345 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Death of Canaanites in the Old Testament

Dr. Craig
"According to the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), when God called forth his people out of slavery in Egypt and back to the land of their forefathers, he directed them to kill all the Canaanite clans who were living in the land (Deut. 7.1-2; 20.16-18). The destruction was to be complete: every man, woman, and child was to be killed. The book of Joshua tells the story of Israel’s carrying out God’s command in city after city throughout Canaan.

These stories offend our moral sensibilities. Ironically, however, our moral sensibilities in the West have been largely, and for many people unconsciously, shaped by our Judaeo-Christian heritage, which has taught us the intrinsic value of human beings, the importance of dealing justly rather than capriciously, and the necessity of the punishment’s fitting the crime. The Bible itself inculcates the values which these stories seem to violate.

The command to kill all the Canaanite peoples is jarring precisely because it seems so at odds with the portrait of Yahweh, Israel’s God, which is painted in the Hebrew Scriptures. Contrary to the vituperative rhetoric of someone like Richard Dawkins, the God of the Hebrew Bible is a God of justice, long-suffering, and compassion.

You can’t read the Old Testament prophets without a sense of God’s profound care for the poor, the oppressed, the down-trodden, the orphaned, and so on. God demands just laws and just rulers. He literally pleads with people to repent of their unjust ways that He might not judge them. “As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ez. 33.11).

He sends a prophet even to the pagan city of Nineveh because of his pity for its inhabitants, “who do not know their right hand from their left” (Jon. 4.11). The Pentateuch itself contains the Ten Commandments, one of the greatest of ancient moral codes, which has shaped Western society. Even the stricture “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” was not a prescription of vengeance but a check on excessive punishment for any crime, serving to moderate violence.

God’s judgement is anything but capricious. When the Lord announces His intention to judge Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins, Abraham boldly asks,

“Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen. 18.25).

Like a Middle Eastern merchant haggling for a bargain, Abraham continually lowers his price, and each time God meets it without hesitation, assuring Abraham that if there are even ten righteous persons in the city, He will not destroy it for their sake.

So then what is Yahweh doing in commanding Israel’s armies to exterminate the Canaanite peoples? It is precisely because we have come to expect Yahweh to act justly and with compassion that we find these stories so difficult to understand. How can He command soldiers to slaughter children?

Now before attempting to say something by way of answer to this difficult question, we should do well first to pause and ask ourselves what is at stake here. Suppose we agree that if God (who is perfectly good) exists, He could not have issued such a command. What follows? That Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? That God does not exist? Hardly! So what is the problem supposed to be?

I’ve often heard popularizers raise this issue as a refutation of the moral argument for God’s existence. But that’s plainly incorrect. The claim that God could not have issued such a command doesn’t falsify or undercut either of the two premises in the moral argument as I have defended it:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

In fact, insofar as the atheist thinks that God did something morally wrong in commanding the extermination of the Canaanites, he affirms premise (2). So what is the problem supposed to be?

The problem, it seems to me, is that if God could not have issued such a command, then the biblical stories must be false. Either the incidents never really happened but are just Israeli folklore; or else, if they did, then Israel, carried away in a fit of nationalistic fervor, thinking that God was on their side, claimed that God had commanded them to commit these atrocities, when in fact He had not. In other words, this problem is really an objection to biblical inerrancy.

In fact, ironically, many Old Testament critics are sceptical that the events of the conquest of Canaan ever occurred. They take these stories to be part of the legends of the founding of Israel, akin to the myths of Romulus and Remus and the founding of Rome. For such critics the problem of God’s issuing such a command evaporates.

Now that puts the issue in quite a different perspective! The question of biblical inerrancy is an important one, but it’s not like the existence of God or the deity of Christ! If we Christians can’t find a good answer to the question before us and are, moreover, persuaded that such a command is inconsistent with God’s nature, then we’ll have to give up biblical inerrancy. But we shouldn’t let the unbeliever raising this question get away with thinking that it implies more than it does.

I think that a good start at this problem is to enunciate our ethical theory that underlies our moral judgements. According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing God.” Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.

What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him.

So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.

On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.

All right; but isn’t such a command contrary to God’s nature? Well, let’s look at the case more closely. It is perhaps significant that the story of Yahweh’s destruction of Sodom--along with his solemn assurances to Abraham that were there as many as ten righteous persons in Sodom, the city would not have been destroyed--forms part of the background to the conquest of Canaan and Yahweh’s command to destroy the cities there. The implication is that the Canaanites are not righteous people but have come under God’s judgement.

In fact, prior to Israel’s bondage in Egypt, God tells Abraham,

“Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. . . . And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites [one of the Canaanite clans] is not yet complete” (Gen. 15. 13, 16).

Think of it! God stays His judgement of the Canaanite clans 400 years because their wickedness had not reached the point of intolerability! This is the long-suffering God we know in the Hebrew Scriptures. He even allows his own chosen people to languish in slavery for four centuries before determining that the Canaanite peoples are ripe for judgement and calling His people forth from Egypt.

By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even child sacrifice. The Canaanites are to be destroyed “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18). God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan, and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice, just as centuries later God would use the pagan nations of Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel.

But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel’s part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, “You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods” (Deut 7.3-4). This command is part and parcel of the whole fabric of complex Jewish ritual law distinguishing clean and unclean practices. To the contemporary Western mind many of the regulations in Old Testament law seem absolutely bizarre and pointless: not to mix linen with wool, not to use the same vessels for meat and for milk products, etc. The overriding thrust of these regulations is to prohibit various kinds of mixing. Clear lines of distinction are being drawn: this and not that. These serve as daily, tangible reminders that Israel is a special people set apart for God Himself.

I spoke once with an Indian missionary who told me that the Eastern mind has an inveterate tendency toward amalgamation. He said Hindus upon hearing the Gospel would smile and say, “Sub ehki eh, sahib, sub ehki eh!” (“All is One, sahib, All is One!” [Hindustani speakers forgive my transliteration!]). It made it almost impossible to reach them because even logical contradictions were subsumed in the whole. He said that he thought the reason God gave Israel so many arbitrary commands about clean and unclean was to teach them the Law of Contradiction!

By setting such strong, harsh dichotomies God taught Israel that any assimilation to pagan idolatry is intolerable. It was His way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

But then, again, we’re thinking of this from a Christianized, Western standpoint. For people in the ancient world, life was already brutal. Violence and war were a fact of life for people living in the ancient Near East. Evidence of this fact is that the people who told these stories apparently thought nothing of what the Israeli soldiers were commanded to do (especially if these are founding legends of the nation). No one was wringing his hands over the soldiers’ having to kill the Canaanites; those who did so were national heroes.

Moreover, my point above returns. Nothing could so illustrate to the Israelis the seriousness of their calling as a people set apart for God alone. Yahweh is not to be trifled with. He means business, and if Israel apostasizes the same could happen to her. As C. S. Lewis puts it, “Aslan is not a tame lion.”

Now how does all this relate to Islamic jihad? Islam sees violence as a means of propagating the Muslim faith. Islam divides the world into two camps: the dar al-Islam (House of Submission) and the dar al-harb (House of War). The former are those lands which have been brought into submission to Islam; the latter are those nations which have not yet been brought into submission. This is how Islam actually views the world!

By contrast, the conquest of Canaan represented God’s just judgement upon those peoples. The purpose was not at all to get them to convert to Judaism! War was not being used as an instrument of propagating the Jewish faith. Moreover, the slaughter of the Canaanites represented an unusual historical circumstance, not a regular means of behavior.

The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God. If the Muslim thinks that our moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree with him. But Muslims and Christians differ radically over God’s nature. Christians believe that God is all-loving, while Muslims believe that God loves only Muslims. Allah has no love for unbelievers and sinners. Therefore, they can be killed indiscriminately. Moreover, in Islam God’s omnipotence trumps everything, even His own nature. He is therefore utterly arbitrary in His dealing with mankind. By contrast Christians hold that God’s holy and loving nature determines what He commands.

The question, then, is not whose moral theory is correct, but which is the true God? "


2007 Reasonable Faith.

[Cameron]

You must disagree with Duke who is fond of quoting polls showing religious people have lower intelligence than non religious. Christians teach their children! Many Atheist writers have written tons of stuff regarding war and genocide.

Atheism isn't a religion or political group. You can't group atheists together and tie them to philosophies unrelated to atheism itself, any more than you could group members of a particular ethnicity or sex.

Correlation can imply causation.

I'm sorry but the implied suggestion that atheism itself leads to pro-war pro genocide philosophies is indeed unfounded.

[shadowhawk]

[quote name='Cameron' date='Jun 15 2010, 03:13 PM' post='413705']

QUOTE
You must disagree with Duke who is fond of quoting polls showing religious people have lower intelligence than non religious. Christians teach their children! Many Atheist writers have written tons of stuff regarding war and genocide.


Atheism isn't a religion or political group. You can't group atheists together and tie them to philosophies unrelated to atheism itself, any more than you could group members of a particular ethnicity or sex.

I didn’t say it is a religion or political though I believe it can act like both. It is far easier to define than "ethnicity," or "sex."

FOR EXAMPLE WIKIPEDIA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Definitions and distinctions
A chart showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists (in purple on the right) assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (in blue on the right) reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Implicit weak atheists (in blue on the left) would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity, but have not explicitly rejected such belief.

Sizes in the diagram are not meant to indicate relative sizes within a population.

Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[29] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism.
[edit] Range

Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of god and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability. The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities. In the 20th century, this view fell into disfavor as theism came to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity.[28]

With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Hinduism and Buddhism.[30]
[edit] Implicit vs. explicit
Main article: Implicit and explicit atheism

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[31] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[32] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.

In Western civilization, the view that children are born atheist is relatively recent. Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted in the western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatism—the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.[33] There is a position claiming that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis, that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes."[34] Some proponents of this view claim that the anthropological benefit of religion is that religious faith enables humans to endure hardships better, functioning as an "opium of the people". Some atheists emphasize the fact that there have been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal "atheists in foxholes."[35]
[edit] Strong vs. weak
Main article: Weak and strong atheism

Philosophers such as Antony Flew,[36] and Michael Martin,[28] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.[37] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[36] and in Catholic apologetics[38] since at least 1813.[39][40] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists.

While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails weak atheism,[28] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[41] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[42] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[43] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[44] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[45] Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability that each assigns to the statement "God exists".[46]
[edit] Other usage of the term "Positive Atheism"

As mentioned above, the terms negative and positive have been used in philosophical literature in a similar manner to the terms weak and strong. However, the book Positive Atheism by Goparaju Ramachandra Rao, first published in 1972, introduced an alternative use for the phrase.[47] Having grown up in a hierarchical system with a religious basis, Gora called for a secular India and suggested guidelines for a positive atheist philosophy, meaning one that promotes positive values.[48] Positive atheism entails such things as being morally upright, showing an understanding that religious people have reasons to believe, not proselytising or lecturing others about atheism, and defending oneself with truthfulness instead of aiming to 'win' any confrontations with outspoken critics.

QUOTE
Correlation can imply causation.

I'm sorry but the implied suggestion that atheism itself leads to pro-war pro genocide philosophies is indeed unfounded.

I didn’t say that. I have many Atheist friends that would reject the great Atheist civilizations of the reticent past and the hundreds of millions, deaths. Atheism has been used by Atheists to support all kinds of atrocities. I imagine YOU reject them too. (The killer Atheists.)

[JonesGuy]

This is the second time you've mentioned that I'm trying to 'judge God'. I think this is going to be a serious breakdown of the understanding of what I'm trying to say. For this conversation, I'm willing to acknowledge that it might be nonsensical to 'judge God', and my criticism does not rely on the concept whatsoever.

And I'm sorry that I cannot address your points completely. Your formatting style is confusing, and thus it's not very easy to figure out what you mean.

Edited by JonesGuy, 16 June 2010 - 03:39 PM.

[Cameron]

Atheism has been used by Atheists to support all kinds of atrocities. I imagine YOU reject them too. (The killer Atheists.)

Really, now? They went and said there's no god, and therefore this excuses us to go about and commit genocide? It makes it perfectly right to take lives, and do whatever we want? If anything the root of their immoral behavior is due to inhuman tendencies in their psyches which would just as easily have been justified by religion, patriotism, racism, etc. Atheism itself has nothing to do with it, and if someone used that in their argument, it wouldn't actually make it [atheism] justify that. As you've said atheism itself does not justify evil, nor lead to evil, even if someone claims it does.

But the same cannot be said of all religious beliefs, some do demand human sacrifice, and the perpetration of evil. If someone worshiped an Evil God called say 'The swimming Macaroni monster' that demands rape, murder, cannibalism, would they somehow be excused? would their actions be moral? Of course not, worshiping a deity would not make an action moral, and claiming that a Deity's will makes it moral does not make it moral either. But while unjustified their religious belief would indeed lead them down the path of evil.

As said morality does not come from deities, God does not give morality. Giving eternal punishment or blessings, does not give morality to things. Nor would a big and powerful being saying it is so, make it morally so merely by saying so.

Edited by Cameron, 16 June 2010 - 04:41 PM.

[shadowhawk]

[quote name='Cameron' date='Jun 16 2010, 09:40 AM' post='413837']
Atheism has been used by Atheists to support all kinds of atrocities. I imagine YOU reject them too. (The killer Atheists.)

Really, now? They went and said there's no god, and therefore this excuses us to go about and commit genocide? Where did I say that? It makes it perfectly right to take lives, and do whatever we want? Where did I say that? If anything the root of their immoral behavior is due to inhuman tendencies in their psyches which would just as easily have been justified by religion, patriotism, racism, etc. I doubt that and it wasn't The Athiests were in charge of the greatest genocides and Democides in the history of the world. Atheism itself has nothing to do with it, and if someone used that in their argument, it wouldn't actually make it [atheism] justify that. As you've said atheism itself does not justify evil, nor lead to evil, even if someone claims it does. It is immoral and it can and has led to such immorality.

But the same cannot be said of all religious beliefs, some do demand human sacrifice, and the perpetration of evil. If someone worshiped an Evil God called say 'The swimming Macaroni monster' that demands rape, murder, cannibalism, would they somehow be excused? would their actions be moral? Of course not, worshiping a deity would not make an action moral, and claiming that a Deity's will makes it moral does not make it moral either. But while unjustified their religious belief would indeed lead them down the path of evil.

As said morality does not come from deities, Where does morality or evil come from? God does not give morality. Giving eternal punishment or blessings, does not give morality to things. Nor would a big and powerful being saying it is so, make it morally so merely by saying so.

This seems to be your argument. I posted this earlier.

1. If God does not exist, then the universe is without purpose.

2. If the universe is without purpose, then objective moral values do not exist.

3. Therefore, if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

It is alright that Atheists are mass murders! There is no God to make it wrong. Only theists are guilty of evil because they believe in God.


DEKA-
MEGAMURDERERS
http://www.hawaii.ed...rkills/MEGA.HTM

Atheist Mega Murders killing more than all who died in WWI. Atheists but mot guilty? The Theists did it!

[JonesGuy]

Well, so far, the only person who's even attempted to justify any mass murderers, in this thread, is you.

[shadowhawk]

JonesGuy:
"Shadowhawk, it's impossible to call any war 'Just' without perfect knowledge. The best you can do is look back and say "ehn, I don't know if I could have done better""I can't think of any other option".

As well, WWII was complex to the point of bafflement. There're too many components to stereotype it. or look forward and say "ehn, I don't know if I could have done better" or look forward and say "I can't think of any other option". "

Shadowhawk:
If it is impossible for you to call any war just without "perfect knowledge," then you must feel you have perfect knowledge when it comes to war in the Pentateuch. (first 5 books of Bible) Will you look back with your perfect knowledge and say, "I know I could have done better than God?" If I believed as you aparantly do, that you know better when it comes to God, maybe I would believe you rather than God. I don't.

The events in the old testament took place many thousands of years ago and though very small when compared to WWII it was also complex. This includes the death of children and others who are always part of war. I noticed you didn't even mention the atheist killings. I am going to go ahead and post a writing bu Craig on those old testament events now that you have nothing to say about war."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JonesGuy
Well, so far, the only person who's even attempted to justify any mass murderers, in this thread, is you.
Shadowhawk:
Read above. I doubt if you can recognize a mass murder one way or the other. It is to complex for you, as you already said above. see Posts #201, 202

" I Don't have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist." Read chapter on Mother Teresa vs. Hitler. Pg169
http://www.amazon.co...i...9155&sr=1-3
http://crossexamined.org/tv.asp

Edited by shadowhawk, 16 June 2010 - 11:29 PM.

[Cameron]

Where did I say that?

Implied by the use of dictators and genocidal individuals as being atheists. I could see a feminist saying look at what all these men did, and start naming men. Is she not implying that there's something wrong with males by their being males in an of itself, especially knowing where she comes from?

It is immoral and it can and has led to such immorality.

Atheism?

IF so that's a pretty bold claim, and I would say an unfounded one.

Where does morality or evil come from?

The sense of morality of your average man, comes from inbuilt tendencies of the evolved mind. Their evils also tend to come from the inadequate design of their minds. Individuals with greater levels of education and higher intellects, can reason and understand that others can feel, and can of their own will come to the conclusion that it might not be such a good idea to perpetrate atrocities upon others.... given that they would feel too, this direction of thought is probably aided by the empathic tendencies of a mind designed to work in social environments, but I believe it can be arrived at independently of such tendencies.

Of course that is only the sense of morality, not an absolute measure of morality.

It is alright that Atheists are mass murders! There is no God to make it wrong.

There is no need for God to view it wrong. You can view it as wrong just fine without knowing of any deity. In fact many tribes that have multiple deities, do not necessarily rely in their deities to know something is wrong... humans have an inbuilt sense of right and wrong, even animals can tell when you're being unfair in treatment(e.g. you're rewarding more for the same task the other animal.). and in fact some deities do allow things like rape of any woman in the tribe as reward for successful warriors, obviously something most of us would find morally unacceptable.

[shadowhawk]

Where did I say that?

Implied by the use of dictators and genocidal individuals as being atheists. I could see a feminist saying look at what all these men did, and start naming men. Is she not implying that there's something wrong with males by their being males in an of itself, especially knowing where she comes from?

It is immoral and it can and has led to such immorality.

Atheism?

IF so that's a pretty bold claim, and I would say an unfounded one.

Where does morality or evil come from?

The sense of morality of your average man, comes from inbuilt tendencies of the evolved mind. Their evils also tend to come from the inadequate design of their minds. Individuals with greater levels of education and higher intellects, can reason and understand that others can feel, and can of their own will come to the conclusion that it might not be such a good idea to perpetrate atrocities upon others.... given that they would feel too, this direction of thought is probably aided by the empathic tendencies of a mind designed to work in social environments, but I believe it can be arrived at independently of such tendencies.

Of course that is only the sense of morality, not an absolute measure of morality.

It is alright that Atheists are mass murders! There is no God to make it wrong.

There is no need for God to view it wrong. You can view it as wrong just fine without knowing of any deity. In fact many tribes that have multiple deities, do not necessarily rely in their deities to know something is wrong... humans have an inbuilt sense of right and wrong, even animals can tell when you're being unfair in treatment(e.g. you're rewarding more for the same task the other animal.). and in fact some deities do allow things like rape of any woman in the tribe as reward for successful warriors, obviously something most of us would find morally unacceptable.

So the educated are more ethically evolved than the dumb masses? I disagree.

I do agree that people have a sense of morality in their hearts, though they do not always follow it. Try this

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. (As you stated: “humans have an inbuilt sense of right and wrong”)

Here I am defending a form of Divine Command Theory. According to this view our moral duties are constituted by the commands of an essentially just and loving God.. The theory does, ground moral values in God's unchanging nature. God is the paradigm of goodness. But that is not to say that “because God is a certain way we ought to behave in certain ways.” No, our moral obligations and prohibitions arise as a result of God’s commands to us. God’s nature serves to establish values—goodness and badness—while God’s commands establish moral duties—what we ought or ought not to do. Plato grounded values in the form of the Good . The theist and Plato just have a different ontological ultimate. So do you and I.

I see no reason at all to think that people have a moral duty to behave in a certain way without God. There's no reason, given naturalism, to think that the relatively advanced primates on this planet have a moral obligation on their own, to behave in certain ways, no matter what their education level. Educated peolple are mostly like less educated people when it comes to morals.

[chrwe]

[/quote]Where did I say that?
Implied by the use of dictators and genocidal individuals as being atheists. I could see a feminist saying look at what all these men did, and start naming men. Is she not implying that there's something wrong with males by their being males in an of itself, especially knowing where she comes from?
[/quote]

Well males do have more hormones that make them aggressive^^ - so there is a certain correctness to that statement.

Reading a bit about female concentration camp wardens will teach you, however, that women can be just as cruel as men.

However, we do tend to be less aggressive (see murder and amok statistics).


Again, I find this kind of argument not very helpful in the context of philosophy. It is a pure correlation. Correlation is interesting, but conclusions drawn from it are usually wrong and sometimes border on the absurd.

Edited by chrwe, 17 June 2010 - 04:31 AM.

[Cameron]

So the educated are more ethically evolved than the dumb masses? I disagree.

Eliminate education completely, and leave the being in the wild to be raised by animals, and the human will lack language and will be no more than a very smart beast. Intelligence is also important. A lesser mind is likely to resort to all sort of self-serving immoral things, and might only help others cause it feels good to have them around.

In order to have advanced concepts the capacity for language is necessary, and that requires some form of education. Also the understanding of the concepts should be deeper and more subtle the higher the intellectual capacity.

So, yes the masses likely derive their morality from innate tendencies, and what feels right without thinking things through. If they grow up in a racist environment, they'll tend to feel disgust at one or more other races. If they grow up in a sexists environment, they'll tend to feel hatred towards a particular sex.

Also things like homosexuality, they might feel and display repulsion and hatred without analyzing things and coming to a more reasonable behavior and thought pattern. Sexual incestual relationships between consenting adults without the intent for reproduction, might also evoke disgust, anger and violence.

Generally it is only a mind of above average intellect with enough knowledge that can grow past these initial misconceptions. Misconceptions that they might be exposed to culturally, and that may also have innate instictive feelings accompanying them. To rise above the feelings of disgust, hatred, anger, that may be the result of wrong cultural influence or primitive disgust mechanisms such as the westermarck effect.

I see no reason at all to think that people have a moral duty to behave in a certain way without God. There's no reason, given naturalism, to think that the relatively advanced primates on this planet have a moral obligation on their own, to behave in certain ways, no matter what their education level. Educated peolple are mostly like less educated people when it comes to morals.

As I stated above educated people, especially those who're highly intelligent, can get a deeper grasp of the concepts involved. They can also reason and come to conclusions that might even be opposite to that of their peers and parents, and even society as a whole. They can even come to conclusions that go against the evolved disgust tendencies(Adult homosexuality or Incest without intent to reproduce) in their genes, and come to accept such behavior as not being immoral. Time and again I've seen a low uneducated intellect mind jump with disgust, anger, violence without questioning the foundation of their sense of morality.... e.g. for example some religious who've been sexually repressed may feel they're doing something immoral when they pleasure themselves or have sex with their partners, they may wrongly feel there's something wrong with what they're doing. Obviously the simple minds will tend to grow and might grow old and die feeling shame and disgust at their sexuality, without ever evolving past such an inadequate and pathetic sense of morality.

Humans live in a society, and have done so for countless tens of thousands of years. Life in society even amongst the lesser primates, involves behaving appropriately. Carrying count of enemies and friends, and for greater success requires the cooperation and acceptance of other members of a society. This places evolutionary pressure to develop mechanisms that foster and enhance survival in a social setting. The sense of morality is one such mechanism.

Deep down it is not some 'spiritual' energy that's giving man morality, it is a program carried through the generations by the digital code of the genes. A primitive mechanism to enhance social cooperation and increase the probability of survival of its carrier... one whose design arose out of selection of random mutations through time, and which may very well arise even in artificial systems following simple rules.

Well males do have more hormones that make them aggressive^^ - so there is a certain correctness to that statement.

maybe a small degree. But we've to remember increased aggression does not imply genocidal tendencies, that requires an unbalanced mind by human standards, may imply murder as use of force could cause that. Also, the fact that in general men have tended to occupy positions of power throughout history, skews things, as you'll likely find more bad examples if you've a larger pool.

Edited by Cameron, 17 June 2010 - 05:24 AM.

[chrwe]

So the educated are more ethically evolved than the dumb masses? I disagree.

maybe a small degree. But we've to remember increased aggression does not imply genocidal tendencies, that requires an unbalanced mind by human standards, may imply murder as use of force could cause that. Also, the fact that in general men have tended to occupy positions of power throughout history, skews things, as you'll likely find more bad examples if you've a larger pool.

Actually, I meant that as an illumination that correlation means nothing.

[JonesGuy]

...

Well, consider that I'm not the one who cannot imagine morality without a god. And I'm not the one creating apologetics for the mass-slaughter of infants according to the word of a prophet.

You might not want to insult, especially since your own morality is so clearly broken and weak.

[shadowhawk]

[quote name='chrwe' date='Jun 16 2010, 09:30 PM' post='413968']
Where did I say that?
Implied by the use of dictators and genocidal individuals as being atheists. I could see a feminist saying look at what all these men did, and start naming men. Is she not implying that there's something wrong with males by their being males in an of itself, especially knowing where she comes from?


Well males do have more hormones that make them aggressive^^ - so there is a certain correctness to that statement.

Reading a bit about female concentration camp wardens will teach you, however, that women can be just as cruel as men.

However, we do tend to be less aggressive (see murder and amok statistics).


Again, I find this kind of argument not very helpful in the context of philosophy. It is a pure correlation. Correlation is interesting, but conclusions drawn from it are usually wrong and sometimes border on the absurd.


There are different types of atheists and like theists they do not always agree. Saying that Atheists were not those in charge of the great killings I have mentioned is nonsense. http://www.csmonitor...09s01-coop.html Kind of like a Baptist saying a Catholic is not a Christian when both are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of god and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability. The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities."

However I tend to agree with your assessments and I think perusing this line of reasoning has run its course. I intend to advance the discussion farther and maybe it will be more interesting..

Edited by shadowhawk, 17 June 2010 - 07:49 PM.

[shadowhawk]

...

Well, consider that I'm not the one who cannot imagine morality without a god. And I'm not the one creating apologetics for the mass-slaughter of infants according to the word of a prophet.

And where did I say that? It must be convenient to just make things up. Where do you imagine your morality comes from and why is it a different source than say, The mass killer Stalin? See post 211 for my response to your other empty charge of the killing of the Cannenites.

I say it is God who is the source of Morality but that is not the same as saying neither you or Stalin have any.

It is really irrelevant why the classical theist believes that God is logically necessary. He might believe it on religious grounds or on the basis of the ontological argument or the argument from contingency. He might, believe it on moral grounds. For if objective moral values imply God's existence, this is plausibly not merely a contingent fact. Moral values cannot exist without God; they entail His existence. So if moral values exist necessarily, it follows that God exists necessarily.

So the argument looks like this:

1. Necessarily, if moral values exist, then God exists.

2. Necessarily, moral values exist.

3. Therefore, necessarily, God exists.

Yandell and Swinburne deny (1) because they think that God is contingent. But you can't just assume that God is contingent or else you're begging the question. For that just is to assume that the conclusion (3) is false, that God does not exist necessarily. So if anyone is in danger of circular reasoning, it is the objector to the moral argument.

So the theist who believes even on moral grounds that God is logically necessary is not reasoning in a circle. To the objector who denies (1) because God exists contingently, he replies, "Prove it (without begging the question)!" The ball is now in your court.

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 June 2010 - 12:10 AM.

[shadowhawk]

[quote name='Cameron' date='Jun 16 2010, 10:20 PM' post='413978']
[quote]So the educated are more ethically evolved than the dumb masses? I disagree.

CAMERON:
Eliminate education completely, and leave the being in the wild to be raised by animals, and the human will lack language and will be no more than a very smart beast. Intelligence is also important. A lesser mind is likely to resort to all sort of self-serving immoral things, and might only help others cause it feels good to have them around.

In order to have advanced concepts the capacity for language is necessary, and that requires some form of education. Also the understanding of the concepts should be deeper and more subtle the higher the intellectual capacity.

So, yes the masses likely derive their morality from innate tendencies, and what feels right without thinking things through. If they grow up in a racist environment, they'll tend to feel disgust at one or more other races. If they grow up in a sexists environment, they'll tend to feel hatred towards a particular sex.

Also things like homosexuality, they might feel and display repulsion and hatred without analyzing things and coming to a more reasonable behavior and thought pattern. Sexual incestual relationships between consenting adults without the intent for reproduction, might also evoke disgust, anger and violence.

Generally it is only a mind of above average intellect with enough knowledge that can grow past these initial misconceptions. Misconceptions that they might be exposed to culturally, and that may also have innate instictive feelings accompanying them. To rise above the feelings of disgust, hatred, anger, that may be the result of wrong cultural influence or primitive disgust mechanisms such as the westermarck effect.

QUOTE
I see no reason at all to think that people have a moral duty to behave in a certain way without God. There's no reason, given naturalism, to think that the relatively advanced primates on this planet have a moral obligation on their own, to behave in certain ways, no matter what their education level. Educated peolple are mostly like less educated people when it comes to morals.


As I stated above educated people, especially those who're highly intelligent, can get a deeper grasp of the concepts involved. They can also reason and come to conclusions that might even be opposite to that of their peers and parents, and even society as a whole. They can even come to conclusions that go against the evolved disgust tendencies(Adult homosexuality or Incest without intent to reproduce) in their genes, and come to accept such behavior as not being immoral. Time and again I've seen a low uneducated intellect mind jump with disgust, anger, violence without questioning the foundation of their sense of morality.... e.g. for example some religious who've been sexually repressed may feel they're doing something immoral when they pleasure themselves or have sex with their partners, they may wrongly feel there's something wrong with what they're doing. Obviously the simple minds will tend to grow and might grow old and die feeling shame and disgust at their sexuality, without ever evolving past such an inadequate and pathetic sense of morality.

Humans live in a society, and have done so for countless tens of thousands of years. Life in society even amongst the lesser primates, involves behaving appropriately. Carrying count of enemies and friends, and for greater success requires the cooperation and acceptance of other members of a society. This places evolutionary pressure to develop mechanisms that foster and enhance survival in a social setting. The sense of morality is one such mechanism.

Deep down it is not some 'spiritual' energy that's giving man morality, it is a program carried through the generations by the digital code of the genes. A primitive mechanism to enhance social cooperation and increase the probability of survival of its carrier... one whose design arose out of selection of random mutations through time, and which may very well arise even in artificial systems following simple rules.

QUOTE
Well males do have more hormones that make them aggressive^^ - so there is a certain correctness to that statement.


maybe a small degree. But we've to remember increased aggression does not imply genocidal tendencies, that requires an unbalanced mind by human standards, may imply murder as use of force could cause that. Also, the fact that in general men have tended to occupy positions of power throughout history, skews things, as you'll likely find more bad examples if you've a larger pool.

SHADOWHAWK:
So, what are you saying about homosexuals,pedophiles and Incest? Google, "Teachers who molest," to find educated people who do these kinds of things. Is there a difference between molestation and incest? This evolved Atheist, stuff confuses me. As you say the religious must be sexually repressed.

Is this an educated, evolved, Atheist view of morality? I assume so. Is this JonesGuy's atheist view also?

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 June 2010 - 12:16 AM.

[Cameron]

Saying that Atheists were not those in charge of the great killings I have mentioned is nonsense.

Implying that atheism could be a valid cause for their actions is wrong. That is not to say they could not mentally use it as a justification, but that even if so it is only due to faulty reasoning. As I've stated I do not see how morality could rest on the existence of a deity, lack of a deity does not imply lack of morality.

A human can behave morally just fine without such beliefs, thus those acting immorality are doing so due to CAUSES THAT DIFFER from their lack of belief. As lack of belief in and of itself does not inevitably lead to immoral behavior. A fault in their moral system, perhaps a physiology with psychopathic tendencies could very well be at fault. In which case if we assume an omnipotent deity allowed a being to be born with psychopathic tendencies and no inner moral compass, then that deity should we assume it exists is at fault.

So if moral values exist necessarily, it follows that God exists necessarily.

The moral compass of man is a product of evolution. Saying it begets God is not that different than saying the Eye or the hand begets God. All we can say about the sense of morality is that it is something that has developed through evolution in a social species of high intelligence. It is a plausible solution for survival in a social setting that enhances the chance of survival and reproduction, thus fitness in a social landscape.

As a mechanism designed by evolution, and subject to the presence of the required genes in a functional state, it likely varies and might very well be absent to some degrees in a portion of the population. Some studies have suggested that psychopaths have some differences in their brain structure, if so these humans that seem to lack a fully functional moral compass are but the result of natural random variations.

So, what are you saying about homosexuals,pedophiles and Incest? Google, "Teachers who molest," to find educated people who do these kinds of things. Is there a difference between molestation and incest? This evolved Atheist, stuff confuses me. As you say the religious must be sexually repressed.

I don't recall mentioning pedophilia, I said consensual incest between adults without reproductive intent. Pedophilia involves children who cannot fully consent as their minds are too simple and due to their lack of experience, they can too easily be manipulated to do things that go against their well being. To the same extent one could also add adults of low intelligence, which may have similar vulnerabilities(Countless women who're constantly abused and continue to defend and seek their abuser, is an example of individuals who may not really have full capacity to consent, imo.).

I mentioned homosexuality between consenting adults, which is already being better accepted by the population. I also mentioned incestuous sexual relations between consenting adults without reproductive intent(iow, using various contraceptive means), which tends to invoke a deeper inner disgust in the majority of the population, but which deep down if you analyze it has nothing inherently immoral to it.

And no I'm not saying all the religious must be sexually repressed, but that it is something that has happened in large chunks of various religious populations at times. And it is an example of a defective cultural sense of morality being imprinted on an ignorant individual and often sticking with them throughout their whole lives(A defective system that can be overcome through education, experience, and intelligence.).

Edited by Cameron, 21 June 2010 - 06:31 PM.

[shadowhawk]

[quote name='Cameron' date='Jun 16 2010, 10:20 PM' post='413978']

SHADOWHAWK:
So the educated are more ethically evolved than the dumb masses? I disagree.

CAMERON:
Eliminate education completely, and leave the being in the wild to be raised by animals, and the human will lack language and will be no more than a very smart beast. Intelligence is also important. A lesser mind is likely to resort to all sort of self-serving immoral things, and might only help others cause it feels good to have them around.

In order to have advanced concepts the capacity for language is necessary, and that requires some form of education. Also the understanding of the concepts should be deeper and more subtle the higher the intellectual capacity.

So, yes the masses likely derive their morality from innate tendencies, and what feels right without thinking things through. If they grow up in a racist environment, they'll tend to feel disgust at one or more other races. If they grow up in a sexists environment, they'll tend to feel hatred towards a particular sex.

Also things like homosexuality, they might feel and display repulsion and hatred without analyzing things and coming to a more reasonable behavior and thought pattern. Sexual incestual relationships between consenting adults without the intent for reproduction, might also evoke disgust, anger and violence.

Generally it is only a mind of above average intellect with enough knowledge that can grow past these initial misconceptions. Misconceptions that they might be exposed to culturally, and that may also have innate instictive feelings accompanying them. To rise above the feelings of disgust, hatred, anger, that may be the result of wrong cultural influence or primitive disgust mechanisms such as the westermarck effect.

SHADOWHAWK:
I see no reason at all to think that people have a moral duty to behave in a certain way without God. There's no reason, given naturalism, to think that the relatively advanced primates on this planet have a moral obligation on their own, to behave in certain ways, no matter what their education level. Educated peolple are mostly like less educated people when it comes to morals.

CAMERON:
As I stated above educated people, especially those who're highly intelligent, can get a deeper grasp of the concepts involved. They can also reason and come to conclusions that might even be opposite to that of their peers and parents, and even society as a whole. They can even come to conclusions that go against the evolved disgust tendencies(Adult homosexuality or Incest without intent to reproduce) in their genes, and come to accept such behavior as not being immoral ***. Time and again I've seen a low uneducated intellect mind jump with disgust, anger, violence without questioning the foundation of their sense of morality.... e.g. for example some religious who've been sexually repressed may feel they're doing something immoral when they pleasure themselves or have sex with their partners, they may wrongly feel there's something wrong with what they're doing. Obviously the simple minds will tend to grow and might grow old and die feeling shame and disgust at their sexuality, without ever evolving past such an inadequate and pathetic sense of morality.

Humans live in a society, and have done so for countless tens of thousands of years. Life in society even amongst the lesser primates, involves behaving appropriately. Carrying count of enemies and friends, and for greater success requires the cooperation and acceptance of other members of a society. This places evolutionary pressure to develop mechanisms that foster and enhance survival in a social setting. The sense of morality is one such mechanism.

Deep down it is not some 'spiritual' energy that's giving man morality, it is a program carried through the generations by the digital code of the genes. A primitive mechanism to enhance social cooperation and increase the probability of survival of its carrier... one whose design arose out of selection of random mutations through time, and which may very well arise even in artificial systems following simple rules.

SHADOWHAWK:
Is this the Atheist view of you and JonesGuy? Do all Atheists here on the ImmInst agree with you? I assume so. I have underlined several things you have written that I strongly disagree with but without a moral foundation what else could one expect. Moral values, where do they come from? What authority to declare something moral, do you have? "come to accept such behavior as NOT being immoral." Consider the following:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

[Cameron]

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

First if objective morals exists, I do not believe this requires for God to exist. If they do exist it might be that they exist independently of any deity. What exactly connects God to morality, what makes him necessary for it to exist? Nothing as far as I can see, the arguments stating this connection are flimsy ones. Realistically it may be that if we take knowledge and intelligence towards their limits, there might be convergence towards a particular moral system. If convergence does take place, one could assume the moral system arrived at would be as close as we can get to an objective moral system.

Second AFAIK, there is no evidence that an objective moral system exists. The innate moral compass of man is but a system that benefited man's ancestors, it often fails to do what's rationally necessary in many conditions, and it can absorb questionable rules from the cultural surroundings(Such as finding racism or homophobia to be fine, or slavery to be perfectly ok, even beating wives or slaves or even raping women or stoning people might be found moral if the culture finds it so. Only intellect and education can allow one to overcome these natural tendencies to assimilate defective cultural norms and moral systems).

As human civilization has progressed, the morality of society has been constantly evolving. The things primitive society found to be morally acceptable, guided by their holy books, such as stoning people or having and even beating slaves, misogynistic tendencies, etc have been overcome through reason and knowledge. It would seem like intelligence, increases in education, and the growth of knowledge in a civilization move it towards a more tolerant, and IMHO advanced moral system. One guided by reason, comprehension and tolerance of others, giving more rights and protections to citizens. Overcoming the instinctual tendencies, the defective cultural norms of the past, and even the many ridiculous rules carried in many a 'holy' book. All of this progress and advancement in the moral systems of society, have been carried independently of the need for a Deity and often going against the teachings of many a 'holy' book.

Edited by Cameron, 21 June 2010 - 08:48 PM.

[shadowhawk]

CAMERON:
First if objective morals exists, I do not believe this requires for God to exist. If they do exist it might be that they exist independently of any deity. What exactly connects God to morality, what makes him necessary for it to exist? Nothing as far as I can see, the arguments stating this connection are flimsy ones. Realistically it may be that if we take knowledge and intelligence towards their limits, there might be convergence towards a particular moral system. If convergence does take place, one could assume the moral system arrived at would be as close as we can get to an objective moral system.

SHADOWHAWK:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

You seem to be trying to be on both sides of a fence. How can Objective moral values exist? You have so far argued that they don’t and their existence is conditioned upon the intelligence of those who get it right. One does not have to go far to find all kinds of people, both religions and non religious, who are intelligent, who would not agree with your positions on incest or homosexuality, etc..

By objective values and duties, one means values and duties that are valid and binding independent of human opinion. Yours are subjective. However, a good many atheists and theists alike concur with premise (1). For given a naturalistic worldlier, human beings are just animals, and activity that we count as murder, torture, incest and rape is natural and amoral in the animal kingdom. You say the uneducated are animalistic and this brings forth a question of the source of your so-called “educated,” morality. What makes your authority to claim something moral different than Stalin? He was educated and intelligent. Moreover, if there is no one to command or prohibit certain actions, how can we have moral obligations or prohibitions? Are you that person who can command or prohibit certain actions? Again, what makes you different from Stalin?

CAMERON:
Second AFAIK, there is no evidence that an objective moral system exists. The innate moral compass of man is but a system that benefited man's ancestors, it often fails to do what's rationally necessary in many conditions, and it can absorb questionable rules from the cultural surroundings(Such as finding racism or homophobia to be fine, or slavery to be perfectly ok, even beating wives or slaves or even raping women or stoning people might be found moral if the culture finds it so. Only intellect and education can allow one to overcome these natural tendencies to assimilate defective cultural norms and moral systems).

SHADOWHAWK:
See “the Tao” in the Appendix of CS Lewis’s “The Abolition of Man.”

http://www.amazon.co...ntt_at_ep_dpi_9

for an example of the moral system found in most religions faiths in the world. They are remarkably alike. Theists have traditionally taken the position that God wills something good because He is good. The Tao is the Law of God written upon the hearts of humans. It is objective. What Plato called the Good is the moral nature of God himself. God is by nature loving, kind, impartial, and so on. He is the paradigm of goodness. Therefore the Good is not independent of God. It does not depend on who ever is saying something moral. Moreover, God's commandments are a necessary expression of his nature. His commands to us are therefore not arbitrary but are necessary reflections of his character. This gives us an adequate foundation for the affirmation of objective moral values and duties. #1, #2.

CAMERON:
As human civilization has progressed, the morality of society has been constantly evolving. The things primitive society found to be morally acceptable, guided by their holy books, such as stoning people or having and even beating slaves, misogynistic tendencies, etc have been overcome through reason and knowledge. It would seem like intelligence, increases in education, and the growth of knowledge in a civilization move it towards a more tolerant, and IMHO advanced moral system. One guided by reason, comprehension and tolerance of others, giving more rights and protections to citizens. Overcoming the instinctual tendencies, the defective cultural norms of the past, and even the many ridiculous rules carried in many a 'holy' book. All of this progress and advancement in the moral systems of society, have been carried independently of the need for a Deity and often going against the teachings of many a 'holy' book.

SHADOWHAWK:
Moral behavior for the atheist is ultimately subjective. They lack any consistent adequate, basis for their moral values. Morality is evolving, as you say, and there is no basis to say where it may evolve and what will be moral from one age to the next. You are a perfect example f this. Despite Atheist civilizations killing hundreds of millions of people Atheists want to deny the connections. Though those involved insisted they were Atheists and they killed anyone they found who was not an atheist Atheists now want to deny there is a connection.. The Atheists I mentioned were highly educated intelligent, and modern Atheists. Today’s Atheists have no basis to judge their Atheist brethren, because they have the same basis for their morality.

Something is good because God is Good bu nature . Put the source of good at the whim of man, and it will be arbitrary and each person will do what is right in their own eyes..

If God does not exist, life is ultimately meaningless. If your life is doomed to end in death, then ultimately it does not matter how you live. In the end it makes no ultimate difference whether you existed or not. Sure, your life might have a relative significance in that you influenced others or affected the course of history. But ultimately mankind is doomed to perish in the heat death of the universe. Ultimately it makes no difference who you are or what you do. Your life is inconsequential.

Thus, the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the research of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race—ultimately all these come to nothing. Thus, if atheism is true, life is ultimately meaningless.

If God does not exist, then we must ultimately live without hope. If there is no God, then there is ultimately no hope for deliverance from the shortcomings of our finite existence.

For example, there is no hope for deliverance from evil. Although many people ask how God could create a world involving so much evil, by far most of the suffering in the world is due to man's own inhumanity to man. The horror of two world wars during the last century effectively destroyed the 19th century's naive optimism about human progress. If God does not exist, then we are locked without hope in a world filled with gratuitous and unredeemed suffering, and there is no hope for deliverance from evil.

This won’t be popular but again, if there is no God, there is no ultimate hope of deliverance from aging, disease, and ultimate death. Although it may be hard for those on the ImmInst to contemplate, the sober fact is that unless you die young, someday you—you yourself—will be an old man or an old woman, fighting a losing battle with aging, struggling against the inevitable advance of deterioration, disease, perhaps senility. And finally and inevitably you, and I will die. Atheism is thus a philosophy without hope. Every human, Atheist and Theist has died so far.

I wish this was not so but I don’t see any real hope beyond this. At the same time I do believe in Life Extension and wish everyone, including myself, as long a life as possible. How long will that be? I don’t know, and that lack of knowledge causes me to live in hope. My ultimate hope is God. Clearly, if God exists, it makes not only a tremendous difference for mankind in general, but it could make a life-changing difference for everyone as well.

[Cameron]

One does not have to go far to find all kinds of people, both religions and non religious, who are intelligent, who would not agree with your positions on incest or homosexuality, etc..

If you take away the 'holy' books, sure some people might be opposed, as there is an intrinsic dislike of both, especially incest which invokes disgust. This is something that the genes programmed in, for the benefit and health of offspring by reducing chances of inbreeding.

People will create all sorts of justifications around what they feel, doesn't mean that the foundation, the real cause of their feeling is nothing more than a quite reasonable mechanism nature put in. It is vacuous, empty, there's nothing to sustain it.

You seem to be trying to be on both sides of a fence. How can Objective moral values exist?

There doesn't seem to be objective morals, that does not mean that they do not exist or something similar for all intents and purposes exists. The concept might be incoherent like free will, but that does not mean that some thing that can pass for it does not exist.

Moreover, if there is no one to command or prohibit certain actions, how can we have moral obligations or prohibitions?

Someone commanding or prohibiting something does not give it an objective sense of morality.

for an example of the moral system found in most religions faiths in the world. They are remarkably alike. Theists have traditionally taken the position that God wills something good because He is good. The Tao is the Law of God written upon the hearts of humans. It is objective.

Humans are one species, that they'd share many things is taken, and does not mean that the moral compass is objective. Furthermore people's morality is further molded by culture, if stoning is accepted they find it moral, if human sacrifice is accepted it is moral, public executions moral, slavery moral, rape moral, etc, etc, etc.

If God does not exist, then we must ultimately live without hope. If there is no God, then there is ultimately no hope for deliverance from the shortcomings of our finite existence.

There are many alternate beliefs were immortality is possible without God, though they do have little evidence supporting them. On the other hand, as mentioned, virtually all religions are nothing more than fairy tales. As for civilizations that have transcended the superstitions of the past wandering whether killing, raping, mutilating, and providing cruel and unusual punishment is moral or not, it seems they tend not to. It is more often than not that the backwards highly religious countries are the ones that tend to allow lashings, stoning, and all sort of cruel and unusual punishment, things usually only seen in the most corrupt of places in the rest of the civilized world. The death penalty is going away, or has gone away in many places, torture if it is done must be outside the public sphere as it is not well tolerated, women's rights are honored, slavery almost abolished, civilization shows progress in the moral sphere.

Progress that far exceeds what it'd have if it'd sticked to the stoning, dismemberment, etc ways of the so-called 'holy' books, despite being called arbitrary it seems like there's a direction. A direction guided by understanding and reasoning. It is nice to say that reason and intelligence would lead one to behave immorally, yet it is reason and intelligence that allows man to have a more complex and advanced sense of morality, far beyond the animals. A system where one makes some simple and reasonable assumptions like giving high value to citizens' well being, will tend to gravitate towards improved conditions and rules to promote and defend the well being of its citizens.

Underneath reason and intelligence all there is is mindless instinctual tendencies or mechanisms guiding behavior. To say that morality rests solely on mindless evolved mechanisms, and that it can never be produced, developed or improved by intelligence and reason, would put us in a very pathetic situation. As these mechanisms are mindless and vacuous, they hold no depth to them, unlike the conclusions one can arrive through intelligence and reason where one can see what assumptions are being made and if one's justified in making such assumptions.


I like the following quote

Again, literate people with surplus food production, big cities, mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, bureaucracy, trade, fleets….

A different situation in Judea and Israel: quarrelling rural tribes unable to form a nation...

Why on earth should an omniscient, all-powerful being choose to contact such atavistic and maladjusted folks exclusively? Grave misunderstandings were inevitable, with most abstract concepts undeveloped in a herder tribe. There were a dozen of highly developed artful societies on the verge of scientific thinking present, much more suited to a being that is claimed to have shaped Scandinavia and to have invented quantum mechanics. Either misinterpretation is programmed – which could have easily be avoided by revealing to a more sophisticated clientele, abundantly present just a few hundred miles away – or said being intended to play a gruesome game with those poor peasants. Both alternatives are incompatible with the alleged status of a supernatural, omniscient, almighty, and loving being.

So, whoever claims that JHWH made his exclusive appearance with those Hebrew people, impressing them by violating most known laws of nature, parting the sea, stopping the sun in its way (?), dropping manna – implies that this superior being dislikes culture, literacy, science and mathematics, preferring the intellectual state that goes with a nomadic and early agricultural subsistence economy, headed by shamans. Where did I read that: "There's something out there that dislikes cities"?-link

[shadowhawk]

My argument for God based upon the Moral Argument shows belief in God based upon moral existence is consistent and logically defensible. This was the main argument by C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity.” http://www.amazon.co...ie=UTF8&s=books
Morals based on each individual opinion only produce chaos and are one reason Atheism produced the empires it has in modern times. Add to this the following:

The Teleological Argument. The old design argument remains as robust today as ever, defended in various forms by
Robin Collins, http://home.messiah....e-tuning/ft.htm
http://www.closertot...obin-Collins/23
John Leslie, http://www.amazon.co...8233&sr=1-2-ent
Paul Davies, http://www.amazon.co...avies&x=17&y=23
William Dembski, http://www.amazon.co...ntt_aut_sim_2_1
Michael Denton,http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Denton/e/B000APBWAC/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1277249730&sr=1-2-ent
and others. Advocates of the Intelligent Design movement
http://www.arn.org/
have continued the tradition of finding examples of design in biological systems. But the cutting edge of the discussion focuses on the recently discovered, remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for life. This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, they contain certain constants, such as the gravitational constant. The mathematical values of these constants are not determined by the laws of nature. Second, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are just part of the initial conditions of the universe—for example, the amount of entropy in the universe.

These constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by less than a hair's breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed, and life would not exist.

Accordingly, we may argue:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

[shadowhawk]

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

See video evidence for above argument.
http://www.metacafe....el_strauss_phd/

List from Astronomer Hugh Ross on Fine Tuning of the Universe. http://www.reasons.o...g-life-universe
For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below.1 In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible.

1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8. Ratio of proton to electron charge
9. Expansion rate of the universe
10. Mass density of the universe
11. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density
14. Entropy level of the universe
15. Velocity of light
16. Age of the universe
17. Uniformity of radiation
18. Homogeneity of the universe
19. Average distance between galaxies
20. Average distance between galaxy clusters
21. Average distance between stars
22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
23. Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25. Gravitational fine-structure constant
26. Decay rate of protons
27. Ground state energy level for helium-4
28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29. Decay rate for beryllium-8
30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32. Polarity of the water molecule
33. Epoch for hypernova eruptions
34. Number and type of hypernova eruptions
35. Epoch for supernova eruptions
36. Number and types of supernova eruptions
37. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
38. Density of white dwarf binaries
39. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
40. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
41. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
42. Mass values for the active neutrinos
43. Number of different species of active neutrinos
44. Number of active neutrinos in the universe
45. Mass value for the sterile neutrino
46. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
47. Decay rates of exotic mass particles
48. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
49. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
50. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
51. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
52. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
53. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
54. Density of quasars
55. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
56. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
57. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
58. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
59. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
60. Number density of metal-free pop III stars
61. Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
62. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
63. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
64. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
65. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
66. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
67. Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
68. Flatness of universe's geometry
69. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
70. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
71. Constancy of dark energy factors
72. Epoch for star formation peak
73. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
74. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
75. Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
76. Level of charge-parity violation
77. Number of galaxies in the observable universe
78. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
79. Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
80. Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
81. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
82. Water's temperature of maximum density
83. Water's heat of fusion
84. Water's heat of vaporization
85. Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
86. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
87. Location of clumpuscules in the universe
88. Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
89. Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
90. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
91. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
92. Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
93. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

1 Most of the source references may be found in The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd edition by Hugh Ross (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), pp. 145-157, 245-248. Additional references are listed below:

1. John Leslie, editor, Physical Cosmology and Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 121-180.
2. Weihsueh A. Chiu, Nickolay Y. Gneden and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, "The Expected Mass Function for Low-Mass Galaxies in a Cold Dark Matter Cosmology: Is There a Problem?" Astrophysical Journal, 563 (2001), pp. 21-27.
3. Martin Elvis, Massimo Marengo, and Margarita Karovska, "Smoking Quasars: A New Source for Cosmic Dust," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 567 (2002), pp. L107-L110.
4. Martin White and C. S. Kochanek, "Constraints on the Long-Range Properties of Gravity from Weak Gravitational Lensing," Astrophysical Journal, 560 (2001), pp. 539-543.
5. P. P. Avelino and C. J. A. P. Martins, "A Supernova Brane Scan," Astrophysical Journal, 565 (2002), pp. 661-667.
6. P. deBernardis, et al, "Multiple Peaks in the Angular Power Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background: Significance and Consequences for Cosmology," Astrophysical Journal, 564 (2002), pp. 559-566.
7. A. T. Lee, et al, "A High Spatial Resolution Analysis of the MAXIMA-1 Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Data," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L1-L5.
8. R. Stompor, et al, "Cosmological Implications of MAXIMA-1 High-Resolution Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Measurement," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L7-L10.
9. Andrew Watson, "Cosmic Ripples Confirm Universe Speeding Up," Science, 295 (2002), pp. 2341-2343.
10. Anthony Aguirre, Joop Schaye, and Eliot Quataert, "Problems for Modified Newtonian Dynamics in Clusters and the Ly Forest?" Astrophysical Journal, 561 (2001), pp. 550-558.
11. Chris Blake and Jasper Wall, "A Velocity Dipole in the Distribution of Radio Galaxies," Nature, 416 (2002), pp. 150-152.
12. G. Efstathiou, et al, "Evidence for a Non-Zero L and a Low Matter Density from a Combined Analysis of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330 (2002), pp. L29-L35.
13. Susana J. Landau and Hector Vucetich, "Testing Theories That Predict Time Variation of Fundamental Constants, " Astrophysical Journal, 570 (2002), pp. 463-469.
14. Renyue Cen, "Why Are There Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies?" Astrophysical Journal Letters, 549 (2001), pp. L195-L198.
15. Brandon Carter, "Energy Dominance and the Hawking-Ellis Vacuum Conservation Theorem," a contribution to Stephen Hawkingís 60th birthday workshop on the Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, Cambridge, UK, January, 2002, arXiv:gr-qc/0205010v1, May 2, 2002.
16. Joseph F. Hennawi and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, "Observational Constraints on the Self-Interacting Dark Matter Scenario and the Growth of Supermassive Black Holes," Astrophysical Journal, 572 (2002), pp. 41-54.
17. Robert Brandenberger, Brandon Carter, and Anne-Christine Davis, "Microwave Background Constraints on Decaying Defects," Physics Letters B, 534 (2002), pp. 1-7.
18. Lawrence M. Krauss, "The End of the Age Problem, and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited," Astrophysical Journal, 501 (1998), pp. 461-466.
19. Q. R. Ahmad, et al, "Measurement of the Rate of e + d p + p + e- Interactions Produced by 8B Solar Neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory," Physical Review Letters, 87 (2001), id. 071301.
20. R. E. Davies and R. H. Koch, "All the Observed Universe Has Contributed to Life," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 334B (1991), pp. 391-403.
21. George F. R. Ellis, "The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments," in The Anthropic Principle, edited by F. Bertola and U. Curi (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 30.
22. H. R. Marston, S. H. Allen, and S. L. Swaby, "Iron Metabolism in Copper-Deficient Rats," British Journal of Nutrition, 25 (1971), pp. 15-30.
23. K. W. J. Wahle and N. T. Davies, "Effect of Dietary Copper Deficiency in the Rat on Fatty Acid Composition of Adipose Tissue and Desaturase Activity of Liver Microsomes," British Journal of Nutrition, 34 (1975), pp. 105-112;.
24. Walter Mertz, "The Newer Essential Trace Elements, Chromium, Tin, Vanadium, Nickel, and Silicon," Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 33 (1974), pp. 307-313.
25. Bruno Leibundgut, "Cosmological Implications from Observations of Type Ia Supernovae," Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 39 (2001), pp. 67-98.
26. C. L. Bennett, et al, "First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations, Preliminary Maps, and Basic Results," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 148 (2003), pp. 1-27.
27. G. Hinshaw, et al, ""First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Angular Power Spectrum," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 148 (2003), pp. 135-159.
28. A. Balbi, et al, "Probing Dark Energy with the Cosmic Microwave Background: Projected Constraints from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and Planck," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 588 (2003), pp. L5-L8.
29. A. Vikhlinin, et al, "Cosmological Constraints from the Evolution of the Cluster Baryon Mass Function at z = 0.5," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 15-25.
30. Frank Thim, et al, "The Cepheid Distance to NGC 5236 (M83) with the ESO Very Large Telescope," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 256-270.
31. Kazuhide Ichikawa and M. Kawasaki, "Constraining the Variation of the Coupling Constants with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis," Physical Review D, 65 (2002), id 123511.
32. Eubino-Martin José Alberto, et al, "First Results from the Very Small Array-IV. Cosmological Parameter Estimation," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341 (2003), pp. 1084-1092.
33. Takuji Tsujimoto and Toshikazu Shigeyama, "Star Formation History of Centauri Imprinted in Elemental Abundance Patterns," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 803-808.
34. Santi Cassissi, Maurizio Salaris, and Alan W. Irwin, "The Initial Helium Content of Galactic Globular Cluster Stars from the R-Parameter: Comparison with the Cosmic Microwave Background Constraint," Astrophysical Journal, 588 (2003), pp. 862-870.
35. Naoki Yoshida, et al, "Early Structure Formation and Reionization in a Warm Dark Matter Cosmology," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L1-L4.
36. Robert R. Caldwell, et al, "Early Quintessence in Light of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L75-L78.
37. V. Luridiana, et al, "The Effect of Collisional Enhancement of Balmer Lines on the Determination of the Primordial Helium Abundance," Astrophysical Journal, 592 (20030, pp. 846-865.
38. Y. Jack Ng, W. A. Christiansen, and H. van Dam, "Probing Planck-Scale Physics with Extragalactic Sources?" Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L87-L89.
39. J. L. Sievers, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from Cosmic Background Imager Observations and Comparisons with BOOMERANG, DASI, and MAXIMA," Astrophysical Journal, 591 (2003), pp. 599-622.
40. R. Scranton, et al, "Physical Evidence for Dark Energy," submitted July 20, 2003 to Physical Review Letters, http://xxx.lanl.gov/...tro-ph/0307335.
41. Pablo Fosalba, Enrique Gaztanaga, and Francisco Castander, "Detection of the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe and Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effects from the Cosmic Microwave Background-Galaxy Correlation." Astrophysical Journal Letters, 597 (2003), pp. L89-L92.
42. M. R. Nolta, et al, "First Year Wilkinson Anistropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Dark Energy Induced Correlation with Radio Sources," submitted May 7, 2003 to Astrophysical Journal, http://xxx.lanl.gov/...tro-ph/0305097.
43. Stephen Boughn and Robert Crittenden, "A Correlation Between the Cosmic Microwave Background and Large-Scale Structure in the Universe," Nature, 427 (2004), pp. 45-47.
44. T. Jacobson, S. Liberati, and D. Mattingly, "A Strong Astrophysical Constraint on the Violation of Special Relativity by Quantum Gravity," Nature, 424 (2003), pp. 1019-1021.
45. Sean Carroll, "Quantum Gravity: An Astrophysical Constraint," Nature, 424 (2003), pp. 1007-1008.
46. D. J. Fixsen, "The Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy from the Combined COBE FIRAS and WMAP Observations," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 594 (2003), pp. L67-L70.
47. John L. Tonry, et al, "Cosmological Results from High-z Supernovae," Astrophysical Journal, 594 (2003), pp. 1-24.
48. Jean-Pierre Luminet, et al, "Dodecahedral Space Topology as an Explanation for Weak-Angle Temperature Correlations in the Cosmic Microwave Background," Nature, 425 (2003), pp. 593-595.
49. George F. R. Ellis, "The Shape of the Universe," Nature, 425 (2003), pp. 566-567.
50. Charles Seife, "Polyhedral Model Gives the Universe an Unexpected Twist," Science, 302 (2003), p. 209.
51. Neil J. Cornish, et al, "Constraining the Topology of the Universe," astro-ph/0310233, submitted to Physical Review Letters, 2003.
52. David Kirkman, et al, "The Cosmological Baryon Density from the Deuterium-to-Hydrogen Ratio in QSO Absorption Systems: D/H Toward Q1243+3047," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 149 (2003), pp. 1-28.
53. Jeremiah P. Ostriker, et al, "The Probability Distribution Function of Light in the Universe: Results from Hydrodynamic Simulations," Astrophysical Journal, 597 (2003), pp. 1-8.
54. M. Tegmark, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from SDSS and WMAP," preprint, 2003 posted at http://xxx.lanl.gov/...tro-ph/0310723.
55. Wolfram Freudling, Michael R. Corbin, and Kirk T. Korista, "Iron Emission in z ~ 6 QSOs," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 587 (2003), pp. L67-L70.
56. Lennox L. Cowie and Antoinette Songaila, "The inconstant constant?" Nature 428 (2004), pp. 132-133.
57. H. Chand, et al., "Probing the cosmological variation of the fine-structure constant: Results based on VLT-UVES sample," Astronomy and Astrophysics, 417 (2004), pp. 853-871.
58. Thibault Damous and Freeman Dyson, "The Oklo bound on the time variation of the fine-structure constant revisited," Nuclear Physics B, 480 (1996), pp. 37-54.
59. Anton M. Koekemoer, et al, "A Possible New Population of Sources with Extreme X-Ray/Optical Ratios," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 600 (2004), pp. L123-L126.
60. Henry C. Ferguson, et al, "The Size Evolution of High-Redshift Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal, 600 (2004), pp. L107-L110.
61. Charles Seife, "Light from Most-Distant Supernovae Shows Dark Energy Stays the Course," Science, 303 (2004), p. 1271.
62. Jonathan C. Tan and Christopher F. McKee, "The Formation of the First Stars. I. Mass Infall Rates, Accretion Disk Structure, and Protostellar Evolution," Astrophysical Journal, 603 (2004), pp. 383-400.
63. Charles Seife, "Galactic Stripling Gives a Glimpse of the Universe's Raw Youth," Science, 303 (2004), p. 1597.
64. Alan Heavens, et al, "The Star Formation History of the Universe from the Stellar Populations of Nearby Galaxies," Nature, 428 (2004), pp. 625-627.
65. Pavel D. Naselsky, et al, "Primordial Magnetic Field and Non-Gaussianity of the One-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Data," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 45-54.
66. Gang Chen, et al, "Looking for Cosmological Alfvén Waves in Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Data," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 655-659.
67. Tommaso Treu and Léon V. E. Koopmans, "Massive Dark Matter Halos and Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies to z = 1," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 739-760.
68. B. Aubert, et al (the BaBar Collaboration), "Observations of Direct CP Violation in B0® K+pi- Decays," preprint, August, 2004, high energy physics - experiment.
69. Mark Peplow, "The Bs Have It," Nature, 430 (2004), p. 739.
70. Peter Bond, "Hubble's Long View," Astronomy & Geophysics, volume 45, issue 3, June 2004, p. 328.
71. A. C. S. Readhead, et al, "Polarization Observations with the Cosmic Background Imager," Science, 306 (2004), pp. 836-844.
72. Nickolay Y. Gneidin, "Reionization, Sloan, and WMAP: Is the Picture Consistent?" Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 9-13.
73. Amr A. El-Zant, et al, "Flat-Cored Dark Matter in Cuspy Clusters of Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L75-L78.
74. J. R. Lin, S. N. Zhang, and T. P. Li, "Gamma-Ray Bursts Are Produced Predominantly in the Early Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 605 (2004), pp. 819-822.
75. Timothy P. Ashenfelter and Grant J. Mathews, "The Fine-Structure Constant as a Probe of Chemical Evolution and Asymptotic Giant Branch Nucleosynthesis in Damped Lya Systems," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 82-97.
76. Naoki Yoshida, Volker Bromm, and Lars Hernquist,, "The Era of Massive Population III Stars: Cosmological Implications and Self-Termination," The Astrophysical Journal, 605, (2004), pp. 579-590.
77. YesheFenner, Jason X. Prochaska and Brad K. Gibson, "Constraints on Early Nucleosynthesis from the Abundance Pattern of a Damped Lyα System at z = 2.626," The Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 116-125.
78. Andreas Heithausen,, "Molecular Hydrogen as Baryonic Dark Matter," The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 606 (2004), pp. L13-L15.
79. Douglas Clowe, Anthony Gonzalez, and Maxim Markevitch, "Weak-Lensing Mass Reconstruction of the Interacting Cluster IE 0657-558: Direct Evidence for the Existence of Dark Matter," Astrophysical Journal, 604 (2004), pp. 596-603.
80. Sean T. Prigge, et al, "Dioxygen Binds End-On to Mononuclear Copper in a Precatalytic Enzyme Complex," Science, 304 (2004), pp. 864-867.
81. H. Jakubowski, Biochemistry: Chapter 8: Oxidative-Phosphorylation, A: The Chemistry of Dioxygen, November 17, 2005, http://employees.csb...xygenchem.html. Accessed 02/06/06.
82. Robert H. Abeles, Perry A. Frey, and William P. Jencks, Biochemistry (Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 1992), pp. 655-673.
83. P. Caresia, S. Matarrese, and L. Moscardini, "Constraints on Extended Quintessence from High-Redshift Supernovae," Astrophysical Journal, 605 (2004), pp. 21-28.
84. AmrA. El-Zant, et al, "Flat-Cored Dark Matter in Cuspy Clusters of Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L75-L78.
85. Kyu-Hyun Chae, et al, "Constraints on Scalar-Field Dark Energy from the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey Gravitational Lens Statistics," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L71-74.
86. Max Tegmark, et al, "The Three-Dimensional Power Spectrum of Galaxies From the Sloan Digital Sky Survey," Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 702-740.
87. Adrian C. Pope, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from Eigenmode Analysis of Sloan Digital Sky Survey Galaxy Redshifts," Astrophysical Journal, 607 (2004), pp. 655-660.
88. YunWang and Pia Mukherjee, "Model-Independent Constraints on Dark Energy Density from Flux-Averaging Analysis of Type Ia Supernova Data," Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 654-663.
89. Adam G. Riess, et al, "Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z>1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution," Astrophysical Journal, 607 (2004), pp. 665-687.
90. A. Kashlinsky, et al, "Detecting Population III Stars Through Observations of Near-Infrared Cosmic Infrared Background Anisotropies," Astrophysical Journal, 608 (2004), pp. 1-9.
91. Nickolay Y. Gneidin, "Reionization, Sloan, and WMAP: Is the Picture Consistent?" Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 9-13.
92. Paul Martin and Luis C. Ho, "A Population of Massive Globular Clusters in NGC 5128," Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 233-246.
93. L. Pasquini, et al, "Beryllium in Turnoff Stars of NGC6397: Early Galaxy Spallation Cosmochronology and Cluster Formation," Astronomy and Astrophysics, in press, 2004.
94. Peter Bond, "Hubble's Long View," Astronomy & Geophysics, volume 45, issue 3, June 2004, p. 328.
95. T. Harko and K. S. Cheng, "Time Delay of Photons of Different Energies in Multidimensional Cosmological Models," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 633-641.
96. I. H. Stairs, S. E. Thorsett, and Z. Arzoumanian, "Measurement of Gravitational Soin-Orbit Coupling in a Binary Pulsar System," Physical Review Letters, 93 (2004), id. 141101.
97. Daniel B. Zucker, et al, "Andromeda IX. A New Dwarf Speroidal Satellite of M31," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 612 (2004), pp. L121-L124.
98. J. Patrick Henry, "X-Ray Temperatures for the Extended Medium-Sensitivity Survey High-Redshift Cluster Sample: Constraints on Cosmology and the Dark Energy Equation of State," Astrophysical Journal, 609 (2004), pp. 603-616.
99. S. W. Allen, et al, "Constraints on Dark Energy from Chandra Observations of the Largest Relaxed Galaxy Clusters," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 353 (2004), pp. 457-467.
100. Ruth A. Daly and S. G. Djorgovski, "Direct Determination of the Kinematics of the Universe and Properties of the Dark Energy as Functions of Redshift," Astrophysical Journal, 612 (2004), pp. 652-659.
101. Ruth A. Daly and S. G. Djorgovski, "A Model-Independent Determination of the Expansion and Acceleration Rates of the Universe as a Function of Redshift and Constraints on Dark Energy," Astrophysical Journal 597 (2003), pp. 9-20.
102. E. Peik, et al, "Limit on the Present Temporal Variation of the Fine Structure Constant," Physical Review Letters, 93 (2004), id # 170801.
103. I. Ciufolini and E. C. Pavils, "A Confirmation of the General Relativistic Prediction of the Lense-Thirring Effect," Nature, 431 (2004), pp. 958-960.
104. Timothy P. Ashenfelter and Grant J. Mathews, "The Fine-Structure Constant as a Probe of Chemical Evolution and Asymptotic Giant Branch Nucleosynthesis in Damped Lya Systems," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 82-97.
105. Signe Riemer-Sorensen, Steen H. Hansen, and Kristian Pedersen, "Sterile Neutrinos in the Milky Way: Observational Constraints," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 644 (2006), pp. L33-L36.
106. D. G. Yamazaki, et al, "Constraints on the Evolution of the Pimordial Magnetic Field from the Small-Scale Cosmic Microwave Background Angular Anisotropy," Astrophysical Journal, 646 (2006), pp. 719-729.

[Cameron]

have continued the tradition of finding examples of design in biological systems. But the cutting edge of the discussion focuses on the recently discovered, remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for life. This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, they contain certain constants, such as the gravitational constant. The mathematical values of these constants are not determined by the laws of nature. Second, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are just part of the initial conditions of the universe—for example, the amount of entropy in the universe.

Design? Evolved hardware has sometimes surpassed the performance of designs from even the best engineers, and has even eluded their understanding of it. Evolution works, the evidence is ample. Evolution is not in question, and no matter how many argue against it, nor how nice they make their books, they're not that far from flat-earthers.

As for fine tuning, we'd need a further understanding of the nature of the world, to see if there's any argument there. But regardless, any evidence suggesting a 'god' does not by default suggest god X of religion X. When all evidence points to religion X's foundation being nothing more than the ramblings of seemingly deranged primitive men, why oh why would we assume there's any validity to it? Even if there's a God, it's big and virtually insurmountable leap to connect it to the God of any of these religions with ZERO evidence to do so.

You need evidence of the connection, without this evidence the 'holy' texts are not that different from toilet paper in terms of their relationship to the divine. There is no such evidence, and thus we have to question this so-called connection. The reasonable conclusion is to toss what seems like garbage out. Without a connection you're not defending Zeus, RA or JESUS, you're defending something else.

As I stated previously you cannot simply connect evidence that points to some sort of God to the being described in these so-called holy-books. The physical law of this world, and its merciless uncaring efficiency and seeming unchangeness of it, points in a different direction from the law-breaking being, which seems to display all-too human traits, in these fairy tales.

The world's laws do not flinch to protect a small baby girl from being raped and butchered in some backwards country. Why would these laws flinch so that some random tribe could go on an ego trip about being the Chosen ones? What could be gained by it?

[shadowhawk]

have continued the tradition of finding examples of design in biological systems. But the cutting edge of the discussion focuses on the recently discovered, remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for life. This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, they contain certain constants, such as the gravitational constant. The mathematical values of these constants are not determined by the laws of nature. Second, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are just part of the initial conditions of the universe—for example, the amount of entropy in the universe.

Design? Evolved hardware has sometimes surpassed the performance of designs from even the best engineers, and has even eluded their understanding of it. Evolution works, the evidence is ample. Evolution is not in question, and no matter how many argue against it, nor how nice they make their books, they're not that far from flat-earthers.

This is not an arguement. By the way the arguiement of design says nothing about evolution. As an example of a design theorist who is an evolutionist, Roy Abraham Varghese see http://www.amazon.co...ntt_at_ep_dpt_3


As for fine tuning, we'd need a further understanding of the nature of the world, to see if there's any argument there. But regardless, any evidence suggesting a 'god' does not by default suggest god X of religion X. When all evidence points to religion X's foundation being nothing more than the ramblings of seemingly deranged primitive men, why oh why would we assume there's any validity to it? Even if there's a God, it's big and virtually insurmountable leap to connect it to the God of any of these religions with ZERO evidence to do so.

I am a historian and I can tell you, your view of humans that came earlier than us is ignorant. The argument from design is limited to the issue of a designer. There are many other issues such as what kind of a designer which are not addressed here.

You need evidence of the connection, without this evidence the 'holy' texts are not that different from toilet paper in terms of their relationship to the divine. There is no such evidence, and thus we have to question this so-called connection. The reasonable conclusion is to toss what seems like garbage out. Without a connection you're not defending Zeus, RA or JESUS, you're defending something else.

Again, off subject and not an argument. Just name calling..

As I stated previously you cannot simply connect evidence that points to some sort of God to the being described in these so-called holy-books. The physical law of this world, and its merciless uncaring efficiency and seeming unchangeness of it, points in a different direction from the law-breaking being, which seems to display all-too human traits, in these fairy tales.

I haven’t mentioned any Holy Book. You are completely massing the point of the argument.

The world's laws do not flinch to protect a small baby girl from being raped and butchered in some backwards country. Why would these laws flinch so that some random tribe could go on an ego trip about being the Chosen ones? What could be gained by it?

A great deal of the harm done from one human to another is evil of human upon human. Baby girls are harmed by all kinds of people, from every country and every educational background. Religions are against this. Think of abortions. I have never heard a devout follower of any religion defend "incest" but I have heard non believers do it. Again this has nothing to do with the argument by design. We have already talked about morality and evil, unless you want to just keep saying the same thing over and over

[shadowhawk]

The Ontological Argument.
Anselm's famous argument has been reformulated and defended by:

Alvin Plantinga, http://www.amazon.co...9135&sr=1-2-ent

Robert Maydole, http://www3.davidson.../cms/x26673.xml

Brian Leftow, http://www.amazon.co...9412&sr=1-2-ent

and others. http://www.formalont...ontemporary.htm

God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

7. Therefore, God exists.

William Lane Craig
public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

[shadowhawk]

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

7. Therefore, God exists.

Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2 and 7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God's existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God's existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it's impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn't appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God's existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.

I like thr multi universe form of this construct of the The Ontological Argument.

[N.T.M.]

I voted "other", because I believe in God (not gods).
Let´s demonstrate mathematicaly the possibility of God´s existence. Let´s imagine LOVE. When we say we love somebody or everybody, is there a limitation for that love? Does it have to stop at some level? The answer is NO! We can always increase indefinetely love. So, mathematicaly, love can tend to infinite! That demonstrate the possibility of God´s existence, because God is infinite love (by definition). So, all we have to do is to find somebody that can love beyond all limits, and we have the prof of the existence of God!!
(Of course that near those limits some strange phenomena must occur. It´s as simple as that!).

Quite the cross between ontology and pantheism.

*edit*

And so long as God's existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.

Most flawed logic I've ever heard (read, technically).

*edit again* I do understand what you're saying, but it's completely flawed. The pivotal implication is that since the argument opposing God invokes extreme improbability you can then exploit it and inaccurately apply it to an equation which sparks the following cascade of erroneous deduction.

Edited by N.T.M., 26 June 2010 - 10:02 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I voted "other", because I believe in God (not gods).
Let´s demonstrate mathematicaly the possibility of God´s existence. Let´s imagine LOVE. When we say we love somebody or everybody, is there a limitation for that love? Does it have to stop at some level? The answer is NO! We can always increase indefinetely love. So, mathematicaly, love can tend to infinite! That demonstrate the possibility of God´s existence, because God is infinite love (by definition). So, all we have to do is to find somebody that can love beyond all limits, and we have the prof of the existence of God!!
(Of course that near those limits some strange phenomena must occur. It´s as simple as that!).

Quite the cross between ontology and pantheism.

*edit*

And so long as God's existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.

Most flawed logic I've ever heard (read, technically).

*edit again* I do understand what you're saying, but it's completely flawed. The pivotal implication is that since the argument opposing God invokes extreme improbability you can then exploit it and inaccurately apply it to an equation which sparks the following cascade of erroneous deduction.

My observation to this is no argument proves God or no god 100% That is why these are faith and probably issues. I have noted what parts of the argument are in my view most disputed. Be more specific, what is "completely flawed?" As you understand it, What is completely-extremely "improbable?" I don't see any real arguments here but argument by pejorative adjectives.

Edited by shadowhawk, 26 June 2010 - 10:46 PM.