Posted on 01/26/2005 9:46:21 AM PST by 7thson
They in principle could do so when it is an act of hooliganism, but I understand that they have more important things to do, like eat donuts and catch speeders.
No one makes you swear allegiance to anything or anyone.
If I love God, I will keep His commandments -- of which thse second-most-important commandment is to love my neighbor as myself. I work at #2 because I embrace #1.
I think I already answered your other question, or tried to. It's good that the child-molestor drives the speed limit. He's still a child-molestor, though, isn't he?
Dan
LOL, mostly? How does that work? Just curious.
Where do Twinkies come from?
Most people don't know where anything comes from, because it does not matter. Given some utility and interest, we could find out the answer to all these questions with a bit of effort.
Everyone gets their moral lessons from their upbringing, their parents, their communities, etc.
Where did you get yours? (did God talk to you directly, or did you learn yours like the rest of us?)
Yes, I do. If atheism is absence of a belief that it can only be expressed by an absence of an image.
Reeve has some positive accomplishements. A monument to him would be a monument to something positive he did. I am sure it applies to Mr. McLellan, whoever he is.
Similarly, a library is something positive a theist would be happy to consider as a monument. There is nothing atheistic about it.
2. He'd have to prove a natural source for information in the universe and then translate it to information in biological life. This does not mean the DNA, but the communications that occur in living creatures - reduction of uncertainty of a molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. [Shannon] It is an action, not a message – i.e. a life force Possible but unexplored causes include harmonics, a universal vacuum field, geometry which gives rise to strings – all of which have a Scriptural root, i.e. God speaking it all into being, Creator outside space/time.
3. He'd have to prove a natural source for the will to live, the want to live or struggle to survive that characterizes life. IOW, self-replication is not enough. In an embryo, if the cells simply self-replicated the result would be a tumor. In life, the cells are organized into functional molecular machines which communicate together striving as one organism to live. Why does the organism have a will to live? Why should the component machinery (cardiovascual, neural, etc.) cooperate to that end?
4. He'd have to explain how the incredibly delicate physical constants, physical laws and asymmetry between matter and anti-matter came to be so perfectly balanced. A slight change one way or the other and there would be no life, or no universe at all.
5. He'd have to explain out of all the possible spatial and temporal dimensions why our vision and mind are tuned to a particular selection of four coordinates – why not three or five, etc.
6. He'd have to explain how biological semiosis arose through natural means. Semiosis refers to the language or symbols of communication in biological life - the encoding and decoding. This has two sides, the language itself and the understanding of it. Where’d it come from?
7. He'd have to explain how functional complexity arose through natural means – why and how molecular machines organized around functions to the benefit of the greater organism. Of particular interest would be the functions which would not work if any part were missing – i.e. cardiovascular without the lungs, nervous system without the brain, etc.
8. He’d have to explain how eyes developed concurrently across phyla – i.e. vertebrates and invertebrates – and why there have been virtually no new body plans since the Cambrian Explosion. Immutable regulatory control genes is all I can think of. But why would they in particular be immutable?
9. He’d have to have a natural explanation for qualia – likes and dislikes, pain and pleasure, love and hate, good and evil, etc. – consciousness and the mind.
The Bible.
You got it! Thanks.
>>Few atheists believe that life is meaningless.<<
I agree. But that is because I believe that few atheists are really atheists.
>>They might reasonably ask you why you are so convinced that life without your version of "God" is meaningless.<<
That is not what I believe.
"Where does an atheist get his "morals" from? Does he just make his own rules?"
Not generally. Generally, atheists learn the moral values common to their society, just as religionists learn their moral values from the teachings of their faith.
Both of my parents are, and were, atheists. They are two of the most moral people I have ever encountered. My morality came directly through them, and reflects the traditional morality of this society.
Yours is probably based on Christian teachings. Those teachings, however, are also subjective, depending on the denomination you embrace, the time you live, and the place you live.
Christianity has exhibited a varying morality through the centuries, just as societies have done.
What are my moral absolutes? Probably the very same as yours, since I grew up in a society primarily based on Christian morality. Are mine as strong? Yes, they are, because they are deeply planted in my psyche. I can no more do immoral acts than you can. If I do, I feel guilt, because those morals are part of me.
What immoral acts have I done? I stole a candy bar once, when I was 10, and was punished for it and made recompense by sweeping the store. I had sex before I was married, but that's a pretty common failing. I remain friends with that person. I committed adultery once in my life, and confessed it to my wife and was forgiven by her.
Other than that, I don't think I can name any other acts. I have no desire to kill anyone. I don't steal anything. I don't commit adultery, having learned an important lesson.
My morals are the same as yours, and they're as deeply held.
Your right about that re:Liberals think conservatives are bible thumpers. The msm have perpetrated the myth(very effectively)that we're all bible thumpers,and a lot of other things as well!As far as being an agnostic is concerned,it seems to realy shock some libs that conservatives don't all think alike.
I take atheists at their word, and the word is, they have an absence of a belief. Naturally, I ask, -- how do you celebrate that? I am collecting proposals...
>>But also believe me when I say that you have a dearth of understandign of human nature... <<
I think what you mean to say is that you have a dearth of information about what my understanding of human nature actually is.
I haven't completely shed all of my Eastern Orthodox beliefs, basically.
Furthermore, a total Deist would believe that God has not interfered at all since creating the universe, but I believe that there may have been some "tweaking" on his part.
Which is why I never said that. I could have sworn I already pointed that out once. It's hard enough to explain what I actually say, really hard to explain what I didn't say.
To answer your other question...yes, I do try to do the right thing, and yes, I too, fall short more often than I would like. I am a sinner, expected to sin, and so that is no surprise. I do try not to repeat my mistakes, so I hope that counts for something. I also believe that God made me so that I would find certain things to be innately wrong, and compel me to act accordingly. I also believe that God gave us free will, and included in that is the ability to reject Him. They may pay for it in the end, but I can accept and even understand why they cannot accept His existence. They don't call it faith for nothing:)
I agree with the above.
My questions have nothing to do with doing right or wrong, merely how someone who didn't believe in God would be able to articulate intellectually why they think there is. I have no one so far.
Of course. But isn't he a child molestor, God believing or not? I would judge him on his actions, not his belief or non-belief in God.
I guess I am not sure I see the point. We both agree, good acts are good acts, and bad acts are bad acts. I do not think a motivating belief in God makes those same acts inherently better or worse - I see the acts themselves as the same regardless of the belief of the actor.
Is not the decision not to abort a fetus morally the same, whether or not motivated by a belief in God?
Sure, you can find anamolies. I can find people who claim to be strong republicans and favor abortion, big government, high taxation, etc. They are the exception, not the rule, and their beliefs have no effect on true conservative principles.
Any Christian on this thread believe that salvation is through works?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.