If God did not exist

[pacer]

I found it, thanx. There is really nothing Professor Lennox can say that hasn’t already been said in one form or another. I am now exploring other philosophies, i.e. Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

 

[pacer]

Where can I find the debate?

The internet, Bro'. The internet.

Thanx AVG-JOE. I did not find the video you posted, just segments of it. Thanx for posting it. I will have a listen.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Funerary activities play right in to the whole fear of death creating a need for religion which introduced organized activity which all led to what little Sentience Monkeys currently display.

We're getting there, Brother. Evolution works.

On to the Stars!​

While the spark of life is strong the fear of losing it has meaning. But for those who are in pain death means a release. Our sentience is still trying to understand both of these concepts. Don't know if we will manage that feat before we reach the stars.

But like all my fellow Monkeys a "road trip" is always more fun that thinking!

 

[pacer]

Wow!…what an excellent debate. Thank you for introducing it. Just finished watching it. There’s a heck of a lot to absorb. Both Lennox and Dawkins put forward excellent arguments. I found Professor Lennox’s rationale for the existence of God/Jesus particularly strong. Does anyone know where I can find a complete written transcript of this debate?

 

[AVG-JOE]

The internet?

 

[pacer]

The internet?

I'm searching. I was merely asking in case someone already found a written transcript. Thanx.

 

[Newby]

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Richard Dawkins)

How can you make such a statement with millions arrested and incarcerated in American prisons alone? Man absolutely has to be restrained by fear of punishment, we as a society obviously have recognized that and have established our entire society around that concept. We even have the notion of redemption in serving your time and being allowed back into society once that's accomplished. So why is that notion any different when applied to the concept of human life not being the only existance or the only stage of existance? Because that's the only one you're capable of partially understanding?

So how do you determine whose morals and ethics are correct? Majority rules? Are humans born with a sense of 'right' and 'wrong', with the same understanding and definitions of those two concepts?

 

[Newby]

"Why would anybody be intimidated by mere words? I mean, neither I nor any other athiest that I know ever threatens violence. We never threaten to fly planes into skyscrapers. We never threaten suicide bombs. We are very gentle people. All we do is use words to talk about things like the cosmos, the origin of the universe, evolution, the origin of life. What's there to be frightened of? It's just an opinion." (Richard Dawkins)

Words are not a weapon? Just look at the threads you yourself have started? If you're not threatened by those who believe differently than you, then why you do you feel the need to denegrate them on a constant basis?

 

[AVG-JOE]

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Richard Dawkins)

How can you make such a statement with millions arrested and incarcerated in American prisons alone? Man absolutely has to be restrained by fear of punishment, we as a society obviously have recognized that and have established our entire society around that concept. We even have the notion of redemption in serving your time and being allowed back into society once that's accomplished. So why is that notion any different when applied to the concept of human life not being the only existance or the only stage of existance? Because that's the only one you're capable of partially understanding?

So how do you determine whose morals and ethics are correct? Majority rules? Are humans born with a sense of 'right' and 'wrong', with the same understanding and definitions of those two concepts?

Exactly!!


This is why Civil Law needs to accommodate ALL religions and beliefs, and why Civil Law must trump every Religious Law, whenever the two conflict.

`​

 

[PoliticalChic]

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Richard Dawkins)

How can you make such a statement with millions arrested and incarcerated in American prisons alone? Man absolutely has to be restrained by fear of punishment, we as a society obviously have recognized that and have established our entire society around that concept. We even have the notion of redemption in serving your time and being allowed back into society once that's accomplished. So why is that notion any different when applied to the concept of human life not being the only existance or the only stage of existance? Because that's the only one you're capable of partially understanding?

So how do you determine whose morals and ethics are correct? Majority rules? Are humans born with a sense of 'right' and 'wrong', with the same understanding and definitions of those two concepts?

Exactly!!


This is why Civil Law needs to accommodate ALL religions and beliefs, and why Civil Law must trump every Religious Law, whenever the two conflict.

`​

No doubt, Joey, you have the Common Law in mind.

In 530 a second commission led by Tribonian had the objective of revising the way lawyers were educated. Fifteen centuries later, the Codex still exerts its influence on Europe and is known as the Civil Law tradition. The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem)

Today, European law gives preeminence to legislatures, the institution that drafted the statute prevails.

In Anglo-American Common Law tradition, the institution that interprets and adjudicates the statute has the final word. Due to the absence of a jury, and the deference to whomever writes the laws, Civil Law tradition is friendlier to tyrannical regimes than the Common Law tradition. Under Justinians’ code the emperor is named nomos empsychos, “law incarnate.”
"Justinian's Flea," Wm. Rosen





Then, of course, there is the origin of law, itself.


The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge"

 

[PoliticalChic]

"God exists if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture." Richard Dawkins

Dawkins????

Really?

1. Dawkins, among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours.

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.

2. Now, get this:
Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
Berlinski

 

[PoliticalChic]

The whole of cristianity is based on a cynical and archaic system of rewards and punishments.

...without which there can be no morality.....merely opinions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Given the nature of the statement, whether or not you trust the man is irrelevant. He's not asking you to purchase anything or trying to convince you to let him babysit your kids, just spouting philosophical opinions. Rather than saying his statements are true or false based on your knowledge of his sexual history, why not take an honest look at what he's saying and use your ability to reason to decide whether or not there's any validity to what he's proposed.

Good God, kids. Turn your logic on.

Speaking of logic.....

Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, and atheist-in-chief, has written "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."


Logical?

Either agree with me or you are ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked?

 

[Capstone]

Still utter tripe.

Look, it's okay to disagree so persistently with Politicalchic, but you might want to actually back up your assessment of his or her argument.

Just a friendly piece of advice.

 

[Capstone]

The whole of cristianity is based on a cynical and archaic system of rewards and punishments.

...without which there can be no morality.....merely opinions.

Strange then, how the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities has apparently occurred in spite of "the inerrant Word of God". In fact, given the potential biblical justifiability of so many things considered morally reprehensible today (E.G. genocide, infanticide, rape, pillaging, slavery, human sacrifice, cannibalism, polygamy, adultery, the subjugation of women, and so on...), it's astounding that predominantly Christian cultures EVER managed to advance beyond the ethics of the dark and middle ages. To imply that all historical paradigms of Christian morality have shared an objective set of guidelines is to ignore the contradictory nature of widely promoted behaviors among Christians of different eras.

As an example of moral relativism in the scriptures (one of many), consider the quandary of David's wives and neighbor:

(2 Samuel 12:11-12) 11Thus says the LORD: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. 12For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.' [emphasis mine]

Of course, I realize your God was upset, but I wonder of the message sent by using the sin of adultery (an act clearly condemned in the Ten Commandments) as a method of punishment?! Doesn't this imply that we're expected to follow a modified version of the adage: "Do as I say; not as I do."? At least as far as David's wives and neighbor were concerned, it was apparently: "Do as I say 'til I say to do otherwise."! I suppose Christians should hope and pray for subjective discernment in the face of temptation. I mean, whose to say whether that 'still small voice' encouraging sinfulness in the heads of believers is that of God or Satan?!

 

[The Irish Ram]

“Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That's not morality, that's just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.”

― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

How about righteous living for Christ's sake. After all, He laid down His life for us. It's the least we can do, considering what has been done on our behalf.........

The fact that that reason is left out of Dawkins question regarding reasons to live well, tells me that Dawkins suffers from a lack of understanding. He needs to read The Book, not write one.

 

[Alfalfa]

The whole of cristianity is based on a cynical and archaic system of rewards and punishments.

...without which there can be no morality.....merely opinions.

Are you saying morality should be based on rewards and punishments?

Doesn't that relegate humanity to the station of Pavlov's dogs?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Strange then, how the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities has apparently occurred in spite of "the inerrant Word of God".

lol @ the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities. I grew up with no locks on our doors. Try that now.

 

[koshergrl]

The whole of cristianity is based on a cynical and archaic system of rewards and punishments.

...without which there can be no morality.....merely opinions.

Strange then, how the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities has apparently occurred in spite of "the inerrant Word of God". In fact, given the potential biblical justifiability of so many things considered morally reprehensible today (E.G. genocide, infanticide, rape, pillaging, slavery, human sacrifice, cannibalism, polygamy, adultery, the subjugation of women, and so on...), it's astounding that predominantly Christian cultures EVER managed to advance beyond the ethics of the dark and middle ages. To imply that all historical paradigms of Christian morality have shared an objective set of guidelines is to ignore the contradictory nature of widely promoted behaviors among Christians of different eras.

As an example of moral relativism in the scriptures (one of many), consider the quandary of David's wives and neighbor:

(2 Samuel 12:11-12) 11Thus says the LORD: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. 12For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.' [emphasis mine]

Of course, I realize your God was upset, but I wonder of the message sent by using the sin of adultery (an act clearly condemned in the Ten Commandments) as a method of punishment?! Doesn't this imply that we're expected to follow a modified version of the adage: "Do as I say; not as I do."? At least as far as David's wives and neighbor were concerned, it was apparently: "Do as I say 'til I say to do otherwise."! I suppose Christians should hope and pray for subjective discernment in the face of temptation. I mean, whose to say whether that 'still small voice' encouraging sinfulness in the heads of believers is that of God or Satan?!

Tripe, no matter how many times you delete it and repost it.

And reported, btw. Spamming isn't allowed.

 

[Capstone]

[...] He needs to read The Book, not write one.

Which translation?

Whichever, should he take it literally or figuratively, or would it be more proper to use various modes of exegesis for different passages?

If the latter, how would he determine (objectively speaking) when to interpret shit literally or figuratively?