Discussion: Does Yahweh really love us?

[notyou2]

Which is more ethical?

Stating go kill muslims in the name of christ, or saying I no longer want anything to do with your religion that espouses hate?

The first is more ethical, the second is a moral issue.

semantics.......

[Aradhus]

God is a jelly belly short of a juggernaut

[Symmetry]

Which is more ethical?

Stating go kill muslims in the name of christ, or saying I no longer want anything to do with your religion that espouses hate?

The first is more ethical, the second is a moral issue.

semantics.......

Not at all. The difference between ethics and morality is pretty key to the question. You'd have a better point if you criticised me for clearly distorting what you meant by "more" ethical. You meant something along the lines of "more correct". Many immoral things can be justified by a code of ethics. Many unethical things can be justified by codes of personal morality.

[notyou2]

Which is more ethical?

Stating go kill muslims in the name of christ, or saying I no longer want anything to do with your religion that espouses hate?

The first is more ethical, the second is a moral issue.

semantics.......

Not at all. The difference between ethics and morality is pretty key to the question. You'd have a better point if you criticised me for clearly distorting what you meant by "more" ethical. You meant something along the lines of "more correct". Many immoral things can be justified by a code of ethics. Many unethical things can be justified by codes of personal morality.

You are correct, and perhaps it was a bad choice for a comparison on my part, but it does illustrate my point.

[Symmetry]

Which is more ethical?

Stating go kill muslims in the name of christ, or saying I no longer want anything to do with your religion that espouses hate?

The first is more ethical, the second is a moral issue.

semantics.......

Not at all. The difference between ethics and morality is pretty key to the question. You'd have a better point if you criticised me for clearly distorting what you meant by "more" ethical. You meant something along the lines of "more correct". Many immoral things can be justified by a code of ethics. Many unethical things can be justified by codes of personal morality.

You are correct, and perhaps it was a bad choice for a comparison on my part, but it does illustrate my point.

Absolutely- the basic foundation of Abrahamic religions is that ethics should trump morality. That was, after all, the basic cause of the fall- personal morals trumping an ethical code. Doing what was morally right when a law forbade it.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Doing what was morally right when a law forbade it."

So questions concerning following a law even though it's immoral is in the realm of ethics and/or morality?

I'm just having difficulty in understanding the relationship between ethics and morality. Consider the following:

teleological ethics, (teleological from Greek telos, “end”; logos, “science”), theory of morality that derives duty or moral obligation from what is good or desirable as an end to be achieved. Also known as consequentialist ethics, it is opposed to deontological ethics (from the Greek deon, “duty”), which holds that the basic standards for an action’s being morally right are independent of the good or evil generated.

[2dimes]

A child believes what his parents tell him and doesn't question them.

I've never seen a child like that.

[natty dread]

A child believes what his parents tell him and doesn't question them.

I've never seen a child like that.

Oh, really?

I guess the children you know have objective scientifical evidence of the existence of Santa Claus and Easter Bunny, then. Why haven't they published about it in a scientific journal? This would be groundbreaking news...

[2dimes]

Which is more loving, teaching my children that cars can hurt them so they need to make sure the driver is stopped and it is to let them cross, or holding their hands when they cross so if I'm not there they don't understand how to do it safely for themselves?

Interesting analogy- when would you say God is "not there".

I don't believe there is any time he's "not there." We can only choose to believe or think he's not there as we are allowed to ignore his presence.

Part of why I thought about the car analogy was on the way home from picking up my daughter from school she was talking to me and her 4 year old brother walked ahead of us. We were on a quiet street with very little traffic, he had his head down and stepped off the curb without looking. There was a car comming but it was in the far lane. I waited a moment and then called out, "Hey!" he looked up to see the car and turned back even though he was not in danger, it startled him to see the car.
I was indeed there but he was not concious of either me or the car until I got his attention away from what ever he was thinking about.

Like air, it's there and you're breathing, there is allways air in you lungs and it's all around you yet, you don't think about it. Most of the time you don't even notice it. Think about this, if you exhale as much as you can or even drown you can't get all of the air out of your lungs. It doesn't matter that you think you have got all of the air out there's some left.

Of course I don't understand it but I do realise that if you make a choice it's allways more significant than if you are not allowed to choose. I don't think I could make a real choice if God was just obviously present all the time doing things my way. If my life was allways good I would be drawn to it without question, that's not a choice. If your biological parents win the lottory and ask, "Do you want this new car with a bag of money in it so we can go to your favorite restaraunt?" You don't need to decide, Yes please, thanks!

[2dimes]

A child believes what his parents tell him and doesn't question them.

I've never seen a child like that.

Oh, really?

I guess the children you know have objective scientifical evidence of the existence of Santa Claus and Easter Bunny, then. Why haven't they published about it in a scientific journal? This would be groundbreaking news...

Well, going from, "doesn't question" to "objective scientifical evidence" is not a giant leap.

You're absolutly right I was just messing with you. Children never question anything.

[shieldgenerator7]

You're suggesting he's less intelligent or not utilising part of his brain to the point of not even being in control of it because he knows God more intimatly than you? LOL.

...Intimately? Really? Wow, must be the best sex in the universe.

Seriously speaking, no, I'm not suggesting he's less intelligent. I'm suggesting he lacks critical thinking skills because he refuses to question his worldview or discuss it rationally. Instead he spends his time preaching and feeling smugly superior for "knowing" the truth... indoctrination can be a bitch to ditch.

I wouldn't say LOL though, because it kinda makes me sad to think about.

okay, would you stop demeaning my religion? seriously, the joke in the first line is rather childish. No offense
In my defense, I do not lack critical thinking skills, and I use them quite often. To you, I may be an ignorant child who "never questions what he's told" but that's only because you only know me through the internet and don't know me in person. If you knew me in person, you would have a completely different perspective. Who knows? Maybe you're one of my best friends in real life? (although it's improbable seeing we're in different countries). A list of examples of my critical thinking skills would be irrevelant in this case, but you get the point (i hope).
And it's not that I refuse to question my religion period, it's that I refuse to question it in front of you, for your enjoyment. I know all about what they say about Christianity and everything "wrong" with it, but i don't care. To me, it's all true. I believe it completely despite the scrutiny.
And I don't feel "smugly superior". I never look down on people who are not Christians. Name one insult I have given to you that matches the insults you have given me. I'd say you're the one who feels "smugly superior": "I wouldn't say LOL though, because it kinda makes me sad to think about."
And no, despite the things I've said, I don't think any less or any more of you because of what you've said. To me, your a brother in Christ (assuming you're a guy), and that means a lot to me.

[john9blue]

okay, would you stop demeaning my religion? seriously, the joke in the first line is rather childish. No offense
In my defense, I do not lack critical thinking skills, and I use them quite often. To you, I may be an ignorant child who "never questions what he's told" but that's only because you only know me through the internet and don't know me in person. If you knew me in person, you would have a completely different perspective. Who knows? Maybe you're one of my best friends in real life? (although it's improbable seeing we're in different countries). A list of examples of my critical thinking skills would be irrevelant in this case, but you get the point (i hope).
And it's not that I refuse to question my religion period, it's that I refuse to question it in front of you, for your enjoyment. I know all about what they say about Christianity and everything "wrong" with it, but i don't care. To me, it's all true. I believe it completely despite the scrutiny.
And I don't feel "smugly superior". I never look down on people who are not Christians. Name one insult I have given to you that matches the insults you have given me. I'd say you're the one who feels "smugly superior": "I wouldn't say LOL though, because it kinda makes me sad to think about."
And no, despite the things I've said, I don't think any less or any more of you because of what you've said. To me, your a brother in Christ (assuming you're a guy), and that means a lot to me.

welcome to the internet, where you learn that humans are all secretly assholes.

[Nola_Lifer]

You're suggesting he's less intelligent or not utilising part of his brain to the point of not even being in control of it because he knows God more intimatly than you? LOL.

...Intimately? Really? Wow, must be the best sex in the universe.

Seriously speaking, no, I'm not suggesting he's less intelligent. I'm suggesting he lacks critical thinking skills because he refuses to question his worldview or discuss it rationally. Instead he spends his time preaching and feeling smugly superior for "knowing" the truth... indoctrination can be a bitch to ditch.

I wouldn't say LOL though, because it kinda makes me sad to think about.

okay, would you stop demeaning my religion? seriously, the joke in the first line is rather childish. No offense
In my defense, I do not lack critical thinking skills, and I use them quite often. To you, I may be an ignorant child who "never questions what he's told" but that's only because you only know me through the internet and don't know me in person. If you knew me in person, you would have a completely different perspective. Who knows? Maybe you're one of my best friends in real life? (although it's improbable seeing we're in different countries). A list of examples of my critical thinking skills would be irrevelant in this case, but you get the point (i hope).
And it's not that I refuse to question my religion period, it's that I refuse to question it in front of you, for your enjoyment. I know all about what they say about Christianity and everything "wrong" with it, but i don't care. To me, it's all true. I believe it completely despite the scrutiny.
And I don't feel "smugly superior". I never look down on people who are not Christians. Name one insult I have given to you that matches the insults you have given me. I'd say you're the one who feels "smugly superior": "I wouldn't say LOL though, because it kinda makes me sad to think about."
And no, despite the things I've said, I don't think any less or any more of you because of what you've said. To me, your a brother in Christ (assuming you're a guy), and that means a lot to me.

I don't think natty is trying to be demeaning, nor do I think you lack critical thinking skills. The thing that makes you and natty different is skepticism. Natty, obviously, is why more skeptical then you are and; therefore, questions your belief and his own.

[Juan_Bottom]

I do not lack critical thinking skills,

I believe it completely despite the scrutiny

I challenge your assertion that you have critical thinking skills. Your religions fails under close scrutiny, yet you believe completely. That shows either a lack of critical thinking or a dismissal of it. Either way, it's not smart.

[shieldgenerator7]

well, Juan_Bottom, you can critical thinking skills and still believe something that other people deam false at the same time. I don't care if you think Christianity is bogus, it's real and it's my whole world, or that is, God is

[Juan_Bottom]

To me, it's not about deeming it false or who deems it as such.
What it is about is that the only evidence for Christianity being true is in fact - anecdotal. That's it. And that's also all the more evidence that the other religions have. So you don't believe in it because the facts say that you should, you believe in it because you want to believe in it. And to me that shows a lack of Critical Thinking. But after seeing what you have written, I'd wager that you have no problem admitting to yourself that it's not really about facts or evidence, it's about want.

[shieldgenerator7]

I'm glad you're finally understanding a little bit. What do you believe in?

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm the founder of the Godless Heathens. CC's Atheist/Agnostic usergroup.

But I'm a Militant Atheist/Pantheist.

[john9blue]

Critical Thinking Skills: when you think that Christianity being wrong proves that God doesn't exist, you definitely have them.

Critical Thinking Skills.

[shieldgenerator7]

Ahh... a pantheist? So you believe in all religions? cool

[safariguy5]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

I defer to George Carlin.

[Juan_Bottom]

Critical Thinking Skills: when you think that Christianity being wrong proves that God doesn't exist, you definitely have them.

Critical Thinking Skills.

As Penn pointed out,
Agnosticism answers the question "Do you believe that there could there be a God?"
Atheism answers the question "Do you believe in a God?"
The evidence and/or lack of it suggests that there is no God, so I do not believe. That's Critically Thinking, no? Everyone is an Agnostic on some level, but not everyone believes in it wholeheartedly.

Ahh... a pantheist? So you believe in all religions? cool

lol
It's become a bastardized term with a dozen meanings. But I follow Einstein's lead. If you need something to worship, look to the beauty of the Universe. It's as close to a God as you will ever find, and it is truly a marvel.

[natty dread]

I'm an agnostic deist. Which is pretty much almost the same thing as atheist pantheist, when you think about it...

To me, critical thinking is that you don't hold anything "sacred", you don't have anything that you're not willing to question.

Example. Your parents raise you as a christian (or muslim, or hindu, or buddhist) and teach you all their religious beliefs. Most children believe what their parents teach them. After all, to a child, his parents are the whole world to him (or her).

At some point, a child may develop critical thinking skills. This doesn't happen automatically. They need to be encouraged by proper education. When a child learns to think critically, he will question all the things he has held as "truths" just because his parents have taught him so, and measures them up against evidence. If the beliefs he has been taught contradict the evidence he observes and learns, he will discard those beliefs.

And that is what thinking critically is all about. It can be very scary, because if your beliefs don't hold water, you'll have to rethink your whole worldview. It's very comforting to have something you can believe in blindly. It's like a comforting blanket. But at some point, most children throw away their blankets and grow up to be wholesome individuals, who can think for themselves and need no security blankets.

I don't have anything against religion, per se. To me, religion is a personal issue, everyone can have whatever opinions about it they wish to have. But when people start pushing religion to others, and even worse, indoctrinating innocent children with dogmatic beliefs that contradict all the scientifical evidence we have discovered during the last 200 years... that I have a problem with. There's nothing I consider more evil than lying to a child, deliberately twisting the truth because the truth doesn't fit your preconceived ideas about the universe.

Newsflash to all religious fundamentalists, the reality doesn't change just because you believe it to be something that it's not. We can observe the world and gather evidence about it, and if they happen to not match a text that was written 2000 years ago... then it's time to discard those texts, at least as something describing the real world. Want to consider religious texts as metaphors for life? No problem. Want to consider religious texts as something that describes how the universe actually works? Fail.

All young-earth creationists who home-school their children and outright lie to them about everything that we, the human race, have learned during the last 200 years, should be prosecuted as criminals and their children should be taken away. Everybody should have a right to proper education, and everybody should have the right to choose what they believe in, without their parents indoctrinating them with all kinds of bullshit.

We have no evidence for or against the existence of god. That much is true. But we do have evidence against a lot of things the bible claims. Therefore, if you have to believe in the christian god, you should believe in god but discard all that stupid stuff in the bible about the world being created in 6 days which is obviously false, or the whole world being flooded in 40 days, or the world being flat... which are both very obviously false.

There's no reason why you can't believe in god but simply not let your belief intrude on the area of science. All evidence says that if there is a god, it does not interact directly with the universe we live in.

Personally, I choose to not have an opinion about the existence of god. I don't claim god to be nonexistent, but I don't take one's existence for granted either. If there is a god, I think it is more an abstract entity, and doesn't care one bit whether you believe in it or not.

If you own an ant farm.. do you care if the ants believe that you exist or not?

[Juan_Bottom]

That's not fair. Pantheism was atheism until butthurt Christians couldn't (or refused to) grasp the concept. And there has been no new term to replace it.

[john9blue]

As Penn pointed out,
Agnosticism answers the question "Do you believe that there could there be a God?"
Atheism answers the question "Do you believe in a God?"
The evidence and/or lack of it suggests that there is no God, so I do not believe. That's Critically Thinking, no? Everyone is an Agnostic on some level, but not everyone believes in it wholeheartedly.

you're implying that it's impossible to be an agnostic theist.