The Battle Between Faith And Reason

Which means they can be anything any human wants them to be. So if some guy robs and kills you for his own good he would be morally justified as the wolf who eats the sheep and you can’t say jack shit about it.
You're right, once he kills me I can’t say jack shit about it. Until then I'd have a lot to say about it.
Not about the morality of his actions. He’s just a wolf eating a sheep.

You can’t have it both ways.
The wolf and sheep have very different views of how they are treated. You may think you are morally justified in killing me but I think I'm morally justified in defending myself. There is no single morality, it is transactional.
That’s where you and I disagree. I say it is universal and exists independent of man. I say this based upon reason and not faith.

An atheist should never have an expectation for fairness because an atheist does not accept a universal truth or a universal right and wrong. To an atheist there is only pleasure and pain.

That is the logical conclusion of their beliefs. But they can’t accept that. They want to be more. They literally can’t help themselves because they are more even though they deny it.
 
That’s where you and I disagree. I say it is universal and exists independent of man. I say this based upon reason and not faith.
Universal morality is a myth, it is determined by your culture. That is why the various cultures of man of man are so different. All men have eyes though they may look very different. Eyes may be universal, their shape and color are not. There may be some basic cultural similarities, like don't murder, but the definition of murder is very different in different culture.

This is why two men may be moral and still want to kill each other.
 
Faith, what is it? The definition of faith according to the prophet Joseph Smith:

:
Faith Defined
Lecture First

1 Faith being the first principle in revealed religion, and the foundation of all righteousness, necessarily claims the first place in a course of lectures which are designed to unfold to the understanding the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

2 In presenting the subject of faith, we shall observe the following order:

3 First, Faith itself—what it is:

4 Secondly, The object on which it rests; and

5 Thirdly, The effects which flow from it.

6 Agreeably to this order we have first to show what faith is.

7 The author of the epistle to the Hebrews, in the eleventh chapter of that epistle, and first verse, gives the following definition of the word faith:

8 Now faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

9 From this we learn, that faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen; and the principle of action in all intelligent beings.

10 If men were duly to consider themselves, and turn their thoughts and reflections to the operations of their own minds, they would readily discover that it is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action, in them; that without it, both mind and body would be in a state of inactivity, and all their exertions would cease, both physical and mental.

11 Were this class to go back and reflect upon the history of their lives, from the period of their first recollection, and ask themselves, what principle excited them to action, or what gave them energy and activity, in all their lawful avocations, callings and pursuits, what would be the answer? Would it not be that it was the assurance which we had of the existence of things which we had not seen, as yet?—Was it not the hope which you had, in consequence of your belief in the existence of unseen things, which stimulated you to action and exertion, in order to obtain them? Are you not dependent on your faith, or belief, for the acquisition of all knowledge, wisdom and intelligence? Would you exert yourselves to obtain wisdom and intelligence, unless you did believe that you could obtain them? Would you have ever sown if you had not believed that you would reap? Would you have ever planted if you had not believed that you would gather? Would you have ever asked unless you had believed that you would receive? Would you have ever sought unless you had believed that you would have found? Or would you have ever knocked unless you had believed that it would have been opened unto you? In a word, is there any thing that you would have done, either physical or mental, if you had not previously believed? Are not all your exertions, of every kind, dependent on your faith? Or may we not ask, what have you, or what do you possess, which you have not obtained by reason of your faith? Your food, your raiment, your lodgings, are they not all by reason of your faith? Reflect, and ask yourselves, if these things are not so. Turn your thoughts on your own minds, and see if faith is not the moving cause of all action in yourselves; and if the moving cause in you, is it not in all other intelligent beings?

12 And as faith is the moving cause of all action in temporal concerns, so it is in spiritual; for the Savior has said, and that truly, that he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. (Mark 16:16)

13 As we receive by faith, all temporal blessings that we do receive, so we, in like manner, receive by faith all spiritual blessings, that we do receive. But faith is not only the principle of action, but of power, also, in all intelligent beings, whether in heaven, or on earth. Thus says the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. (11:3):

14 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God: so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

15 By this we understand that the principle of power, which existed in the bosom of God, by which the worlds were framed, was faith; and that it is by reason of this principle of power, existing in the Deity, that all created things exist—so that all things in heaven, on earth, or under the earth, exist by reason of faith, as it existed in HIM.

16 Had it not been for the principle of faith the worlds would never have been framed, neither would man have been formed of the dust—it is the principle by which Jehovah works, and through which he exercises power over all temporal, as well as eternal things. Take this principle or attribute, (for it is an attribute) from the Deity and he would cease to exist.

17 Who cannot see, that if God framed the worlds by faith, that it is by faith that he exercises power over them, and that faith is the principle of power? And that if the principle of power, it must be so in man as well as in the Deity? This is the testimony of all the sacred writers, and the lesson which they have been endeavoring to teach to man.

18 The Savior says, (Matthew 17:19-20), in explaining the reason why the disciples could not cast out the devil, that it was because of their unbelief: "For verily, I say unto you," said he, "if ye have faith as a grain of mustard-seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place! and it shall remove: and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

19 Moroni, while abridging and compiling the record of his fathers, has given us the following account of faith as the principle of power: He says, in Ether 12:13, that it was the faith of Alma and Amulek which caused the walls of the prison to be wrent, as recorded in Alma 14:23-29; it was the faith of Nephi and Lehi which caused a change to be wrought upon the hearts of the Lamanites, when they were immersed with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, as seen in Helaman 5:37-50; and that it was by faith that the mountain Zerin was removed, when the brother of Jared spake in the name of the Lord. See also Ether 12:30.

20 In addition to this we are told in Hebrews, 11:32-35, that Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets, through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens; and that women received their dead raised to life again, etc.

21 Also, Joshua, in the sight of all Israel, bade the sun and moon to stand still, and it was done. (Joshua 10:12)

22 We here understand, that the sacred writers say, that all these things were done by faith—It was by faith that the worlds were framed—God spake, chaos heard, and worlds came into order, by reason of the faith there was in HIM. So with man also—he spake by faith in the name of God, and the sun stood still, the moon obeyed, mountains removed, prisons fell, lions' mouths were closed, the human heart lost its enmity, fire its violence, armies their power, the sword its terror, and death its dominion; and all this by reason of the faith which was in them.

23 Had it not been for the faith which was in man, they might have spoken to the sun, the moon, the mountains, prisons, lions, the human heart, fire, armies, the sword, or to death in vain!

24 Faith, then, is the first great governing principle which has power, dominion, and authority over all things: by it they exist, by it they are upheld, by it they are changed, or by it they remain, agreeably to the will of God. Without it, there is no power, and without power there could be no creation, nor existence!
 
That’s where you and I disagree. I say it is universal and exists independent of man. I say this based upon reason and not faith.
Universal morality is a myth, it is determined by your culture. That is why the various cultures of man of man are so different. All men have eyes though they may look very different. Eyes may be universal, their shape and color are not. There may be some basic cultural similarities, like don't murder, but the definition of murder is very different in different culture.

This is why two men may be moral and still want to kill each other.
If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
 
That’s where you and I disagree. I say it is universal and exists independent of man. I say this based upon reason and not faith.
Universal morality is a myth, it is determined by your culture. That is why the various cultures of man of man are so different. All men have eyes though they may look very different. Eyes may be universal, their shape and color are not. There may be some basic cultural similarities, like don't murder, but the definition of murder is very different in different culture.

This is why two men may be moral and still want to kill each other.
Slight differences. There has never been anything which amounted to diametrical opposition. In other words, you are making a fringe argument at the same time you cling to your belief that you are a moral being and somehow believe you are different.
 
Liberals stand for the very same things that Marx did.

And Bernie Sanders is proof.
Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.





Change the subject?
An admission of my expertise on the fossil record and that Darwin was wrong? Excellent.

So I win again, huh?


How many times a day must I put you in your place?
 
You are really sick.
I'm sorry if reality does not conform to your ideology.


My 'ideology' is based on truth and knowledge.

And, yes....you should be sorry.
Ideology is NEVER based on truth and knowledge, it is based on values. Claiming truth and knowledge is a dishonest distortion, like a lot of your claims.


OK.....once again.....and, you should start taking notes.


i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun
  1. 1.
    a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.



51eE-teks5L._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


"This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience."
David Mamet




  1. The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.
 
Do you even logic? To you there is no such thing as morality or right and wrong. To you those are human constructs. To you there is only pleasure and pain.
I do believe there is right and wrong and yes, they are human constructs.



So THAT'S why you accept infanticide.

You simply have on concept of right and wrong.
 
To you morals can be anything you want them to be.
As can yours.
No. Mine can’t. I don’t believe like you do.
You chose to base your morality on your religion. That is your choice.



False.

There was morality before the Bible.



1.Perhaps God was tired out from creating the world, or didn’t feel it necessary to intermingle with the kids, so he didn’t ….until Moses, in 1313 BCE. That’s when he offered the contract, the Ten Commandments, acceptance of which sent mankind off to the races, producing the greatest culture ever known: Western Civilization.




BTW, even before the events on Sinai, there were rules for humanity.

2.Before Sinai and the Ten Commandments, there were the rules called the Noahide Laws, based on reason and a desire to be able to live with other people, laws against bad behavior, the idea that these injured society: bans on murder, theft, idolatry, sexual immorality, animal cruelty, cursing God, and the need to set up courts to punish the infractions. They are incumbent on everyone, whether one respects the Bible or not, because they are so obvious.
The benefit of the Bible is that it tells society how to be good.

Noahide Laws, also called Noachian Laws, a Jewish Talmudic designation for seven biblical laws given to Adam and to Noah before the revelation to Moses on Mt. Sinai and consequently binding on all mankind.” Noahide Laws | Judaism


“According to Jewish tradition, non-Jews who adhere to these laws …are said to be followers of Noahidism and regarded as righteous gentiles, who are assured of a place in the world to come, the final reward of the righteous.” Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia





3. Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than specific rules of religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most, and certainly not for entire societies, not in the long term.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

Or, take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.





And, there is the obvious case today: the Democrat Party actually favors infanticide….and have convinced many to still vote for this….paganism. Abortion up to actual birth, and allowing one born in this manner to die.....is human sacrifice.

No coincidence that the same party eschews religion.
 
Do you even logic? To you there is no such thing as morality or right and wrong. To you those are human constructs. To you there is only pleasure and pain.
I do believe there is right and wrong and yes, they are human constructs.



So THAT'S why you accept infanticide.

You simply have on concept of right and wrong.
I think he wants to see himself as something more than his ideological beliefs would allow.

Apparently he doesn’t like the sound of he is only motivated by pleasure and pain. But that is the lot of the atheists.
 
Do you even logic? To you there is no such thing as morality or right and wrong. To you those are human constructs. To you there is only pleasure and pain.
I do believe there is right and wrong and yes, they are human constructs.



So THAT'S why you accept infanticide.

You simply have on concept of right and wrong.
I think he wants to see himself as something more than his ideological beliefs would allow.

Apparently he doesn’t like the sound of he is only motivated by pleasure and pain. But that is the lot of the atheists.



As is true of so many of the 'go along to get along' Leftists, they don't bother to either research or think ideas through.
 
Last edited:
Liberals stand for the very same things that Marx did.

And Bernie Sanders is proof.
Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.





Change the subject?
An admission of my expertise on the fossil record and that Darwin was wrong? Excellent.

So I win again, huh?


How many times a day must I put you in your place?

Your self-professed expertise is rather comical when your cutting and pasting amounts to nothing more than dishonestly and fraudulently edited "quotes".

The self-hating, hyper-religious tend to revile science and knowledge because there are irreconcilable differences separating religious literalism and the rational, natural world.

It's quite a contradiction for the hyper-religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a platonic one.
 
Liberals stand for the very same things that Marx did.

And Bernie Sanders is proof.
Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.





Change the subject?
An admission of my expertise on the fossil record and that Darwin was wrong? Excellent.

So I win again, huh?


How many times a day must I put you in your place?

Your self-professed expertise is rather comical when your cutting and pasting amounts to nothing more than dishonestly and fraudulently edited "quotes".

The self-hating, hyper-religious tend to revile science and knowledge because there are irreconcilable differences separating religious literalism and the rational, natural world.

It's quite a contradiction for the hyper-religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a platonic one.
When you can’t argue against the content, attack the person instead, right?

That’s some fucked up cultural Marxist bullshit right there.
 
Liberals stand for the very same things that Marx did.

And Bernie Sanders is proof.
Marx believed workers should not be powerless and exploited. If that is what you refer to then you might well be right.





Change the subject?
An admission of my expertise on the fossil record and that Darwin was wrong? Excellent.

So I win again, huh?


How many times a day must I put you in your place?

Your self-professed expertise is rather comical when your cutting and pasting amounts to nothing more than dishonestly and fraudulently edited "quotes".

The self-hating, hyper-religious tend to revile science and knowledge because there are irreconcilable differences separating religious literalism and the rational, natural world.

It's quite a contradiction for the hyper-religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a platonic one.
The only hatred I see here in this forum comes from militant atheists like yourself. It’s the militant atheists who are the antagonists.
 
It's quite a contradiction for the hyper-religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a platonic one.
Not at all. We fully understand that good comes from bad. You are the one who can’t understand why bad exists if there is a God.
 
You are really sick.
I'm sorry if reality does not conform to your ideology.


My 'ideology' is based on truth and knowledge.

And, yes....you should be sorry.
Ideology is NEVER based on truth and knowledge, it is based on values. Claiming truth and knowledge is a dishonest distortion, like a lot of your claims.


OK.....once again.....and, you should start taking notes.


i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun
  1. 1.
    a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.



51eE-teks5L._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


"This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience."
David Mamet




  1. The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.

1. What you’re really suggesting is that “compared to the left, we hyper- religious aren’t quite as bad”. Well, yes you are. While the hyper-religious tend to want to lecture others on morality, the horrendous acts of cruelty inflicted on humanity by the angry xtians is no different than what the political ideologies of the left have done.

Ultimately, You don’t understand that morality involves decision making (or making a choice), where decision making is accomplished with a cognizant awareness of consequences. The mammalian sense of nurturing the young is not morality, it’s a function of evolution that seeks to preserve the species.

What defines morality is our expectations and choices as to how we extend such gestures as compassion, empathy, fairness, etc. Taking a historical view, angry xtians have a long, lurid history of extending gestures contrary to compassion, empathy, fairness, etc.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top