Posted on 01/27/2005 9:08:45 AM PST by Zyke
If christians use God's laws as a moral compass, what do atheists use to guide their moral belief? How do they know what is right and wrong? Why do they follow any laws at all?
I am just seeking some knowledge to help me understand.
LeGrande: "The phrase "love your enemy" is a simple recognition of that power."
What is this power? Where does it come from?
Your original post (#65) was fundamentally agnostic in that you believe religion to be merely a created concept "useful" to man. If there is some "power" (such as the power of love or hate), then this must exist outside of man.
You made the inference that religions were invented by man to promote his own well being. But you give no proper explanation of why loving your enemy promotes man's well being except for this illusive "power".
It will happen, probably in our lifetimes. We are getting close : )
discostu: "Yeah it does, one of the keys to a healthy society is the ability to forgive and move on"
I would contend that the phrase "love your enemy" in the Bible is much more than "forgive and forget". In your example, the object of forgiveness is eventually redeemed to your cause. The Bible calls us to love our enemies even if they remain our enemies. In some ways it is unconditional...
Do you really understand the amazing consequences of a God who calls us to love our enemies???
It ties pretty tightly to the concept of hate the sin but love the sinner. But it also opens the door for peace, for undersanding that they're your enemy because your goals are in conflict with each other but that could change so you shouldn't over-commit and always be ready for the moment when they are not your enemy. It also ties in very tightly with anger being a mortal sin; and hope, charity, prudence and temperance being holy virtues. I wouldn't call the consequences amazing so much as farsighted and healthy.
I believe you are correct.
Are/were the majority of the people in these countries atheists?
What is this power? Where does it come from?
Love and hate are emotions based on fear and greed. The power comes from our responses to those emotions.
Your original post (#65) was fundamentally agnostic in that you believe religion to be merely a created concept "useful" to man. If there is some "power" (such as the power of love or hate), then this must exist outside of man.
No the concept (emotions) of love and hate is entirely in man. The power comes from the ability to elicit those emotions and getting people to act on them.
You made the inference that religions were invented by man to promote his own well being. But you give no proper explanation of why loving your enemy promotes man's well being except for this illusive "power".
Hatred generally arises from mutually incompatible goals. For example if a muslim wants me dead because of his god and I want to live to piss on his moonrock those are mutually incompatible goals which generally lead to hatred. If either of us act on our hatred one or the other of us is likely to die, hence the power of hatred.
Now lets pretend that this evil muslim has a beautiful sister who loves me and who I love in return. Love in this case is very likely to overcome the mutual hatred that the evil muslim and I share. I am now much less likely to piss on his moonrock and he may not want to kill me as badly.
Like the heathen Sun Tzu claimed sometimes beating your opponent can be accomplished without fighting. Love is just another quiver in the arsenal, a powerful one at that.
The real power of love and hate is being able to control those emotions : )
>> Is the US a religious government? And if it is, what or who is its god? <<
Ours certainly is not theocratic, but a govenrnment needn't be theocratic or atheistic.
But yes, the founding documents of our country are explicitly theistic. Says the Declarationof Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator..." You can argue they fall short of systematized Christianity, but they sure aren't atheist! The writers were certain that they had received divine inspiration from God, an incident which became known as "the Miracle of Philadelphia."
This is not to go to the extreme some conservative do which is to argue our founding was in essence theocratic. The founders had found the politics of princes unsuccessful at reaching a unity of faith, and so had decided to let a free market of ideas though Natural Law be the means of discerning which sect represented the will of God. Contrarily, a theocracy asserts that it knows the will of God.
>> You're nuts. She's making a point. If you ever read her essays you would know that. She's part serious, but you have to realize that its fiction (come on! perpetual motion motors! talk about sci-fi). You also need to read The Fountainhead. She has the hero blow up a building. She doesnt really think ppl should blow up buildings, its just a point <<
I compared her to uber-Calvinists, not to Al Qaeda. Atlas Shrugged certainly is meant to depict behavior she considers heroic! And her heroine would rather the destruction of all civilization to the present-day Socialism Lite. Frankly, I found her novel to be about the moral equivalent to "The Turner Diaries." In fact, it's quite ironic that her Final Solution [Damned straight that reference is deliberate!] results in a society remarkably similar to Rousseau's ideal village.
But the funny thing is that Dagney Taggart isn't the one who was successfully keeping the railroad running the whole time. Eddie was. While civilization was collapsing and she was off experimenting with her sexuality, Eddie was keeping the trains running. She can't even illustrate her point without using a character who complete undermines it: the success of her Titan rested on a paeon who she seems to deem unfit for survival.
Without the paeons who are less than worthless to John Galt, all Dagney can ever hope to do is pretend she's Gilligan in her little, tiny, inconsequential Rousseau village.
So if her point is to show that Captains of Industry (echo voice) don't need plebes, but plebes are helpless without Captains of Industry, she failed miserably.
Oh, and there's that pesky, inconvenient fact that Einstein, Newton, Mendel, Watson & Crick all fall into her category of worthless plebes.
>> Are/were the majority of the people in these countries atheists? <<
Some yes, some no. My point is only that atheists had to resort to brutal terror to impose themselves. So the issue of whether the majorities were atheist or not is moot, unless you plan to make the argument that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon would've been tolerable, had only the people submitted themselves to their rule more willingly.
Okay, "Atlas Shrugged" was a hell of a more well written than "The Turner Diaries." Downright seductive at times. But still no less horrifying.
It's a rather fine point but, in fact, you are wrong. "Thou shall not kill" is correct.
Ours certainly is not theocratic, but a govenrnment needn't be theocratic or atheistic.
Agnostic maybe? : )
But yes, the founding documents of our country are explicitly theistic. Says the Declarationof Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator..." You can argue they fall short of systematized Christianity, but they sure aren't atheist! The writers were certain that they had received divine inspiration from God, an incident which became known as "the Miracle of Philadelphia."
So "God" helped create a nation where everyone was free to do what their heart dictated? So who or what is this "God" that created this country? Allah? Zeus? Jehovah? You have tried to sidestep my question.
This is not to go to the extreme some conservative do which is to argue our founding was in essence theocratic. The founders had found the politics of princes unsuccessful at reaching a unity of faith, and so had decided to let a free market of ideas though Natural Law be the means of discerning which sect represented the will of God. Contrarily, a theocracy asserts that it knows the will of God.
I think we can agree that the founding of this country was not religiously based. In fact they went to great lengths to separate the state and any religion. That concept was almost unheard of at the time. I may be wrong but every single country in the world at that time either had a state religion or believed that their rulers were ordained by God.
One of the primary purposes of the founders of this country was to give power to the people and take it away from the religious rulers. They did there best to create a country that was indifferent to religion.
If I had any idea what you mean by that I would be glad to debate you.
You should note, however, that one can just as easily be absolutely wrong as absolutely right. Just ask any Jihadist suicide bomber. Just becasue you are sure you're right doesn't prove anything. In the case of the Jihadist suicide bomber what we know for sure is that he dead. That is all we know.
Dead, but NOT none existant.....it's either heaven or hades....That's what we know.
But the Jihadist held as an absolute moral belief that he will no be enjoying the pleasure of 72 virgins. How do you know he is wrong?
Then what do you think love and hate are? Commandments from GOD? LOL
“I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.”
Adolf Hitler
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.