Goodness atheists and religious people

[saundthorp]

Martin,
Your attempts to diminish God in the affairs of man seem almost desperate.
Here is a link which should give you food for thought.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm

Saudthorp, I rather think it is you who diminishes God, since you clearly feel the need to cling to beliefs that have long ago been proved to be false in order to protect you god.

Perhaps, rather than spewing links to Roman Catholic websites which do no more to provide evidence for a soul than you have given yourself, you could indulge yourself with a bit of thinking of your own. You are so evidently locked in dogma that your mind refuses to ask questions that think outside the box defined for you by the Catholic church.

I fail to see how you can describe my posts as 'desperate attempts', it's patently clear to anyone who reads this that you haven't got any evidence to support your case, and that your posts are the desperate ones.

Incidentally, I don't think you have understood the point JJ is making (either that or you understood it, ignored it, and chose to address one that she isn't making).   JJ is saying that the sort of evidence that was being asked of you, to show that such a thing as the soul actually existed as something other than the brain, could only really be supplied by the results of an experiment or observation of some sort.  An ancient religious text provides conjecture, and theories which are necessarily based upon ancient understandings.  If we are to treat the Bible with any respect as a writing we must read it in that context and must not use it to attempt to prove the existence of things like a soul!

The Bible writers may provide us with wonderful ideas that we can interpret in our modern context, but whatever we do with them, our interpretation will be just that, an interpretation, and something we can only really use if it doesn't conflict with what we can know with absolute certainty about the world, because evidence exists to make it certain.

Now I have asked you, and you have been unable or unwilling to to answer, so I ask it again, what about the other human species that existed before our own?  If souls exist then, would these other human species have had souls?   Specifically, what about Neanderthals, who were a separate branch of humanity with a brain size similar to our own, who buried their dead with ceremonial objects.  Do you think they had souls?  And I'm not asking for someone else's ideas, I'm not asking for a link to another Catholic Encyclopedia page, I'm asking you for your own opinion, derived from your own thoughts.

Aware of your sensibilities and deep antagonism towards Catholicism, Martin, here is a non-Catholic link.
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro19.html

And I'm not asking for someone else's ideas, I'm not asking for a link to another Catholic Encyclopedia page, I'm asking you for your own opinion, derived from your own thoughts.

Unlike you, Martin, I'm not so arrogant and conceited enough to think I know all the answers. I'm aware that I don't know it all and there are people out there who know a lot more about the subject than I do.
I shall continue to give links to back up my own thoughts and opinions as and when neccessary. If you don't like it...tough.
I know why you hate my links to Catholic or other Christian sites; you have no answer to them. You shouldn't be so afraid of the truth

[JJ]

Saundthorp you seem angry or shocked or surprised or irritated.........or all of those things regarding this discussion.
It's not my intention to cause you any of those feelings.  Please be assured that I am taking this as seriously as you are, and I'm not saying things recklessly or anything like that.  I'm wondering if you could give me the opportunity to write and discuss without giving me a response which some might see as a bit dramatic e.g. "taking my breath away" - I'm not fighting, I'm discussing.

My Christian background is not Roman Catholic - it's Calvinistic Methodist and then Anglican and I would say that by now it's developed further into a liberal post-Christian stance - though still well within the fold of theological rumination.

Undergraduate Theology and Exploring Faith at University opened up the Bible for me in the first term, it told me about the origin of the Bible (not Darwin's The origin of the species, he he  ) and taught me about the structure of the Bible - who wrote different tracts - the Pentateuchal tradition, the Elohistic, the redaction by later writers, the links between Old and New, and so on.  All things that Roman Catholic priests also study in their seminaries.  The knowledge gained by ministers in their training is not always passed on to the pew, pronouncements from the pulpit are normally seen as pastoral rather than academic so it's not often generally known that the Bible is seen as a collection of books over many centuries rather than a magically written single book.

I have to go to work now,  so sorry to have to leave it there for the time being.

[Jan]

Jan,
I thought this discussion board was broadly Christian so I was quite taken aback by what you said, because it was so dismissive of the Bible.
Christians don't regard the Bible as just a collection of ancient writings.
How do you react to this statement taken from the Catholic Encyclopaedia, regarding the Bible?

But Saundy - that is what the Bible is - it is a collection of scripture. It is not being dismissive of it - just understanding what it is. Some of it no doubt is inspired by God/Spirit and that would include Christs teachings of love & compassion etc. However you cannot get away from the fact that some of the content of the bible is downright evil! People were treated in a terrible way. Some parts contradict other parts. Some parts have been mistranslated. Some teachings are missing (it is an incomplete record).

[Martin]

Aware of your sensibilities and deep antagonism towards Catholicism, Martin, here is a non-Catholic link.
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro19.html

ROFL, you keep on and on trying to paint me as 'antagonistic towards Catholocism', someone who is 'attempting to diminish God', 'arrogant', 'conceited' etc.  In fact, all I'm doing is pointing out the holes in your argument using my own brain to show how your view cannot be correct. 

You have yet to provide me with a clear answer to my question which is, IN YOUR OPINION did Neanderthal humans possess what you call a soul?  If they did, then you are admitting the possibility of an animal other than Homo sapiens having a soul,  if you say you don't know then you are admitting the possibility that an animal other than Homo Sapiens could have had a soul.  It's only if Homo neanderthalensis couldn't possibly have had had a soul, that you can maintain that Homo sapiens aree the only creatures with one.  If Neanderthals had souls then what about homo erectus?  If erectus had a soul then what about australopithecus?   If australopithecus had a soul then what about modern apes such as chimpanzees, orang utans and gorillas?

You see, if Neanderthals, homo erectus and australopithicus were still around today, in conversation with us, it would be bleedin' obvious that (at least in the case of erectus and neanderthalensis) they were intelligent creatures capable of understanding and postulating 'God', who had their own spirituality, and the concept of 'soul' would be very much more easily seen to correlate to brain-power and not to something infused into just one species by God.

So which is it to be Saundthorp.  Do you think that Neanderthals, a species who almost certainly had language, who made tools, laid traps for mamoths, who ceremonially buried their dead, have a soul?   Yes, No, Don't Know - you choose.

Incidentally, the article you linked to, 'Making Man Out Of Monkeys' doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion in hand (nor do any of the other articles you've posted).  For the purposes of this discussion we do not need to know whether Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus or Australopithecus (it is generally acknowledged that Neanderthals were not on our evolutionary path).  Who evolved from who is not important, the fact is that these articles acknowledge the existence of these other species who possessed high intelligence.  Since their existence is not in doubt, we have to ask ourselves, whether, if such a thing as a soul exists, God put souls in those animals too. If we say that God did, then we have other animals who possessed souls - disproving the idea that only the descendents of Adam and Eve had souls. If we say that God did not, then we have the awkward idea that there existed animals who spoke, planned, loved, grieved their dead, and to all intents and purposes were intellectually very similar to ourselves, who were completely soulless.

 

[saundthorp]

Aware of your sensibilities and deep antagonism towards Catholicism, Martin, here is a non-Catholic link.
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro19.html

ROFL, you keep on and on trying to paint me as 'antagonistic towards Catholocism', someone who is 'attempting to diminish God', 'arrogant', 'conceited' etc.  In fact, all I'm doing is pointing out the holes in your argument using my own brain to show how your view cannot be correct. 

You have yet to provide me with a clear answer to my question which is, IN YOUR OPINION did Neanderthal humans possess what you call a soul?  If they did, then you are admitting the possibility of an animal other than Homo sapiens having a soul,  if you say you don't know then you are admitting the possibility that an animal other than Homo Sapiens could have had a soul.  It's only if Homo neanderthalensis couldn't possibly have had had a soul, that you can maintain that Homo sapiens aree the only creatures with one.  If Neanderthals had souls then what about homo erectus?  If erectus had a soul then what about australopithecus?   If australopithecus had a soul then what about modern apes such as chimpanzees, orang utans and gorillas?

You see, if Neanderthals, homo erectus and australopithicus were still around today, in conversation with us, it would be bleedin' obvious that (at least in the case of erectus and neanderthalensis) they were intelligent creatures capable of understanding and postulating 'God', who had their own spirituality, and the concept of 'soul' would be very much more easily seen to correlate to brain-power and not to something infused into just one species by God.

So which is it to be Saundthorp.  Do you think that Neanderthals, a species who almost certainly had language, who made tools, laid traps for mamoths, who ceremonially buried their dead, have a soul?   Yes, No, Don't Know - you choose.

Incidentally, the article you linked to, 'Making Man Out Of Monkeys' doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion in hand (nor do any of the other articles you've posted).  For the purposes of this discussion we do not need to know whether Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus or Australopithecus (it is generally acknowledged that Neanderthals were not on our evolutionary path).  Who evolved from who is not important, the fact is that these articles acknowledge the existence of these other species who possessed high intelligence.  Since their existence is not in doubt, we have to ask ourselves, whether, if such a thing as a soul exists, God put souls in those animals too. If we say that God did, then we have other animals who possessed souls - disproving the idea that only the descendents of Adam and Eve had souls. If we say that God did not, then we have the awkward idea that there existed animals who spoke, planned, loved, grieved their dead, and to all intents and purposes were intellectually very similar to ourselves, who were completely soulless.

Martin,
I have answered your points in previous posts.
I'll refresh your memory,
Post 24

Personally I think man was a completely different species brought into being by God. Yes, evolution has taken place but all within the confines of that unique species.

There is another theory about man's origins. He did evolve from another creature such as an ape, but at some point in the evolutionary process God endowed him with an immortal soul, which had a profound change on his character and behaviour. I prefer the unique species approach.

Post 28

Animals may well have a part of them that survives after death, but God has chosen not revealed it to us.

Here is a cop out on your part if there ever was one,

Incidentally, the article you linked to, 'Making Man Out Of Monkeys' doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion in hand (nor do any of the other articles you've posted).

[saundthorp]

Jan,
I thought this discussion board was broadly Christian so I was quite taken aback by what you said, because it was so dismissive of the Bible.
Christians don't regard the Bible as just a collection of ancient writings.
How do you react to this statement taken from the Catholic Encyclopaedia, regarding the Bible?

But Saundy - that is what the Bible is - it is a collection of scripture. It is not being dismissive of it - just understanding what it is. Some of it no doubt is inspired by God/Spirit and that would include Christs teachings of love & compassion etc. However you cannot get away from the fact that some of the content of the bible is downright evil! People were treated in a terrible way. Some parts contradict other parts. Some parts have been mistranslated. Some teachings are missing (it is an incomplete record).

I'm sorry Jan, but I don't recognise the Bible you describe there.
The Bible I am familar with tells the history of God's relationship with mankind. It tells the story of how God prepared humanity from the disaster of Original Sin to its redemption by Christs death on the cross and His Resurrection. In short it tells the story of the Salvation of humanity.
Here is a link to a course of study on Salvation History.
http://www.newcreation.org.au/courses/sh/127SalvationHistory.pdf

[Martin]

Well I'm still mystified as to the answer to my question.  In your opinion, did Neanderthal man have a soul or not.

Yes/No/Don't know.

I should have thought it was an easy question to answer.

And now you accuse me of a 'cop out'!  A cop out of what exactly?  What answer am I resfusing to give?  What is logically inconsistent in the answers I have given?  In what way am I avoiding any point which is relevant? 

All I am doing is pursuing an argument YOU made.  You said in post 18 that...

t probably seems a bit of a parodox that an atheist can do good deeds as well as a Christian. This can be explained because Christians claim that God is the source of all goodness.
When God created humanity he left what is called His divine imprint on us all. All societies have a natural goodness which was instilled in us by God and this can come out and has come out throughout the ages.

When the reasonableness of your position was called into question, in post 24 you wrote this...

Personally I think man was a completely different species brought into being by God. Yes, evolution has taken place but all within the confines of that unique species.
I think man is the summit of God's creation. Mankind is clearly distinguished from other living creatures. The most profound difference being, man possesses an immortal soul. Another important difference, man is a person, which means that because of his understanding and will he can decide for or against love, whether to commit right or wrong.

Now we're at post 52 and despite repeated attempts from me, all you have done is to avoid answering my question, and instead to denigrate me as a person, and paint my argument as an unreasoned attack on God or the Catholic Church!  Athiests can indeed do good, but you are doing a fine job of showing what a dishonest, evasive and nasty creature you can be!

   

[AndyHB]

Martin,
I don't know why you are using expressions like, "unreasonable" in this discussion. We have different opinions that is all, unless of course you consider anyone who has a different opinion to you is being unreasonable.

   

There's a mountain of evidence to show that humankind wasn't a single species creation of God's!

Except that this mountain of evidence has lost a number of its slopes recently, Martin, and it is based on very limited samples of material.

As for the comment that 'evidence isn't found in a book' which someone else made, that isn't strictly true.  Dickens' novels are used as part of the evidence about what Victorian England was like.  Not exclusively, but in part.  Likewise, with the Bible; there are other sources of evidence such as archaeology but the Bible is a useful resource. 

Finally, I think you will find Jan (iirc) that most Christians are fully aware that the Bible is a library of documents that were written over a period of up to 1000 years (though probably nearer 600).  It is usually something that is introduced in Sunday school groups early in the piece.

[Martin]

There's a mountain of evidence to show that humankind wasn't a single species creation of God's!

Except that this mountain of evidence has lost a number of its slopes recently, Martin, and it is based on very limited samples of material.

Utter rubbish as usual Andy.  There is more evidence today of other human species than there ever was!  I hestate to ask you to provide evidence Andy, we all know where that has got us in the past.  No evidence, but a hell of a lot of evasion.

[JJ]

He he he - he's probably got a book up his sleeve! (sorry Andy  )

I was the one who said that normally one doesn't find one's evidence in a book!  In response to saundthorp's "Read the Bible, Martin, you will find the evidence there" remark.

That's not evidence as we can all write books from our imaginations.  Evidence is hard data, a book may support it, but only when the evidence has been gathered.  And in this case we were looking for evidence that people have souls.

[JJ]

Or were we looking for evidence that Christians have souls but atheists don't? Oooh I'm lost. 

No we were discussing ecu's question
"i did feel very conscious how disparaging supercilious and smug and very annoying religious people can be in believing they are better than anyone else... and i really did not want to go down that road...

but a question:....   are atheists better than religious people on the goodness front?  or visa versa?"

kind people are kind people - never mind whether they have souls or Christian views, and nobody is better than anyone else on that front.

[AndyHB]

kind people are kind people - never mind whether they have souls or Christian views, and nobody is better than anyone else on that front.

I think that you need to look at the motivation behind the kind deeds.  I know of people who are kind because they wish to earn something from being kind - and that might be pecuniary, eternally or whatever.  I also know of those who have no underlying agenda behind their being kind - other than enjoying being kind.

[JJ]

In your argument the agenda is the enjoyment surely?  So it's the same as those who earn something pecuniary etc.

I think way back in the thread there was some mention of it being hardwired, (replies 5 and 7) and the presence of mirror neurons in the brain.

[Martin]

]I think that you need to look at the motivation behind the kind deeds.  I know of people who are kind because they wish to earn something from being kind - and that might be pecuniary, eternally or whatever.  I also know of those who have no underlying agenda behind their being kind - other than enjoying being kind.

TBH, from my experience Andy, I think that, if there are pople who seek eternal  reward they will be more likely to be Christians than Atheists (pretty obvious since athiests don't believe in eternal earnings so they are hadly going to be doing things in order to earn eternal earnings :D!) but I'm not sure most people think that way. I'm not sure I can think of too many examples of people who do really good things with an eye on financial reward too, though I'm sure you are right, that such scenarios exist. 

I'm with JJ in that the reward for most people is enjoyment - the thrill of seeing another person laugh, the feeling of happiness you get from knowing that when you do something that someone will suffering less because of it, or the gentle satisfaction you get from a better relationship or a more peaceful world helped by your own action.

I think this is the same for Christians and non-Christians.  I'm sure most Christians don't love simply because they believe it will get them eternal life,  I'm pretty sure most Christians don't do it because they believe God loves them.  Some might, but not many.   Mainly I suspect it's because they have become the sorts of people who can, and do, put themselves in another's shoes, and so they so what they do because helping the situation is rewarding in itself.

[AndyHB]

TBH, from my experience Andy, I think that, if there are pople who seek eternal  reward they will be more likely to be Christians than Atheists ...

so you disregard Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, Pagans, etc.     or do they fit in the 'Atheist' category for you 

I'm pretty sure most Christians don't do it because they believe God loves them.  Some might, but not many.   

I think the difference for me between Christians and the other religious groups I've mentioned above is that only one of these faiths doesn't require someone to act in such a way (the giving of alms, the earning of karma, etc) in order to achieve 'salvation'.