God's accountants, revolving doors, and Occam's razor on the scarcity of miracles

[chockfull]

2 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Right. And I challenged the the idea that man does not help his fellow man unless an idea of God is involved. You seemed to imply that helpfulness must come from outside a godless framework (Darwinian Construct). 

I have received loving kindness and generosity from atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians of various sects, non-theists, Taoists, Buddhists... I can't speak to their motives. Maybe they were operating out of fear of reprisal or hope for reward. I only know that they were all equally helpful, whether with God or without.

And I have extended loving kindness and generosity to the same folks. This I have done without thought or hope for reward or fear of reprisal from any god or any human.

Yeah wasn’t implying that at all.

Self-centeredness is not a disease that only affects atheists.  Christians and Christian orgs are among the most self centered everywhere.  Like Twi who won’t lift a finger to help anyone - Christian, non, etc.

Yeah a lot of the Buddhists I know are genuine and helpful to anyone.

Im just noting people getting more and more selfish and self centered in society as we move along in general.  There are plenty of exceptions.

[chockfull]

1 hour ago, Raf said:

Exactly. The notion of "Darwinian construct" as implied in the statement I quoted demands a definition that is a caricature of what Darwinism predicts. It basically says, goodness can only come from God. Therefore, where there is no God, there is no goodness.

This is, of course, horse hit.

The problem is, most people don't recognize "darwinian construct" and "survival of the fittest" as something of a tautology. A tautology is a definition of something as itself. For example, in the dictionary, under the word "redundant," is says, "see: redundant."

Get it?

"Survival of the fittest" is the notion that those species best suited to their environment will live long enough to reproduce, thus passing on their genes. Humanity developed as a social species. So did ants and bees, though their structure is rather more rigid. 

Survival of the fittest does NOT mean "every man for himself," as that would be harmful to our long-term survival as a species. 

But it's rather easy and elitist to dismiss godlessness as goodlessness.

Two traits can evolve simultaneously (within a species or between different species) that have no bearing on whether an animal lives long enough to reproduce. Vegetarian animals (cows, deer, horses) may have different dental structures. It proves there's more than one way to eat plants. The animals were suited to their environment and survived to reproduce.

We can go over a ton of examples, but the bottom line is: nothing in Darwinism requires a worldview that man does not help his fellow man. TO the contrary, our evolution as social animals demonstrates a need to work cooperatively to achieve common goals. It's how we survived.

The other half of the post is fine, by the way...

Most of that, can't argue with it. If you put your "hope" in an existence beyond your death, there is NOTHING atheism can offer you.

Our argument is that there is ZERO evidence of an existence beyond death. There is zero evidence of a soul or a spirit that survives your body's demise. 

But no inspiration? That depends on how you define the word. I am inspired all the time. With awe, all the time. I mean, when you consider the mathematical odds against your specific existence, you HAVE to be filled with awe. Had a different sperm cell fertilized the egg in your mother's womb, you would not exist right now. I might never know the alternative person who came to be. WOW!

One of the accusations that always amazes me (and I am not attributing it to anyone in this conversation) is that atheists are somehow arrogant. Heavens, no. To realize there is nothing cosmically different between my life and that of a cockroach is far from arrogant. Arrogance is the feeling that you are unique among all the species of the cosmos in attracting the attention and affection of the Creator to the point that your species, and only yours, will live forever AND that only those among your species who happen to agree with you on the subject of religion will enjoy that privilege.

What does my world look like without God? Same as yours. Good things happen to bad people and vice versa. Disasters happen to good people while sinister people rise to the highest ranks of society. Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler end up in the same place as decent people who never hurt anyone. I guarantee if you went through the 3,000 or so names who died on 9/11, you would find no pattern that shows divine justice at play, that those who lived deserved to live or that those who died deserved to die. 

A world without God looks precisely like the world in which you and I live.

On the first half your message I wasn’t saying that at all.  On Darwinism the example I can come up with is the white settlers in America with firearms who helped each other but not the natives won out for survival of the fittest.

Natives were forced into horrible treaties and expelled - like the march of tears.

Until the Alaskan deal where they got a better deal - all the oil money.  With that they protect each other - Aleut, Inuit, Athabascan.

On the second half appreciate the world picture.  I’m not as inspired by one in a million odds- I’ve seen Vegas thrive as a corrupt empire for all my life on a 52/48 odds split.

On the live forever stuff I believe everyone experiences a resurrection.  And is rewarded for good done in their life.  Not just those who are in “my religion”.  The son who is a murderer and the servant who is a saint included.

I think Buddhists believe you re incarnate to the next higher level then the life cycle repeats.  It has a similar vibe but different beliefs.

Anyway the world is the same it seems.  Just our views on motivation in life are different.

 

[Rocky]

2 hours ago, Raf said:

This is, of course, horse horsh hit.

Btw, I did an internet search for "Darwinian construct." The results were clear as mud.

https://duckduckgo.com/?hps=1&q=darwinian+construct&atb=v353-1&ia=web

[T-Bone]

3 hours ago, Raf said:

Exactly. The notion of "Darwinian construct" as implied in the statement I quoted demands a definition that is a caricature of what Darwinism predicts. It basically says, goodness can only come from God. Therefore, where there is no God, there is no goodness.

This is, of course, horse hit.

I agree. 

some others might not 

to them I say don't beat a dead horse  

[Raf]

I heartily recognize there have been many times that I have taken aim at the words chockfull has used. I hope by now it is clear that my criticism of those words are not intended as criticisms of chockfull.

I am also confident we can all agree that horrifyingly evil acts have been perpetrated in the name of godliness as well as the name of godlessness. Each side has an extreme that justifies acts of sociopathy, whether it's manifest destiny or no lives matter.

And now i will check the impulse that compels me to respond to every point.

Chockfull, thanks for clarifying what you did not mean, and please, in the future, try to recognize that our interpretation of the words that were used was perfectly reasonable, even if it was not applicable to you.

 

[chockfull]

Yeah I’m thinking I could have chosen a different example than Darwin that seemed to trigger things in a different direction

[Raf]

The issue for me was not the use of Darwin's name. It was the implication that godless = goodless.

The implication that unless someone believes in God, he has no interest in anything but himself. THAT's what horses hit. We have plenty of things to live for,  plenty of causes we deem greater than ourselves.

We just don't worship them.

[chockfull]

4 minutes ago, Raf said:

The issue for me was not the use of Darwin's name. It was the implication that godless = goodless.

The implication that unless someone believes in God, he has no interest in anything but himself. THAT's what horses hit. We have plenty of things to live for,  plenty of causes we deem greater than ourselves.

We just don't worship them.

Yeah I don’t believe that there is no good outside of God and religion.  There is plenty.

I experienced years of my neighbors and coworkers and community members treating me better than “believers” did. 

I truly look at my faith as personal and a motivator for me.  Not as a club to beat others with.

[Raf]

Understood. Thank you.

 

[OldSkool]

20 minutes ago, chockfull said:

Yeah I don’t believe that there is no good outside of God and religion.  There is plenty.

I experienced years of my neighbors and coworkers and community members treating me better than “believers” did. 

I truly look at my faith as personal and a motivator for me.  Not as a club to beat others with.

Scripture supports what u say. It's goofy religious, etc., practices that tell us otherwise

Romans 2:14,15

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

[Nathan_Jr]

This. And this.  Thanks.

4 hours ago, Raf said:

The issue for me was not the use of Darwin's name. It was the implication that godless = goodless.

The implication that unless someone believes in God, he has no interest in anything but himself. THAT's what horses hit. We have plenty of things to live for,  plenty of causes we deem greater than ourselves.

We just don't worship them.

 

4 hours ago, chockfull said:

Yeah I don’t believe that there is no good outside of God and religion.  There is plenty.

I experienced years of my neighbors and coworkers and community members treating me better than “believers” did. 

I truly look at my faith as personal and a motivator for me.  Not as a club to beat others with.

 

[Charity]

I reactivated this thread because of a recent event that took place in Butler, Pennsylvania.  Almost Immediately after the shooting there, it was being declared as a miracle of God that the ex-president was only slightly injured instead of being killed. 

The obvious question then is where was the miracle of God for the man who was killed and the two others who were shot and in critical condition?  The logical conclusion to this would be that God clearly picked and chose who to save and who not to save. 

Different Christians will have different reasons for why God is justified in doing this.  One belief might be that God had/has a purpose for the lives of each shooting victim and that His plans will continue to ripple out to include their loved ones and maybe even further.

If you take God out of the picture, what is left is just the facts. 

Edited July 16 by Charity