cuchulain

I think it is situational, and no one solid answer fits every situation.

I do not know. I cannot personally consider a situation in which the needs of the few are greater than the needs of the many, but that could simply be a poor imagination on my part. mererdog made the assumption that I was stating morality is strictly subjective, when I was not. I was stating that logic is subjective just as much as morality is. I do not know whether morality in it's ENTIRETY is subjective or objective. I tend to believe it could be that there are some few principles which are universal, but the rest is interpretation based on those few principles, or in addition to those principles. Still, ultimately my answer is I do not know. Lot's of typing to say that, eh?

Thanks for the input! I knew I had heard it somewhere, but assumed it was biblical since that was the most common source of hearing it.

Now you call my logic shoddy? I don't choose to spell everything in my decision making process out to you, friend. There is a chain of logic which leads to my conclusions. I do not ask you to accept that chain, rather I simply explain what I believe about the subject at hand. Take it or leave it as you will.

Whether one has cause to bash and flame, and whether one should engage in such activity...there is a difference. A person may have cause, but should rise above. That is simply my opinion.

As much as morality is subjective and not objective, yes.

Then we have a simple difference of opinion, friend.

I apologize for painting with the broad brush. I should not have categorized ALL atheists in that manner, just like we should not categorize ALL Christians in a specific manner. And I certainly wasn't specifying the atheists of your acquaintance. My bad choice of wording, sorry. What I meant was certain atheists use their time to bash others, instead of doing good works that they profess Christians should be doing.

Think is the key word in that segment, for me. They don't know, and so would rather work on an uncertainty than a certainty. That is, they believe the afterlife requires them to behave a certain way now, whereas they know that people have needs in the here and now that they could help to fulfill, or help people to learn to fulfill on their own. A person can have any number of beliefs, but no verification of those beliefs. I think it is more logical to act on what one knows, which is the here and now rather than the afterlife.

I see the straw man now that you point it out mererdog. I suppose I got the idea that it must be in the bible because I hear it so often from various preachers. So far as principle, sometimes it is useful. Sometimes it is misguided. I think it's like a lot of other things, dependent upon the people involved. I guess Christianity is clearly not for me(seems somewhat obvious, with some of my thoughts), but that's alright. We all of us have different ideas about reality, some of which coincide, and my basic premise is that we should work together for a better now regardless of what we believe is coming after life.

Agreed Johnathan. I would add, if God is truly all knowing and all powerful, he is perfectly capable of fulfilling his own needs instead of having us place his needs before our own. And isn't it in the bible somewhere that God helps those who helps themselves? What about helping those who help others as well?

I believe we are all strong and weak in different areas, that those with strong minds should use those minds to help their communities, that those with strong backs should use those backs to help, that those with strong leadership ideas should use that, and so forth...to help their communities and each other. Because some people have weak minds, weak backs, weak leadership abilities, etc... I guess I view it much like a puzzle, where every piece has some part to play, even if that part is merely allowing themselves to be taken care of and increase someone else's empathy.

It all boils down to interpretation with the photos, if they are real. Maybe it isn't the holy spirit, but something else, and you have no way of proving the photo real, let alone what it reveals. So far as paintings, as I said previously, I have seen movies that seem amazingly real but aren't. It's called good graphics and a willingness on my part to suspend belief for the term of the film. Suppose you find old paintings of other gods, or maybe statues? Such exist, you know, but they are not proof of the deities in question existence any more than your paintings above are. A hint for future interactions with other people: You might consider actually researching what qualifies as proof before qualifying what you offer as such. If you believe truly the above is sufficient proof, I will find you some proof of the existence of the Easter Bunny that is identical, but you will not accept such. This is what is referred to as special case exceptions, where you accept a type of proof, or process, or logic, but only so long as it agrees with what you already believe.

I have seen lots of things that looked very VERY real, but I know they were not. Reference the latest Avengers movie...humans are very capable of making things that look real but aren't. Is it such a stretch to imagine the human imagination concocting something that just isn't real, but fooling itself?

Beware the wrath of the Murph. You have been warned!!!!

Appreciate the insights, Dan. I can see the point of having a church, after all it does make a very handy place to store the food for those programs, and a lot of people understand they can get help at a church without the church having to advertise it. But I am in complete agreement about the fancy decorations. I think a simple building would do just as well.

Have you ever wondered how much better things might be if we started placing people before religion? I am not saying we should eliminate religion altogether, after all it's another part of the puzzle that makes us all different. But what if those churches out there that like to decorate with fancy stained glass windows and nice new chairs and pews on a regular basis, what if they spent that money as needed, but then helped those in need with it? What if those who are so against all religion in general took a little of the time they used to bash religion at a food bank instead, or some other charitable good cause?

I always find it amazing how hostile(or seemingly hostile to me) that people will get when they post a "true story", when they are asked for proof. Why so much hostility to someone who simply doesn't believe your testimony? I understand that you cannot provide "proof", because you would have by now if you could. Why not simply state that this is a first hand account and that you don't have proof available, beyond your word? I tell you the truth, it comes off as if you are trying to prove something that didn't happen. That's simply my opinion. I don't believe in your God, or your testimony, because of how you come off. Someone asks a few simple, pointed questions, and you start accusing, casting about hell fire, so to speak. Anyone who actually experienced something like this and reported it wouldn't be nearly so offended when someone simply didn't believe them because of a lack of evidence. That's my opinion friend. If you feel I am going to hell because of it, that's fine. I don't need a God who is so hateful. Instead, I will ask you this: What good works, beyond spreading the scripture, have you done? Seems to me people who have stories like this often have little else, so maybe you should consider volunteering your time for a worthy cause that helps people in this life, if you don't already. Just a thought. Here's a true story for you: My wife was looking for work recently. She signed up on a job site, got a call from a marketing company offering 75k a year for her to go around selling anti drug pamphlets to schools in our area. Full maintenance on our vehicle, dental, medical, the whole works. She was real excited. I had to burst her bubble of course, not that I wanted to. I told her she should first look up the company, which claimed to represent scholastic, that then she should look up several of the names she had heard associated with the company, basically do the due diligence in this day and age and find out if it were legit or not. Looked it up, the information seemed to match at first, but that's because the guy on the phone was a good storyteller. After reading a few reviews of the company, and calling scholastic and finding out it did not indeed represent them, we came across a story by a major news organization that talked about the scam in question. Through it all, the person on the other end of the phone had one key element in common with all other scam artists: They insisted what they were selling was the truth, and insisted we not doubt them. Christianity makes it a sin to doubt. Now think about that one for a while. If they were trying to sell you anything else, that would send off red alerts. "just take my word for it" brings up our defenses for a reason, you know? Don't like doubters? Well, God shouldn't have made us then, eh?

as I said, society plays a factor. the societal approach seems a lot like argument ad populum to me though. A lot of people think it's a good idea, so it must be...just doesn't quite hold for me. I don't see how rape can be approved by any society, yet I think it is in some, though I can't name the places off hand. Murder, that's a lot harder to define, especially since humans have so many differing definitions for everything.

Maybe "Right" is strictly a personal value, granting that society has much influence on people's personal values.

My mom used to work at the VA in Marion. They got a real bad rap for a while about survivability and surgery, but what the public typically failed to realize while all that was going on was that the VA operates slightly different in that they were not allowed to refuse to do a surgery with low chances, unlike private hospitals. So, they often had 70 to 80 year old men begging for the surgery they just knew was going to save their life, only to die on the table like the doctor told them would happen. You can imagine it made the numbers, which is what the public recoiled at, look way different.

I tend to think of virtue as the path. The means, not the end. It is behavior that we take living in the moment, understanding that a right end cannot be had without a virtuous path. It is virtuous to support my family, but I would not view it as virtuous to support them by robbing or killing others. Maybe instead of separating the means and the end, they must both flow together, must both be had through the auspices of virtue, in order for it to truly be virtuous. Just some thoughts.

Yeah, I know. It's the same debate as with books, or violent movies, or Dungeons and Dragons. It isn't the idea itself, or the book, or whatever. It's the person who is broken. It just gets frustrating sometimes, seeing things done in the name of religion, and therefore having nothing done about them.

You did say something nasty...when you called us schoolgirls. So, yeah. That's a flat out lie, friend. Or maybe you just forgot that part? Either way, I agree with your sentiment, to a point. You have as much right to post in opposition to our ideas as we do yours. As I said prior, I apologize for allowing my emotions to get the best of my posts. For the record however, you brought up I was a pacifist. I asked what was wrong with that. You detailed what was wrong with extreme pacifists and said you weren't referencing pacifists in general, then later said you didn't know there was a difference. You are way all over the place on your opinions of the pacifist, extreme or otherwise. I mean, if you don't know the difference, why bring up a difference at all? And yes, I consider it the straw man argument, you don't. I would like to think we could let that go.

It is interesting to me that so many people follow a religion who's patron specifically says he is not to send peace, but a sword. Sounds a little more like a violent religion to me. In terms of being a season for everything, that must mean there is a season for pacifism as well, yes? Regardless, the bible is something that(so far as I know) few atheists accept as true. I see nothing wrong with telling other people in the world I am an atheist, and peaceful. I see nothing wrong with any atheist advertising that they would like to start a group of like minded people, in terms of peaceful gatherings. I see nothing wrong with an atheist telling others via billboard that they can celebrate the mainstream holidays, which are mostly Christian based, without being Christian. And in terms of personal experience, I have encountered MANY Christians who, in my opinion, should be "talked down". That is, they should be converted AWAY from the religion, as they are taking things entirely too far. And that is my opinion as well as many others, some of whom are Christian. When a Christian professes we should rise up and slay the Muslims, and brags about interrupting a veterans day parade because it had a Muslim float, and talks about killing the homosexuals because they are an abomination, there really should be a little white padded room for that fellow, and an atheist to preach the peace. Again, just my opinion. But just so you know, I have encountered this guy. He's been to jail many times for domestic violence because he saw his wife as property, till they got a divorce. Then he went to jail for stalking, because he didn't believe in divorce. Finally he got a clue to leave her alone, but then decided to start picking on others. I realize I sound like I am blaming Christianity, but I understand it's all in this particular crazy guys head. It's just that he needs deprogrammed from religion, which has clearly brought him harm.