Leaderboard

Or maybe this performance:

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. This is one reference of the word faith in the bible and clearly states that whatever is hoped for is not in existence at the present time. Whoever wants something to happen knows it is not now happening. Is Jesus Christ coming back sometime in the future? There is no “evidence” or “proof” that it will happen, only the word of some writers in the bible. One has to line up, roll up their sleeve, and be vaccinated, to believe Jesus is coming back (did he really ascend into heaven in the first place.)

Lots of good stuff on this thread. Thank you all. Rocky, I watched the Sagan video and I was glad to see it. I've often had similar thoughts when confronted with the idea of how the universe appeared out of "nothing." I see no evidence that the universe was ever in a state of "nothing" by any philosophical definition, and the definition in physics is something I fail to grasp. I trust that physicists know physics better than I do, so when someone like Lawrence Krauss (sp?) discusses the subject, I feel compelled to yield to his expertise even though it sounds ad hoc to me. All of which is to say, I do not believe the universe was ever in a state of "nothing" to begin with, and I am just as justified and making that presumption as a theist is in saying "well God exists outside of time and space and matter." You have to establish that there is such a thing as "outside of time and space and matter" to make such an assertion, and you can't. It's beyond our capability as human beings with brains. I do see, however, that part of this discussion has looked at the issue of morality, being and doing good. I had a rather clumsy thread about the subject a few years ago called "Are you more moral than Yahweh?" The thread became problematic, as is sometimes the case (especially with my hothead). But it was a good dive into a complicated question that, at least to me, has a simple resolution once you realize the "trick" that is being attempted. And this goes directly to teaching children about morality. We teach children that they are always being watched. By their parents, by their teachers, by Santa Claus, by God. This is our way of modifying their behavior by suggesting that there will be some accountability for their actions. With children, well, they really ARE being watched almost all the time. So at some point, a mature person must wrestle with the realization that there are times when they are NOT being watched. Morality is our capacity to do the right thing when we are NOT being watched. Religion, in my view, robs us of this avenue of growth by insisting there is never a time we are not being watched and that all of our actions will either be penalized or rewarded. And those of us who do not believe in a deity are chastised because we do not believe in (what they call) "objective morality." That's the trick. To get people to subscribe to "objective morality" and then to assert that such a thing is impossible without a God. I agree: Objective morality is impossible without a God. I also do not believe there is a God (certainly not a relevant one to this discussion: a deist God might as well not exist so I don't spend much time thinking about his preferences). So I believe objective morality is impossible. Of COURSE it's impossible. Objective morality is as pointless as "objective beauty." There is no such thing. Finding something "beautiful" is an opinion. You and I may both recognize that Jennifer Love Hewitt is more beautiful than, say, Kathy Griffin, but that does not make our assertion objectively true, no matter how much we may think it is. The fact that something is subjectively true does not make it any less true! And that's what religion fails to understand about the nature of morality. The fact that morality is subjective does not make it less binding or less true, especially when you BASE your morality on a value that other humans share. [The opposite is also true: The fact that masses of people subjectively think something is moral does not make it so, even if their holy book says it is]. For the atheist, morality is a system of value judgments, and value judgments are inherently subjective. For the humanist, the best moral system of value judgments confers the greatest good to the greatest number of people without causing any or much corresponding, avoidable harm. We would never sacrifice a virgin to a volcano to please a god and guarantee a bumper crop of corn or tobacco. For the theist, the idea that morality is objective and prescribed by a God absolves the individual of the responsibility of making the value judgment by which we decide something is moral. Homosexuality is wrong because God said so end of discussion and if you don't agree then you are immoral. Divorce is wrong because God said so end of discussion. Picking up sticks after sunset on Friday night is an offense worthy of death. I didn't write the book! I think theists are just as moral as atheists. But I think they are wrong to credit God with their morality. I think most people here are moral DESPITE scripture, not because of it. And YES, there are scriptures that cause one to aspire to be good. But would you still be good if He were not watching, with His ledger, keeping track, ready to reward you as surely as he's ready to punish those who defy Him? I submit that you would. Just as I submit you would dismiss scriptures that conflict with your personal morality. You would (and do) find some way to explain "well it was another time" and "that was necessary then because of their culture," ignoring the fact that He had no problem prohibiting inconsequential things like cheeseburgers. My wife is Catholic and we are raising our children Catholic. But my younger son knows I am not a believer and we talk often about doing right because it is right, regardless of who is watching, rewarding or punishing.