Good News: Global Warming is Good for Us!
Newsmax: Global Warming Means Less Hurricanes
Yes, my friends, another reason to promote the use of fossil fuels. And, these facts, backed by the National Hurricane Center, is still another reason to help out by taking a drive tonight for an ice cream with your sweetie! And go ahead, light up your tires like you used to do when you were young and frivolous! It will be for a good cause!
Look at the facts...make up your own mind; not someone else's. Give their mind back to them and use your own!
posted by Underground Logician @ 6:25 PM
53 comments
53 Comments:
Thanks for the link. Very interesting article. I would tend to agree with this article (especially since it came from NOAA) however, I am worried at how high the temps in the Gulf Coast have risen. Not sure why that is but it does concern me with family living in southern Louisiana.
Wow. I hope they're okay. That state has really taken a hit. I don't know if I could move back after that.
Why do you think the Lord left us such resources? For us to use! Of course!
Global warming is a fraud by the liberal science devil peaceniks that have some hemp agenda.
I saw someone at the Pro-War rally last weekend that hit it right on the head, "NUKE THEIR ASS AND TAKE THEIR GAS".
Let's take it, then burn it!
James sorry about your family. They should move out of that area. Until they clean up the casinos, drunken debaucery and stripper clubs you're the Lord will continue to send His hurricanes to that coast of ill repute.
Ferg:
Not with you on the hurricanes sent to punish evil. Perhaps it is in part, but there are a lot of good people that these storms affected. You are WAY too polemical and your statement is flakey.
If you are looking for a fight with unbelievers, by jove you will get one. If we should suffer, let it be for righteousness sake, not for comments like you have made.
It's time for us to start drilling in Alaska.
Yes, warm up the hot cocoa for those boys, cuz there's a lot of it up thar!!
Obviously, you didn't include all of the data that NOAA produces.
The results of global warming will not necessarily be a matter of the number of hurricanes, but rather the intensity of those storms. That is accepted by climatologists and it is alarming.
Go here and read more.
"The most recent and comprehensive study by Knutson and Tuleya, published in Journal of Climate in September 2004 (download paper), confirms the general conclusions of previous studies but makes them more robust by using future climate projections from nine different global climate models and four different versions of a new higher-resolution version of the GFDL hurricane model. According to this latest study, an 80 year build-up of atmospheric CO2 at 1%/yr (compounded) leads to roughly a one-half category increase in potential hurricane intensity on the Saffir-Simpson scale and an 18% increase in precipitation near the hurricane core. A 1%/yr CO2 increase is an idealized scenario of future climate forcing. As noted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is considerable uncertainty in projections of future radiative forcing of earth's climate.
An implication of these studies is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse-gas induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.'
I wouldn't jump in the car so quickly for that ice cream, UL.
And I would suggest you read the data a bit more carefully before you gleefully urge people to consume more greenhouse-gas producing energy.
Future generations would appreciate it, even if you and others think it's just fine and dandy to be fuel gluttons.
Blogger wouldn't take the link to the NOAA and MIT model. Here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/8aofy
UL said:
"Not with you on the hurricanes sent to punish evil. Perhaps it is in part, but there are a lot of good people that these storms affected. You are WAY too polemical and your statement is flakey.
What part of the death and destruction as a result of Katrina was sent to punish evil?
And if the hurricane "in part" was sent to punish evil, then please explain the tsunami that killed a quarter of a million people last year in Asia? What kind of evil warranted killing that many fetuses, babies, children, men and women?
I just want to hear how a person who believes killer storms are sent by some big guy in the sky to punish evil, in whole or in part, explains that kind of carnage by a just and loving god.
Thank you.
is this fergul guy for real?
Isabella:
Let's see...what kind of answer would satisfy you? You assert with your question that God would have no part in this killer storm. And if I said in He did in part, you want me to reconcile my view of a loving God with a God who sends killer storms. Am I tracking with you?
I'm thinking that since God's ways are not our puny ways, that there is more than one reason why He allows, or even sends these storms. No doubt as a just God, he would send it to punish evil. It is His world, we are His people, and an awful lot of human beings could give a damn about what God thinks. There are other things not so easy, like why do good people suffer. I'm sure that many good people suffered and some died in this storm. There is a mystery in life that somehow the perils and adversity in our lives makes us strong. Sometimes we are made weaker. It's mysterious, and I don't have the answers.
So, I didn't stutter when I said it was in part to punish evil. There are other reasons I will never know. To those that say these storms were only to punish evil, I think that is over the top.
Isabella, you'r a Catholic, you remember catechism. The stories of the Bible are filled with cataclysmic occurances that were meant to punish the wicked. Tell me, when did you stop believing in a just and loving God and why?
UL said:
I'm thinking that since God's ways are not our puny ways, that there is more than one reason why He allows, or even sends these storms.
I’ve heard that explanation all my life--that we can’t know God’s “ways” or “reasons” for allowing evil and misery. I reject it; and here’s why:
This god that supposedly created human beings must not think much of his creations if he keeps the mystery of evil from the very beings who suffer most from that evil.
If god had a good reason for allowing his creations (who I understand he loved so much that he sacrificed his own son to give them “eternal life.”) to suffer horrendous calamities, wouldn’t that same god at the very least give his creations some insight into why that had to be? Doesn’t the creator of human beings believe that his own creations have the intelligence and capacity to understand why he would allow evil and misery to kill the innocent among us? You’re a logician. Give me the logic behind that. And saying we cannot “know” his ways is not an explanation. That’s a cop out. But if you say it’s a matter of faith, then Christians or any religion can make excuses for the inexcusable, for it is, in my view, inexcusable for a loving and merciful god to kill innocents in calamites in order to make a point. That kind of god is a reflection of the hate and fear that is harbored in the hearts of the humans who made him up.
No doubt as a just God, he would send it to punish evil.
But in the process of punishing evil, this all-powerful god slaughters the innocents as well, he slaughters those who love and serve him. And often the worst of his creatures live full and unmolested lives. If god were so powerful, couldn’t he arrange to take out just the evil ones and leave the innocents to their lives? It doesn’t happen that way, though, does it. God has the power, and yet he kills with impunity. Plus, god has the power to punish evil doers AFTER death, so why does he do it before, at the expense of the innocent?
There are other things not so easy, like why do good people suffer. I'm sure that many good people suffered and some died in this storm. There is a mystery in life that somehow the perils and adversity in our lives makes us strong.
Some of those perils and adversities make us dead. And it’s difficult to see how death can be made into a learning experience.
Sometimes we are made weaker. It's mysterious, and I don't have the answers.
I’m just astonished that many people just “accept” this inconsistency and don’t find it to be wildly illogical.
.
Isabella, you'r a Catholic, you remember catechism. The stories of the Bible are filled with cataclysmic occurances that were meant to punish the wicked.
I found the stories offensive then as I do now. There is no logic to a god who loves his creations so much that he sent his son to die for them, and then this same god kills innocents while punishing the wicked. No sense. Only humans could think up that kind of craziness and then call it mystery.
Tell me, when did you stop believing in a just and loving God and why?
When I was 14 years old and read The Diary of Anne Frank. (I also played her in my high school senior play.) If there was a god, there would have been no godly reason to have allowed Anne and her family to suffer and die as they did. None.
For me there are no gods, only evil human beings who very often acquire the power to make many, many other human beings suffer and face unspeakably painful and untimely deaths.
The god that the major religions believe in (Christian, Jewish, Islam) is a god, in my opinion, based on man’s innate cruelty and hatefulness.
A just god, in my opinion, would not visit misery and cruelty on his/her innocent creations.
isabella,
i was thinking about what you wrote today. i guess what's different for me is that i accept the premise that god is just and loving. in the midst of trouble and suffering, i hold onto that premise.
job 13:15 says, "though he slay me, yet will i hope in him."
how is this logical? well, i believe life here on earth is only temporary. that means god still has a chance to even out the scales. how else could someone be christian when thousands of african children are doomed from the day they are born because of disease and poverty? why am i blessed by circumstance? surely not because i'm worthy.
no, i think the answer must be that there is more to this life. jesus said those who are first shall be last in his kingdom, and the last shall be first.
to me, the biblical world view is more just and fair than one without god.
ts
Isabella:
1. If we knew God's ways, then he wouldn't be God, he'd be another creature. Your "god" is too "small."
2. You assume that there is nothing more after death. How can you be so sure? Describe this "belief" of yours.
3. Since you see that we are the ones who suffer from the evil, we ought to have an explanation of what, where and why this evil comes. What make you sure we have a right to this information, if God exists?
4. You make God the author of evil since he allows it. You forget that we are free-will agents, with the freedom to experience the consequences of our free actions. Natural calamities to bring bad into people's lives; so does the evil actions of others. Are you willing for God to step in and start controling people, including you, from doing evil?
5. We are limited in our capacity to understand things. What makes you think we can understand the sublime? You assume too much in our ability to understand, and you assume God is holding out since we haven't received an explanation, if he exists.
6. You assume that the innocent have a right to long life, and if they do not, God is to blame. Where do you get this right to long life?
7. Some perils make us dead. A lot of perils injure us or the ones we love. You cannot deny that a virtuous response to calamities or evil does make us stronger. Look around you; you'll find examples too numerous to count.
8. Explain the logic of your premise that the existence of evil precludes the existance of God. Mine is that God exists and has given us free will which allows us to choose evil. Evil is not a substance like God is a substance. Evil is a privation, a corruption of that which is good. Therefore, God can exist and the privation of good, or evil, can exist as well.
9. If there is a God, he has some explaining to do, right? How so? And if he answers all your questions to your satisfaction, what will you do with Him then? Cuss Him out? Or, will you give yourself over to Him in complete trust, devotion and obedience? Would you hold a grudge against Him?
10. If you took time to study the Catholic faith you would quickly learn that no human being could ever come up with a concept of redemption in Jesus Christ. None. When Christianity is lived out correctly, you have people with a character that is out of this world.
You, dear Isabella, have opted for a way of life that is a life of faith; one which you could never logically prove either. And I must say, your faith is a miserable one, it is faith in unproven assumptions.
What baffles me is that you are such an intelligent person; why do you opt for this? Your prejudices are blinding you from thinking clearly about the zany assumptions YOU make. You have admitted in another post that you grew up Catholic. If you did, your catechesis is non-existent. Whoever was in charge of your catechesis has a lot of explaining to do.
I'm pretty sure you didn't learn the Catholic faith...only a shallow version of it mixed with pagan ideas of God's nature. It is an enormous problem in the Catholic Church. And, since you weren't equipped to understand the difficulties of life, your mal-formed faith let you down; you rejected this false FORM of Catholicism, which has guided your thinking up to this day. You never got the real stuff!
Do you have the guts to follow through and search this out? I think you do. The question is do you have the will to do this and face what may happen if you discover that you are wrong? That will take real courage.
Or you can take the easy way out and maintain your unreflected religious opinion and condemn mine. That takes no courage at all, no matter how strong the rhetoric.
UL. you gotta upgrade your news sources. Isabella is exactly right, while the number of hurricanes and cyclones have remained roughly the same, their severity has grown in direct proportion to the warming of the oceans.
Wow! UL, you’ve given me a lot to answer. I’ll set out my rebuttal in two parts.
UL said
1. If we knew God's ways, then he wouldn't be God, he'd be another creature. Your "god" is too "small."
This answer, of course, is akin to the “we can’t know God’s ways,”
Can you explain why, if we knew God’s ways, God wouldn’t be God?
Isn’t God supposed to be immutable? How could understanding God change him in any way? Your explanation says that if we understood how God operates, he would stop being God. That is illogical. If God is immutable then god would be God whether we understood his ways or not.
I believe it is a human construct to make the god “mysterious.” In doing so one can dismiss a god’s bad behavior and cruelty toward its innocent creatures; or, as this explanation does, stop the discussion altogether, because by your reasoning, if the investigation into God’s ways continues, POOF! God wouldn’t be God anymore. That’s magic, not logic.
If creatures understood their god’s “ways,” wouldn’t they better understand their god? Isn’t a better understanding of a god a way to also serve it better, obey it better?
Don’t’ parents explain to their children why it is better to behave in certain ways rather than others. And when a parent punishes a child for bad behavior, a good parent explains why the child is being punished. Why do people who believe in god expect less from their “heavenly father” than they do from their earthly father?
The explanation you gave above doesn’t make a god “bigger” it makes a god mysterious and unknowable, and able to get away with a lot of illogical, nasty shenanigans.
I remember learning in Father Baltimore’s catechism that we were put on this earth to know love and serve god in this world and to be happy with him in the next. To know God.
You assume that there is nothing more after death. How can you be so sure? Describe this "belief" of yours.
I’m sure that there is nothing more after death because there is no evidence to prove otherwise.
None.
I look at every living creature in the natural world, and I see that each creature has life and then it dies, and if it is successful in mating, it leaves progeny in whom its DNA continues on. That’s it. Everything dies.
No one has come back from the dead (other than in Hollywood movies and in unverifiable Bible stories).
Since you see that we are the ones who suffer from the evil, we ought to have an explanation of what, where and why this evil comes. What make you sure we have a right to this information, if God exists?
Since we directly suffer from natural disasters, why wouldn’t we have the “right” to understand why a godlike creature would cause such disasters to kill innocent men, women and children?
If I believed in a god who regularly visited disasters on his creations to punish the wicked [killing the innocent along with the wicked], I most surely should have a right to know what kind of god would behave in such an ungodly-like way and for what reason?
Why do people who believe in a god also believe they are not worthy of knowing why that god would torment them?
There is no logic to the explanation that we don’t have the “right” to know. When there is no explanation for god’s cruelty, believers default to the explanation that says we can’t know god’s reasons or ways or plans, which is no explanation at all. There is no way to reconcile a loving, merciful, all powerful god with a god that allows natural disasters and disease to kill his innocent creatures.
You make God the author of evil since he allows it. You forget that we are free-will agents, with the freedom to experience the consequences of our free actions. Natural calamities to bring bad into people's lives; so does the evil actions of others. Are you willing for God to step in and start controling people, including you, from doing evil?
Excuse me? I don’t make God the author of evil, the Bible does:
“And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. And there shall be a great cry throughout the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.”--Exodus
“And it came to pass exactly as the Lord predicted, or warned: “At midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the Land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon: and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.“—Exodus
It would be a great improvement on the human race, I’m sure everyone would agree, if the evil that men do were eradicated. If some supernatural being had the power to eradicate the evil in men’s hearts, that would be a good thing. Take away the free will to do evil? Why not? But, since I don’t believe in god, the proposition is moot.
I’m not sure how “free” this free will stuff is that people discuss in relation to a belief in god. Wasn’t Abraham set to sacrifice his son to prove he loved god when god sent an angel to stop him? What about Abraham’s free will to carry out god’s wish to have him kill his son? The bible says god sent an angel to stop the murder. Is God arbitrary about when he interferes with a person’s free will and when he won’t? Of course, the whole story is nonsense. How could a perfect being, god, ask his creature to commit murder just to “test” Abraham? How can people believe stuff like this?
We are limited in our capacity to understand things. What makes you think we can understand the sublime? You assume too much in our ability to understand, and you assume God is holding out since we haven't received an explanation, if he exists.
How can we understand the sublime?
I’d say science and the arts have done a pretty magnificent job of allowing us to understand the sublime.
Crick and Watson, Albert Einstein, Duke Ellington, Charles Darwin, Billy Holiday, Michelangelo Buonarotti, Leonardo da Vinci, Emily Dickinson, Toni Morrison, W.B. Yeats, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart all contributed to human understanding of the sublime. And every one of those people mentioned gave us the sublime in concrete ways, no magic, no ephemera. It is all real.
I disagree with your idea that we do not have the ability to understand. That’s what people say when confronted with illogical behavior by supernatural beings. And faith in that kind of unquantifiable phenomena is not justifiable or sensible, in my opinion.
I will continue to answer your other points at a later date. Until next time.
Isabella
Isabella:
I will comment, but it's going to take some time. I'm in the heat of battle to finish two major mid-term papers. I glanced at your arguments and appreciate you getting back to me.
I'm thinking about your premise that God wouldn't change if we knew him. I'm confused about that one. Two, I'm confused about your claims of free will per Abraham and Isaac. Third, I'm not sure where to begin regarding God the author of evil in the slaying of the first born in Egypt.
I will get back to you.
Sam
UL--
Interesting debate you have going here. If I might step in for one second with an observation? You might want to go back through Isabella's comments and count how many times she uses the word "innocent'. After that, decide how you can continue in debate about God when the opposition holds fast to the assumption that creation is innocent.
If one cannot admit or come to the reasonable conclusion that we are enemies of God through sin without repentance in a fallen state, than how can this debate EVER reach a logical conclusion?
I see your point, but to introduce the term "sin" implies the existence of God, since sin is missing the mark or disobeying God's commands; thus we would be begging the question. You can't take the conclusion (God exists)which you are trying to prove and make it the major premise of your argument. You argue in circles and essentially prove nothing.
However, as Christians, we hold that there is sin, but stating the existence of evil fits in the argument better, and may or may not imply the existence of God. Isabella's complaint is the classic complaint against the existence of God. If God is all powerful, and loving, how come the innocent suffer? So it's more a question of how can the presence of evil and the presence of God co-exist? Many think it is impossible, therefore the presence of evil precludes the existence of God. But, there are assumptions, or hidden major premises that sneak past the analysis, except here at the Underground Logician.
I don't fault her for thinking this way, but what she and I ought to consider is the presuppositions of the argument she is pressing. And if she reads this comment, she will learn where I am heading. I don't mind. The quest for truth should be open to all.
It's one thing to make an assertion that Christians like Fergul Menhaden who make blanket statements that God uses nature to punish sin as ludicrous. But, to do so in a logical argument forces one to ground the argument. Fergul may be right, or it may be much more complex situation, which is where I land.
Sometimes people who love to use rhetoric to pursuade get frustrated when logic is applied to the discussion. They want to change people's minds but without the hard work of thinking. I don't think Isabella is this way at all, nor is she an malicious rhetorician; she believes things very passionately.
Therefore, if Isabella creates an ethymeme by making the statement that God is the cause of evil in the death of the firstborn in Egypt; her major premise needs to be identified and shown to be true, if her conclusion is to be true. However it falls, logic must prevail. And an honest enquirer into the truth accepts this.
And I see your point. I just don't see how you can convince anyone of the nature of God without first identifying sin/evil and who is responsible for it. "Innocent" isn't a term Christians throw around very often.
Well the presence of evil and good is a great starting point, because there is more to the universe than an amoral want/don't want, like/dislike, etc. And, if we live in a moral universe which runs on laws, it implies a lawgiver. Once you bridge that, then you can get into sin. But to the agnostic, sin is a meaningless word for by its definition you must have a God.
UL,
Here are my answers to the second half of your numbered statements:
6. You assume that the innocent have a right to long life, and if they do not, God is to blame. Where do you get this right to long life?
I don’t remember stating the above. I believe the only thing I observed is that God tends to kill an awful lot of his innocent creations. And, Sadie Lou notwithstanding, I believe children, especially very young children, are most certainly innocent. She has stated that “innocent” is a term Christians don’t use very often. Why?
You ask where I get this idea that people have a right to long life? Well, first off, I’ve not stated that anywhere either, but why wouldn’t I think that we humans should expect a long life. If we can live healthy, productive lives, avoid accidents and manage to inherit good DNA, why not?
7. Some perils make us dead. A lot of perils injure us or the ones we love. You cannot deny that a virtuous response to calamities or evil does make us stronger. Look around you; you'll find examples too numerous to count.
You may want to ask the 12-year old Iraqi boy whose entire family, during the American invasion of Iraq, was killed and who had his arms and legs blown off, how those calamities have made him stronger.
8. Explain the logic of your premise that the existence of evil precludes the existance of God. Mine is that God exists and has given us free will which allows us to choose evil. Evil is not a substance like God is a substance. Evil is a privation, a corruption of that which is good. Therefore, God can exist and the privation of good, or evil, can exist as well.
Again you’re putting words in my mouth. I haven’t said that. My argument all along has been how can a loving, merciful God slaughter his innocent creations? I ask this not because I believe a god does this, because I don’t. I don’t believe in gods. I ask this of someone who does believe in god. How does he/she reconcile this.
Good and evil is simply this: people have it within their power to choose between being nice or being rotten. Period. I don’t believe a little red devil influences their choices, nor a golden haloed god. This dualism comes from within, always has, always will. Our closest relatives, the great apes, have a moral code within their societies. They decide what is acceptable behavior and what behaviors are not. And they shun those apes who break their ape rules. Interesting, isn’t it?
9. If there is a God, he has some explaining to do, right? How so? And if he answers all your questions to your satisfaction, what will you do with Him then? Cuss Him out? Or, will you give yourself over to Him in complete trust, devotion and obedience? Would you hold a grudge against Him?
Because I have no belief in a god, there is no “if” for me. I simply cannot imagine believing in a supernatural being such as the one described in the old and new testament. So I’d expect no explanation from something that cannot explain anything. How can one give oneself over to trust, devotion, and obedience to a supernatural being? Why shouldn’t one trust oneself to behave in a decent, humane way?
Actually virtuous agnostics are quite admirable. They behave decently because it is the right thing to do and it makes interaction in human affairs easier and more pleasant.
Agnostics behave this way because they want to, not because some god promises to send them to hell if they don’t. I don’t “give” myself over to a higher power. I take responsibility for myself and my behavior.
You, dear Isabella, have opted for a way of life that is a life of faith; one which you could never logically prove either. And I must say, your faith is a miserable one, it is faith in unproven assumptions.
The dictionary defines faith as such:
(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion; firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(3) : complete trust
something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
That you assert I have a “faith” defies logic. I do not believe in a supernatural being, nor do I follow a religion, nor do I believe in something for which there is no proof. And this “miserable faith” you say I have is probably your angry reaction to my not needing to believe as you do. I have faced some very, very difficult ordeals in my life and have survived and am a whole person. I’m not unique. I know many, many people who manage to live their lives without religion and who do a very good job of it. I am not fearful, I like my life, and I find wonder and joy and peace and contentment and try to do my best toward my family, friends and strangers.
I believe in Original Virtue, not Original Sin.
Isabella:
Original virtue? How utopian of you!
By the way, you do have faith!
You might not like it that I say it, and may even suggest that I'm mad (which is ludicrous, I write to you like a caring brother who sees his sister getting into trouble). You have no proof against the existance of God. You just assert the tradition of secular materialism that has been faithfully planted into your psyche by the ministers of science and technology (I was going to say soul). You make assertions; you have a credo. You make faith statements based on the faith that the scientific method is the means to all knowledge. In order for your statement, a universal negative, to be true, you must have absolute knowledge of all things. And, I don't picture you with the insane notion that you have this absolute knowledge. So you are asserting that which you could never prove, which is the nature of faith.
This is the nature of my faith in God. It is a belief in something that I could never prove outright. So, you have your faith, and I have mine. I'll go with mine. And if I go through life blinded by my "idiocy," and I end up dead in eternal sleep, then my life will have still been a happy one.
Isabella, I dare you to read "Pascal's Wager."
UL,
I know Pascal's Wager. But why should I be a hypocrite?
Why should I take his wager and believe in something "just in case?"
I firmly, utterly, and happily believe we are here, live our lives, and then are gone. Forever.
We are ephemera in astrological terms.
And some day we'll all be part of a red giant.
WooHoo!
And since matter cannot be created nor destroyed, my atoms (or strings) will be part of the universe forever. That's the sort of "eternal" life, if you want to call it that, that I believe in.
That's where you and I part ways. Yes, I look at my 2 month old son and he has done nothing to equate himself with a sinner. He has a clean slate. However, he was born into sin; a fallen state. Through the curse of pain in childbirth--we have blessings. He is a blessing. It is mine and my husband's job to raise him up to know the Lord so that he might have a relationship with him. The Lord knows our hearts, so I'm certain if something were to happen to him--he'd go home to be with the Lord. However, this state of not knowing right from wrong doesn't last long, does it?
Well, Isabella, you are some rockin' gamblin' chick! I bet you could blow a huge WAD at a cassino and not blink, eh?
As to Pascal's Wager and hypocrisy, why bother with morals? Because we religious twits might get offended? You can't go around in life trying to make us happy. We're a hard lot to please. It's nothing but moral imagination and has nothing to do with whether your strings are going to be scattered throughout the universe or not. You'll get another chance in another life form, so drop the hypocrisy concern. That's only for us religious to worry about.
Kinda makes you wonder whose strings are interwoven into your ephemeral reality...Cleopatra? Mata Hari? Queen Vashti of Persia? Who knows, maybe we have dinosaur strings in us.
However, he was born into sin;--Sadie Lou
Sadie Lou, my friend, I'll never, never, never, never believe that we are born into sin. Never.
That's your choice to believe. Not mine.
Why would anyone choose to believe that? I believe in Original Virtue.
Why wouldn't you believe that your wonerful son was born into glory and beauty?
Sin? A baby born into sin? Wow! So dark and black and defeatist.
You're welcome to that depression inducing psychology. Not me.
To me, all babies are born into wonder, beauty and expectations.
Screw original sin! That's for fearful people who are afraid of life!
UL,
Give me evidence to show that agnostics can't be moral.
Huh?
Isabella:
Agnostics can be moral. You have missed my point. The question I put to you with your aphemeral astrological worldview is why? To what end be moral? If we are just strings of matter, then why do we need morality at all?
You're only pleasing the religious people around you, girl. If all we are is strings, we Christians aren't worth the fuss, especially when life is so short. You got some serious ancestral strings of your own to take care of.
Are you and I on track? Are we clickin' now?
Isabella--
I can believe in being born into sin and still have the same reaction to his
"glory and beauty"
It's not like he comes into the world in the hospital and me and all my Christian friends and family go, "Aw. Another one bites the dust. It's so sad and dark and gloomy. Let's slit our throats when we leave."
We have joy, just like you do. We have hope for his future, just like you do.
Let me ask you this:
The mother of a future serial killer is given the knowledge of her son's crimes as soon as he is born. I think that would change the way she saw her brand new baby and change the way she brings up in the world.
This is like original sin on a smaller scale. I see my son's future sins (although he appears clean now). I don't know what they are gonna be but he's going to sin. My two year old niece is already manipulating, lying, hurting other kids, and disobeying her parents. She is also loving, nurturing to her new cousin (my baby), and gentle-natured.
She knows right from wrong. She chooses do wrong. What do you call that? Wait, I know the answer--she's just exploring her little world, right?
Okay.
She also has Christian parents that are disiplining her. They not only explain to her what she can and can't do and that her actions have consequences in this world, but they are also telling her about repentance and that there are consequences in the eternal as well. She has a greater authority; one bigger than her parents. It is awesome to watch her little mind process this information. To watch her desire to do good by saying no to sin. To listen to her little appeals to God when she prays before bed. She has hope.
I think it's even more glorious than telling little children to get it right now, because this is all there is. Explore right and wrong because you'll never have another opportunity. Indulge our children. Let them do whatever they want if they are not hurting anyone.
This is the mentality that breeds self centeredness.
UL said:
Agnostics can be moral. You have missed my point. The question I put to you with your aphemeral astrological worldview is why? To what end be moral? If we are just strings of matter, then why do we need morality at all?
To what end be moral? To the end that it makes living here on earth more pleasant. It is a good idea not to steal that which is not yours, not to murder, not to lie. In other words, these ideas of moral behavior exist in every human society, primitive and advanced, and in non-religious people.
Since I believe this is all there is, that there is no afterlife, I think it is very, very important to be good to each other and do as little damage as possible while we're here on earth. I don't need the promise of eternal punishment to make me behave in a decent way toward myself, my family, my friends, and strangers. It makes sense for people in a society to be decent to each other.
That's my answer to your question.
The fact that we are made up of atoms which may in turn be made up of vibrating strings doesn't change the fact that on a human scale, I and my neighbor look quite solid and quite human. I interact on a human level with my neighbor, not on a string theory level.
I can hold two thoughts at once about my existence: That I am astrological ephemera and that I matter to myself and to all others whom I interact with here on earth.
This isn't rocket science. ;)
Sadie Lou
My two year old niece is already manipulating, lying, hurting other kids, and disobeying her parents. She is also loving, nurturing to her new cousin (my baby), and gentle-natured.
She knows right from wrong. She chooses do wrong. What do you call that? Wait, I know the answer--she's just exploring her little world, right?
As a matter of fact, Sadie, your little niece is exploring her little world. At 2 years, she doesn't know right from wrong. She's testing her limits and her parents will have to teach her acceptable behavior.
She doesn't know it is impolite to bite, but she bites until her parents teach her that that is not acceptable behavior. She doesn't know that it's impolite to not share her toys with other little 2 year olds, but eventually, she'll come to understand that sharing a toy is not the same as giving it away, and she'll happily share with her playmates when she learns the concept.
Her brain is still developing. Some concepts will not be learned until her brain matures and allows her to accept these concept.
A two year old does not know right from wrong.
Don't take that from me, take it from my niece who has a master's degree in child development.
I can hold two thoughts at once about my existence: That I am astrological ephemera and that I matter to myself and to all others whom I interact with here on earth.
Grrrrrr. Rotten grammar! Sorry.
"...I matter to myself and to all others with whom I interact here on earth."
I may have not made myself clear. She is choosing to do these things after she has learned it's consequences. You can see it in her face. In the church nursery, she hits a child or takes their toy away and then she watches their reaction. She is already aware that this behavior suffers consequences. She does it to spite the discipline her parents have given her. The sin of hitting or scratching is worth the consequence. This is sin. It is choosing to do wrong for the satisfaction of doing the wrong. This is true for adults too. Adultry is wrong. However, the elation and appeal of cheating on your spouse is worth the consequence for some people. That is sinful.
While some cheaters go behind their spouses back and never get caught--there are punishments and consequences that go beyond this life. God is watching. Nobody sins in a box.
According to your standard of living, what is motivating me to not do whatever the heck I feel like doing?
Why can't I be as naughty as I want? You say we should be decent to each other. Well what if I'm a sociopath and I have no desire to be decent? What if I'm sick and all I want to do is hurt people and make them as miserable as me?
I can escape the law all day long. I may never get punished for my actions--in your world, Isabella, I can do what I want. If I'm Hitler or Stalin or Jeffery Dahmer--I can live out my wildest fantasies and why shouldn't I? This is all there is, so live it up baby.
Sadie Lou said:
According to your standard of living, what is motivating me to not do whatever the heck I feel like doing?
Why can't I be as naughty as I want? You say we should be decent to each other. Well what if I'm a sociopath and I have no desire to be decent? What if I'm sick and all I want to do is hurt people and make them as miserable as me?
I can escape the law all day long. I may never get punished for my actions--in your world, Isabella, I can do what I want. If I'm Hitler or Stalin or Jeffery Dahmer--I can live out my wildest fantasies and why shouldn't I? This is all there is, so live it up baby.
Sadie, you are aware that some of the greatest criminals in world history were god-fearing men, aren't you.
I have no idea what you point is.
As far as I'm concerned (and many, many other nonbelievers, this IS all there is. But we don't go out and commit atrocities because we don't fear the retribution of a god in the afterlife.
However, lots and lots of religious people, having been taught that this is NOT all there is, have lived despicable lives and commited atrocities.
What is your point?
And I totally reject your assumption that when a 2 year old hits or scratches another 2 year old she is commiting a sin.
Two year olds are incapable of sin.
What kind of religion makes 2-year olds sinners???
More reason for nonbelievers to be happy in their chosen paths.
Whew.
Isabella:
I have no doubt that you have good reasons to live morally. That says quite a bit about you personally. And it's good!
As to your argument, a pure materialist typically chooses to act in a manner that is pleasurable, because that is really all that's worth living for. However, that is not the nature of morality. As long as someone does a moral act for pleasure, it is not done because it is good. When the pleasure and fulfillment leaves, then does the materialist continue to do what is moral? They have no reason to. Pleasure is the guiding principle, not goodness.
What about being good when it is not pleasurable to do so? Say, doing good to those who do evil to you? Or doing a moral act when you know it will not be fulfilling?
Morality based on pleasure may look like morality, but it is just another form of hedonism; a very civil form of hedonism, but hedonism all the same.
UL said:
As to your argument, a pure materialist typically chooses to act in a manner that is pleasurable, because that is really all that's worth living for. However, that is not the nature of morality. As long as someone does a moral act for pleasure, it is not done because it is good.
That may be true, but the end result of an act performed by someone(whether selflessly or selfishly) is the same, the object of the moral act is enhanced and made better. So who cares what the motivation is?
I know plenty of pure religious people who act out of self interest only. For example, bishops and cardinals who moved molesting priests around without notifying their parishes that the priests where a danger to children. The self-interest was to protect the reputation of the Catholic Church. The Church was, for a time, spared the scandal, but the children suffered unspeakable harm.
When the pleasure and fulfillment leaves, then does the materialist continue to do what is moral?
You nor anyone else, has any way of anwering this. How can you know what motivates someone to perform a generous or moral act?
The speculation that a hedonist/materialst/agnostic acts just on the pleasure principle, is, I believe, a construct to make so-called "moralists" feel superior to those who act righteously without believing in god. No one knows what goes on in an individual's mind, or what the motivating factor is.
My opinion is that people who are suspect of what drives a non-beliver to perform moral acts are pissed that these people can act selflessly in any way ever and for non-pleasurable motives. Since those people believe that only religonists have a motivation (eternal life, redemption) to get them to act morally, they assume there is NO other reason to, except for pleasure.
They have no reason to. Pleasure is the guiding principle, not goodness.
That is a shockingly cynical statement. And ungenerous. And devisive. Not to mention the fact that it is totally unprovable.
What about being good when it is not pleasurable to do so?
You mean like walking the floor and comforting a baby who has an earache at 3 in the morning and doing so until you can get to a doctor the next day? You mean like cleaning up after a senile member of your family placed a pan of urine on your stove and tried to "cook" it? You mean like taking your elderly neighbor to the emergency room of the hospital at midnight and staying with her because her family couldn't be there because they had "other things" to do? None of those things are particularly "pleasurable" but many, many people do those things. Religious and nonreligious.
Morality based on pleasure may look like morality, but it is just another form of hedonism; a very civil form of hedonism, but hedonism all the same.
And allowing priests to molest and prey upon children is a reprehensible, evil act of hedonism, but still the Church manages to present itself as a "moral" leader.
"...that the priests where a danger to children."
Ugh! Mistake!
"...that the priests WERE a danger to children."
Oh, and UL,
Isn't it an act of self-interest to perform a morally good deed so that one can get into heaven? Or one can be redeemed? Afterall, many people who are religionists do unpleasant things because god commands them to, and god will shut them out of eternal life if they don't do his will.
That surely is self-interest, too.
Yes, it is self-interest.
You are changing the argument. I never denied self-interest, Isabella. I denied that pleasure is the motive for doing a moral act. There are times when it feels good to do good, but that isn't always the case, and, it is not why we are moral. To a materialist, if you remove the pleasure, you remove the motivation; hence, there is no action.
If you want to make a case that Christians are just as selfish because they want to go to heaven, well, do it. I'd like to see it. But before you do, do you concede to me that for a materialist, doing a moral act for the sake of being moral is meaningless, since there is no God? Do you concede?
Moral is doing that which is just, obligatory, lawful, since there is a creator who has implemented these moral principles for us to follow. You could also say that God has self-interest, in that he doesn't share his glory with another (no one is worthy of it) and he does things for His glory (but when he does, he truly deserves the glory he receives). However, it is INFINITELY beyond the typical human self-interest.
So, first concede to me that my argument is valid and my conclusion true, and second, make your argument about the selfishness of Christians wanting to go to heaven. Is that a bad thing, or a good thing, or is it just a thing that they do and therefore they can't judge people like yourself?
Isabella,
Thanks for engaging in this conversation with me. It's been good. I just can't see the point in continuing it with you because you have introduced some foreign concept of sin into the discussion, that I can't compete with.
If we can't even agree on the basic definition of sin, then we can't move forward.
Anyone who has children knows they sin. It's not like one day, when they turn thirteen, they are suddenly capable of sin.
It starts early.
A two year old is probably a healthier sinner because they are so out in the open about it. It's not until much later that sin becomes something we work very hard to conceal so we aren't accountable to deal with it.
I'm sorry I wasn't able to address any of these issues further with you, I just don't know how given the current definitions we have going here.
:)
~Sadie
Yes, Sadie Lou, I agree with you.
I reject the idea that a child is capable of sinning.
From what I understand, to sin, one must deliberately and knowingly break a religious law, or god's commandments.
How can a child, a two year old, who has no knowledge of such laws or commandments, even if they were explained to her, have the intellectual capacity to understand the idea of obeying or disobeying god's law, how can they be capable of sinning?
They misbehave. Period.
I reject any religion that turns a child's simple misbehavior into something as insidious as sin.
That gives certain parents, who know no better, an excuse to administer corporal punishment to the child with the excuse that the parent is saving the child from breaking god's laws. It gives some parents an excuse to abuse their children in order to save them from their sins.
Do you truly believe that when a 2-year old says "No!" that that's a sin?
That when a 2-year-old pinches or bites a sibling or playmate, that that's a sin?
That when a 2-year old takes a toy from another child or sibling and brings it to her room and keeps it there that that's a sin?
What on earth does a 2-year old do that constitutes sin???
I'm aghast at this whole concept and am shocked that people actually believe that a baby can sin.
If you doubt me, why don't you ask your pediatrician or better still someone who actually has studied child development and actually knows what she's talking about, whether a 2-year old baby sins.
UL said:
But before you do, do you concede to me that for a materialist, doing a moral act for the sake of being moral is meaningless,
Why would a materialist performing a moral act because it is the moral thing to do be meaningless? I think your statement implies that a materialist cannot be moral and, therefore, it is impossible for him/her to perform a moral act without an ulterior motive.
I disagree with that. God is not the only motivating cause of morality.
Moral is doing that which is just, obligatory, lawful, since there is a creator who has implemented these moral principles for us to follow.
This is a belief--an assumption taken on faith. You have no evidence to prove that a god has implemented these "moral principles."
I have stated before that primates have certain "rules of behavior" that are permitted or not permitted in their society, and when these accepted norms of behavior are followed, it makes their lives pleasant. Do you think gods hand down moral obligations to apes?
You could also say that God has self-interest, in that he doesn't share his glory with another (no one is worthy of it) and he does things for His glory (but when he does, he truly deserves the glory he receives).
You loose me here, UL, I simply don't believe in a supernatural entity that demands or deserves to be glorified by his creations. In fact, I find it laughable and pathetic.
Only a human mind could make up a god that is so insecure that it needs to have its creations continually "glorify" him.
Zeus needed to be "glorified" too, and if his subjects failed him, he punished them, too.
So, first concede to me that my argument is valid and my conclusion true, and second, make your argument about the selfishness of Christians wanting to go to heaven.
How can I concede that which is based on faith? You accept all of what you have said on faith.
There is no evidence that a god needs to be glorified. None.
There is absolutely nothing in the natural sciences that concedes or accepts that a god needs to be "glorified.
All of this is in the realm of belief and faith, and has to be accepted without evidence.
That's fine if it is what you need to get you through life and to accept all the mysteries and unanswerable incongruities that happen in the course of one's lifetime.
You have your faith to explain, I have science.
I believe people are born with Original Virtue, your religion believes in Original Sin.
Your faith and belief will nurture and enrich you life. That's a good thing.
Just don't assume that we who do not believe as you are amoral materialists incapable of experiencing love, joy, beauty and mystery in our lives.
loose should be lose,
plus for all the other obvious grammatical and punctuation mistakes, I am deeply sorry.
How can a child, a two year old, who has no knowledge of such laws or commandments, even if they were explained to her, have the intellectual capacity to understand the idea of obeying or disobeying god's law, how can they be capable of sinning?
This is not as complicated as you are making it sound. This is not an excuse for parents to beat their children. That's so degrading to Christians. Yes, I'm sure some Christian parents abuse their children. Whatever. Some agnostic or atheist parents abuse their children--let's call that what it is: abuse.
Isabella, you really ought to be introspective here and realize that you generalize and judge people based on their beliefs. If I told you that I spank my children--you'll automatically assume that I abuse them and that I'm a bad parent.
Bad form.
If you came to visit my home, you'd see that when my children disobey me or my husband, we tell them to go in their room. When we are calm and not angry (because children CAN make you angry)we go in their room and explain to them why they are getting a spanking.
"No Natalie, it is not okay to take Ryan's baseball cards and put them in the toilet because you were mad at him."
Natalie might say, "why?"
I would say," Because God asks us to treat one another as we would want to be treated. Also, because you know that you should have come to mom or dad if your brother was doing something to make you angry."
Then she gets a spank. I don't beat her.
Then I kiss her, hug her and tell her I love her. She almost always will go to her brother and apologize without me asking her to.
I don't know why I feel I need to explain this to you. Perhaps as a voice for all the parents out there that spank out of love and obligation to their children. I have seen the products of "time out". They are rebellious and have little understanding of consequence.
Most of the time. Not always.
But, Sadie Lou, you haven't answered my question. How can 2-year old babies sin?
(And I don't believe you abuse your children.)
Well, this is what I mean by a different definition and understanding of sin. I come from a biblical perspective; you come from a psychological perspective.
Biblically, we have inherited sin. Adam is our father as he was the first man God created; everyone has descended from Adam. When Adam and Eve sinned, the world fell from God's grace.
Everyone who passes through a womb is a sinner. All save Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit came upon Mary (a virgin) and gave her a baby in her womb. This is how Jesus was born pure and sinless; he didn't have an earthly father to inherit sin from--he has a heavenly father.
You might say that sounds a little too fantastic to be true--more like a fairytale vs. truth. There are many miracles. I see them today. What one might recognize as a medical miracle of science--I see as God.
What one might consider coinsidence; i see God.
Anyhoodles,
About how a 2 year old is a sinner--
Since we are all born to sin, we act out our fleshly desires instead of being able to hold captive every "wrong" thought.
This includes toddlers.
You might wonder what I think happens to a toddler that dies--since they are sinners, do they go to hell?
I say that only the Lord knows the hearts of men and I trust that he knows what he's doing in the case of infants and young children.
In my church, we do not baptize little children. We believe that is a choice to be made when you are able to understand the full commitment involved. We, as parents, dedicate our children to the Lord. We make a promise in front of witnesses, to raise the child up in the Lord--what that child decides to do when they are old enough to understand, is up to them. We are judged individually, not as a group.
I hope this clears some things up.
By the way--
A two year old has a concept of right and wrong. I don't care what modern science has to say about it--I've seen 2 year olds in practice--not theory.
Sadie Lou said:
A two year old has a concept of right and wrong. I don't care what modern science has to say about it--I've seen 2 year olds in practice--not theory.
I'm sorry to read that.
I imagine you don't care what science says in a lot of things.
It is your choice to believe in supernatural explanations instead of real, concrete science, based on evidence.
Good luck.
But I'm sorry to say your side always loses in this type of competition.
Just ask Galileo and Darwin.
It never ceases to amaze me how people, when faced with the truth of the gospel and the weight of sin, will always resort to insult and malice. Jesus showed us this knee jerk reaction--didn't he? I shouldn't be so surprised.
Isabella,
You are very ugly when you address me. I haven't been insulting to you until now. I feel very much "dressed down" when you speak to me.
My side always loses?
Then why is it most people make conversion when they are on their death bed?
They put up a fight and make fists at God their whole lives until they are suddenly faced with their eternal position.
Make your concrete descions in your mind now, Isabella...
...just don't be so willing not to compromise when you need that supernatural explanation. Science can't save your soul.
And to say my side always loses to the likes of Darwin and Galileo is laughable--yeah, Darwin was NEVER wrong??? Please. It sounds like you put your faith and stock in faliable men that would admit to making mistakes--pretty shaky if you ask me.
Good luck.
Sadie Lou,
You're misreading me. I have no wish to insult you.
I am simply stating that science always wins in competitions against ignorance.
That's not malice, I'm simply stating the truth. Galileo told the dominant Christians of his time that the earth revolved around the sun and not as the Bible stated--that the earth was the center of the universe. The Christians of that time placed him under arrest and threatened him with torture if he did not recant what he saw with his own eyes.
He did recant, because of the threats to his person, but he knew the truth would prevail, and it did.
The earth moves around the sun.
I will not argue with you over Darwin. Evolution is established science. Period. There is no argument, only ignorance, based on misinformation.
To say that "everyone" makes conversion on their death beds is a bit presumptuous, isn't it? You don't know that, and neither do I. You may have heard of some people who do that, but everyone?
And science has saved my life.
I am not a believer, so I don't believe in a "soul" except as an idea of, perhaps a person's anima.
When I said your side (meaning religionists) lose, I spoke about Galileo and Darwin. And both of these giants in science have been conclusively proved correct.
I'm sorry you don't like to hear me say that, but it is so. There is nothing credible that discredits what Darwin postulated.
What Sadie said...Then why is it most people make conversion when they are on their death bed?
What Isabella said...To say that "everyone" makes conversion on their death beds is a bit presumptuous, isn't it? You don't know that, and neither do I. You may have heard of some people who do that, but everyone?
This right here just goes to show you how you distort truth to suit your judgments and prejudices.
I have a roundabout response to this debate on today's blog post. Frankly, I've had enough of your gross analysis of Christians and their "ignorance".
Thank you.
Isabella says: "Just don't assume that we who do not believe as you are amoral materialists incapable of experiencing love, joy, beauty and mystery in our lives."
Oh OKAY, Isabella. Sure set me straight on that one, huh? Gee, materialists act human just like religionists do? I never knew that. I must have been a total dunce until Isabella came by to set me straight. Now I'm enlightened.
I've had enough pseudo-intellectual tripe for one night. I'm taking a Rolaids and going to bed.
UL said:
Oh OKAY, Isabella. Sure set me straight on that one, huh? Gee, materialists act human just like religionists do? I never knew that. I must have been a total dunce until Isabella came by to set me straight. Now I'm enlightened.
UL also said:
As to your argument, a pure materialist typically chooses to act in a manner that is pleasurable, because that is really all that's worth living for. However, that is not the nature of morality. As long as someone does a moral act for pleasure, it is not done because it is good. When the pleasure and fulfillment leaves, then does the materialist continue to do what is moral? They have no reason to. Pleasure is the guiding principle, not goodness.
Isabella;
I'm waiting for the profundities to roll off of your keyboard...
Post a Comment
<< Home