by atheism. It was inspired by his lust for power, and most likely, by his being a psychopath.

generalgrog wrote:Why should an athiest care about morals and good works? (also before people start hand wringing about my survival of the fittest example, I'm not saying that survival of the fittest is evil, just the the way it was applied in athiestic societies)

Atheism doesn't define a society. Religious and philosophical creeds are things which inspire people to do things. The LACK of belief in a thing does not. The societies you're talking about were nominally Communist, but in practice dictatorships, ruled in multiple cases by psychotics, like Stalin and Pol Pot. The people's belief in the philosophical and economic theories of Communism motivated them to follow leaders who misled them. Atheism had little or nothing to do with it. Hitler was nominally Christian, and his people were devoted Christians, but they were deluded into doing evil things out of a combination of misplaced loyalty, resentment about the consequences of WWI, and hatred/fear of an ethnic minority. I don't blame Christianity for the Third Reich, and you shouldn't be blaming atheism for Stalin's atrocities either.

generalgrog wrote:[

Mannahnin wrote:They should care about morals and good works because they are to everyone's benefit as a society. Life is better for us all when we cooperate and act in a benevolent manner.

Than why don't we?

I don't know about you, but I try to. And I'm sure Sebster tries to. That's a pagan and an atheist practicing morality and trying to do good works. We're not Christian, but we're moral. Can you accept that?

I like hawthorn trees.
They prove the existence of Percy Thrower.

generalgrog wrote:Actually it tuned into a thread about the nature of faith.

No one is debating Gods existence. No one is arguing about Christianity either.

the thread is actually pretty deep in my opinion.

GG

It's been better than most that have a similar nature that's true. I've honestly enjoyed reading this so far.

Everyone is missing the point - never mind arguing about believing in God, why the feth is anyone believing in the Daily Mail? Sensationalist gak.

Definitely a sad proof of the attitudes rife in this country, but anti-Christians? It was probably chavs doing what they do best - being destructive - and picked that tree because of the daft ribbons hanging from it.