Science standards under threat in Arizona

[gnostic]

You will begin to understand God's Kingdom, IMHO, when you stop assuming all religionists are wrong, always, and all materialists are always right.

You are forgetting.

You are generalizing people, making assumptions that all agnostics, atheists and all non-Christians (that would include Jews) don’t understand the Bible or Christian teachings.

What you are forgetting is that many atheists and agnostics were former Christians, and left their churches or lost their faiths for whatever reasons. To these atheists and agnostics, they don’t cease to understand the Bible or God’s Kingdom, just because they are no longer Christians.

Now, while it is true, I was never part of any church and didn’t convert, I did a couple of times, was seriously joining a church, while I was a teenager. I may be agnostic for the last 18 or 19 years of my life, but for 19 years (before my going the agnosticism route) I did believe in Jesus, Christian-Church teachings and the New Testament.

I still do understand what are the most important aspects of Christian concept, and why people joined churches - salvation (resurrection), to be able to live forever in heaven, as rewards for living a Christ-like life.

It is a very attractive proposition, not only because of resurrection, but also other aspects, like being part of community, being guided, etc.

People don’t just simply forget what they have learned over the years.

Having said that.

You tell which is more selfless and altruistic:

1. people who give simply because they care for others, without rewards or fear,
2. or those who give and care to others, simply because a book, Jesus or god command them to, which could gain them some points upon their judgement days, because of the fear of hell and promise of rewards in heaven?

I think anyone who care without promised rewards to themselves to be more selfless and altruistic.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, caring is justified in social species like our own. It is seen frequently in the 'animal kingdom'.

Yes, it is altruistic: it puts the benefits of others in high regard.



Not required to know that morality isn't God-based. Morality is a matter of how we interact with others. Focusing on a deity diminishes overall morality because it separates us from caring about other people. At least, that is what I see around me.

Hmm, this is alarming also:

"Focusing on a deity diminishes overall morality because it separates us from caring about other people."

You cannot possibly be talking about Jesus as deity, since He emphasized loving your neighbor as yourself, and since the NT makes many statements like "How can you claim to love and invisible God apart from loving a brother you can see?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

I guess you've never seen footage of a lioness defending her cubs, or elephants mourning the loss of a dead infant.

I guess atheists have never seen lions prey on the weak and young, asserting this is natural for survival, before accusing men and God of being evil for preying on the weak and young. Double standard?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are forgetting.

You are generalizing people, making assumptions that all agnostics, atheists and all non-Christians (that would include Jews) don’t understand the Bible or Christian teachings.

What you are forgetting is that many atheists and agnostics were former Christians, and left their churches or lost their faiths for whatever reasons. To these atheists and agnostics, they don’t cease to understand the Bible or God’s Kingdom, just because they are no longer Christians.

Now, while it is true, I was never part of any church and didn’t convert, I did a couple of times, was seriously joining a church, while I was a teenager. I may be agnostic for the last 18 or 19 years of my life, but for 19 years (before my going the agnosticism route) I did believe in Jesus, Christian-Church teachings and the New Testament.

I still do understand what are the most important aspects of Christian concept, and why people joined churches - salvation (resurrection), to be able to live forever in heaven, as rewards for living a Christ-like life.

It is a very attractive proposition, not only because of resurrection, but also other aspects, like being part of community, being guided, etc.

People don’t just simply forget what they have learned over the years.

Having said that.

You tell which is more selfless and altruistic:

1. people who give simply because they care for others, without rewards or fear,
2. or those who give and care to others, simply because a book, Jesus or god command them to, which could gain them some points upon their judgement days, because of the fear of hell and promise of rewards in heaven?

I think anyone who care without promised rewards to themselves to be more selfless and altruistic.

I'm born again, meaning, I was irreligious/skeptical and then not. My morality did not change overnight with my conversion, I still exhibited the same altruism and selfishness between those two days. However, since I received a huge gift from God, salvation IMHO, I like to share. Which is more selfless:

1) To receive a giant gift from God, then share or
2) To scorn a giant gift from God, then come to a forum and tell people they should reject the free gifts also

 

[Polymath257]

Hmm, this is alarming also:

"Focusing on a deity diminishes overall morality because it separates us from caring about other people."

You cannot possibly be talking about Jesus as deity, since He emphasized loving your neighbor as yourself, and since the NT makes many statements like "How can you claim to love and invisible God apart from loving a brother you can see?"

Sorry, but I see way to many examples of people 'following Jesus' that make the world worse for others. You may find it alarming, but whenever devotion to a deity makes actual lives worse off, then it is a bad thing.

 

[gnostic]

I'm born again, meaning, I was irreligious/skeptical and then not. My morality did not change overnight with my conversion, I still exhibited the same altruism and selfishness between those two days. However, since I received a huge gift from God, salvation IMHO, I like to share. Which is more selfless:

1) To receive a giant gift from God, then share or
2) To scorn a giant gift from God, then come to a forum and tell people they should reject the free gifts also

You are moving the goalpost, BB.

The discussion was whether it is selfish or selfless to care for others because you were ordered to do so out of fear for hell and reward in heaven.

To me, expecting a reward from God, like “salvation” or “to live forever” for doing some good, is selfish act, because you are actually doing for your own good, not for the good for others. To me, that’s sort of motivation is pure hypocrisy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hmm, this is alarming also:

"Focusing on a deity diminishes overall morality because it separates us from caring about other people."

You cannot possibly be talking about Jesus as deity, since He emphasized loving your neighbor as yourself, and since the NT makes many statements like "How can you claim to love and invisible God apart from loving a brother you can see?"

Do you love ISIS like you love yourself? How about Hitler? Do you think that's perfect advice in every situation, or maybe there's some nuance involved that requires further reasoning and logic?

I guess atheists have never seen lions prey on the weak and young, asserting this is natural for survival, before accusing men and God of being evil for preying on the weak and young. Double standard?

Pardon? Do you think atheists obtain their morals from lions? Have you not taken in anything I've said to you about human morality?
My system of morality does not include preying on the weak and young because that doesn't increase the well-being of sentient creatures . I'm also not a lion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, but I see way to many examples of people 'following Jesus' that make the world worse for others. You may find it alarming, but whenever devotion to a deity makes actual lives worse off, then it is a bad thing.

I didn't ask about your anecdotal or even historical examples. I asked re: the Bible's clear teachings.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are moving the goalpost, BB.

The discussion was whether it is selfish or selfless to care for others because you were ordered to do so out of fear for hell and reward in heaven.

To me, expecting a reward from God, like “salvation” or “to live forever” for doing some good, is selfish act, because you are actually doing for your own good, not for the good for others. To me, that’s sort of motivation is pure hypocrisy.

What about fear of judgment? When a student studies for a test because they fear expulsion from college, is that "selfish" or "self-preservation"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you love ISIS like you love yourself? How about Hitler? Do you think that's perfect advice in every situation, or maybe there's some nuance involved that requires further reasoning and logic?



Pardon? Do you think atheists obtain their morals from lions? Have you not taken in anything I've said to you about human morality?
My system of morality does not include preying on the weak and young because that doesn't increase the well-being of sentient creatures . I'm also not a lion.

You are wholly unaware of how people tried to show the love of Christ to Hitler? You didn't realize that many persons who witnessed to the Nazis were executed in death camps?

How did you come to decide, subjectively speaking, how morality:

a) increase the well-being of creatures?
b) includes sentient beings only?
c) informs you as to what well-being is?

 

[Woberts]

I didn't ask about your anecdotal or even historical examples. I asked re: the Bible's clear teachings.

>bible
>clear

Pick one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are wholly unaware of how people tried to show the love of Christ to Hitler? You didn't realize that many persons who witnessed to the Nazis were executed in death camps?

Of course I'm aware of such things, but that doesn't answer my question about your feelings on the matter.

How did you come to decide, subjectively speaking, how morality:

a) increase the well-being of creatures?

As far as I can tell, that's what morality is about. If somebody doesn't care about the well-being of sentient creatures, then I don't think they're talking about morality.

b) includes sentient beings only?

They're the beings that are aware of themselves, their surroundings and their relation to their surroundings. They're the beings who experience pleasure/pain

c) informs you as to what well-being is?

Well-being means that the being is alive and as healthy, safe, comfortable, happy and pain-free as possible.
Do you not think those are things that most people strive for, not only for themselves, but also for their loved ones and friends? Why not for all sentient beings?
We all have no choice but to share the planet with everybody else who inhabits it along with us, and most of us prefer our existence to be happy and positive rather than sad and negative. If I treat other people like crap, I'm likely to be treated like crap in return and then nobody wins and we're all miserable.

 

[Polymath257]

I didn't ask about your anecdotal or even historical examples. I asked re: the Bible's clear teachings.

Clear teachings? You must be kidding! At best, the Bible is a collection of conflicting opinions and at worst, it excuses bigotry and hatred. For example, Jesus says at one point his message is only to the Jews and then Paul comes along and 'reveals' it to everyone else. Then Paul wants everyone to stay celibate (like him), but is willing to let the 'weak' marry.

I can go on for a few hundred examples where one verse says one thing and another verse directly contradicts the first. Even on 'moral' questions, the record is very far from benign and is often unclear (although it is more often clear when it isn't benign).

Again, I much prefer a morality based on the suffering of real people in the here and now to attempting to please an inscrutable deity that likely doesn't even exist.

 

[Polymath257]

What about fear of judgment? When a student studies for a test because they fear expulsion from college, is that "selfish" or "self-preservation"?

Realistically, it is usually a bit of both. Sometimes they are trying to please parents. Other times they are trying to reach personal goals.

Why that should lead to a 'fear' of judgment as opposed to simply trying to be the best possible, I fail to understand. Again, the morality doesn't consist of please the authorities, but in doing good for its own sake.

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes, caring is justified in social species like our own. It is seen frequently in the 'animal kingdom'.

Yes, it is altruistic: it puts the benefits of others in high regard.



Not required to know that morality isn't God-based. Morality is a matter of how we interact with others. Focusing on a deity diminishes overall morality because it separates us from caring about other people. At least, that is what I see around me.

Exactly morality is not god-based at all. Altruism is found throughout nature. Social patterns for animals creates behavior patterns of good an bad behavior for that social group. When a male cardinal flies in front of a hawk about to kill its mate and distracts the hawk risking its own life which has been seen in nature it is showing an aspect of its morality. Humans create morals not gods or goddesses.

 

[Bear Wild]

I guess atheists have never seen lions prey on the weak and young, asserting this is natural for survival, before accusing men and God of being evil for preying on the weak and young. Double standard?

Atheists have seen both sides they have also seen how religious humans have had no problem with killing other humans based on belief.

 

[BilliardsBall]

>bible
>clear

Pick one.

>Facts
>Unsupported generalizations

Pick one.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Of course I'm aware of such things, but that doesn't answer my question about your feelings on the matter.



As far as I can tell, that's what morality is about. If somebody doesn't care about the well-being of sentient creatures, then I don't think they're talking about morality.



They're the beings that are aware of themselves, their surroundings and their relation to their surroundings. They're the beings who experience pleasure/pain

Well-being means that the being is alive and as healthy, safe, comfortable, happy and pain-free as possible.
Do you not think those are things that most people strive for, not only for themselves, but also for their loved ones and friends? Why not for all sentient beings?
We all have no choice but to share the planet with everybody else who inhabits it along with us, and most of us prefer our existence to be happy and positive rather than sad and negative. If I treat other people like crap, I'm likely to be treated like crap in return and then nobody wins and we're all miserable.

"Do unto others so they won't do unto you..." - ST

"Do unto others as you would like to be treated, even with your enemies..." - JC

Why the difference, do you think?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Clear teachings? You must be kidding! At best, the Bible is a collection of conflicting opinions and at worst, it excuses bigotry and hatred. For example, Jesus says at one point his message is only to the Jews and then Paul comes along and 'reveals' it to everyone else. Then Paul wants everyone to stay celibate (like him), but is willing to let the 'weak' marry.

I can go on for a few hundred examples where one verse says one thing and another verse directly contradicts the first. Even on 'moral' questions, the record is very far from benign and is often unclear (although it is more often clear when it isn't benign).

Again, I much prefer a morality based on the suffering of real people in the here and now to attempting to please an inscrutable deity that likely doesn't even exist.

Celibacy and marriage are "bigotry and hatred"? You have some odd moral perspectives.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Realistically, it is usually a bit of both. Sometimes they are trying to please parents. Other times they are trying to reach personal goals.

Why that should lead to a 'fear' of judgment as opposed to simply trying to be the best possible, I fail to understand. Again, the morality doesn't consist of please the authorities, but in doing good for its own sake.

Wait a moment, you don't believe "Do unto others so they don't do unto you" but "Rather, do good for its own sake"?

That would imply you believe in absolute good:

a) Good done without expectation of return
b) Absolute good exists
c) Absolute morals exist
d) Right and wrong/better choices exist

How do you explain this metaphysical stance you've made?