I don't have enough faith to be an atheist ch 2

[JustJim]

So everything is based upon majority rule? How do you justify social progress? Was Apartied ok? Was slavery OK? Were the Nazi's justified in thinking the Jews were less then human? See, under your rule that majority rule is what determines what is right, no progress is possible.

You're twisting my words to mean what you need them to mean.

I never said "everything" is based upon majority rule. I also neither said, nor implied, that majority rule makes something morally "right". All I said was that if the majority believes abortion is morally acceptable (in whatever-defined situations), then that is reflected in the law. If the majority did not believe that, they'd change the law to fit their moral beliefs.

Even though there's certainly a difference between what's legal and what's moral, our laws eventually reflect our morals. Though you (and I) may not like it, and though you may personally feel abortion is absolutely not morally acceptable to you (or for anyone else, either)... well... too bad. Go convince enough of your fellow citizens to change their ideas on what's morally acceptable in regard to abortion, and they'll then change the laws accordingly.

Majority rule doesn't determine what is (objectively or absolutely) right; it merely reflects what the majority of the people believe is right (morally acceptable), and does not, therefore, "fail its own standard". What the majority "believes" is subject to change. That's why apartheid, slavery, etc. were eventually made illegal: a majority of the people believed those things were wrong, and changed the laws to match.

You can scream and yell and thump all you want about abortion being immoral, but if 50.001% of the people disagree with you, you're entitled to your minority opinion, but not to change the law to fit it. First you need to convince that .001%, plus one person, to agree with your opinion and then take action to make the laws fit their newly found morality.

Jim

[Pseudonym]

You can scream and yell and thump all you want about abortion being immoral, but if 50.001% of the people disagree with you, you're entitled to your minority opinion, but not to change the law to fit it.

You need more than 50.001% of the population behind you to make a constitutional amendment in most democratic countries.

[JustJim]

You can scream and yell and thump all you want about abortion being immoral, but if 50.001% of the people disagree with you, you're entitled to your minority opinion, but not to change the law to fit it.

You need more than 50.001% of the population behind you to make a constitutional amendment in most democratic countries.

I think that depends on what level you're talking about in the voting process. In the USA, if 50.001% of the people in each of three-quarters of the states vote to amend the Constitution, then it's amended. So yeah, it's more than 50.001% of the states, but only 50.001% of the people in each of those states.

I still love democracy, even though it often does its best to do things the hard way (Electoral College, for example).

Jim

[tonyenglish7]

What do you mean by real and actual?

Obviously if there are no sentient beings, there is no morality. So at the very least, morals (as we know them) are properties of humanity. The question is: Do morals exist independent of any particular human or group of humans, any particular motive or any action?

There's an area of mathematics that's called category theory. The fields of architecture and computer science have a very similar notion, called the "pattern". The idea is that when you see the same sort of structure turn up in a bunch of places, you define it objectively and give it a name so you can talk about it independently of any particular implementation.

An example is the "door". There is, really, no Platonic ideal door. The only doors which exist are specific doors built in specific structures, such as buildings. But it still makes sense to come up with an abstract notion of a "door" so you can talk and reason about doors independently of any specific physical door.

Some borderline cases of morals are necessarily situational (e.g. would you have been involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler?). But these situations are almost always borderline, and you will rarely run into them in your lifetime. So in general, it makes perfect sense to talk about morals as if they're independent entities, whether they are or they aren't.

Yes, morals have to do with persons, which are more then simply physical beings. Morals govern the right and wrong and oughtness between persons including God who grounds them. I think the problem Emery has is he has already determined that only the material world exists (without justification btw), and so by definition, anything that is not made of atoms, is an illusion or a subjective relative system evolved for survival.

Regarding your Platonic scenario; I think it misses the point. A door is a contingent idea. It may or may not exist. But once it can be shown THAT it exists, any "notion" is no longer abstract. It refers to an actual door.

The same is true about persons. Minds are mostly contingent (we can not exist), meaning you and I. (God is a necessary being), but the fact that minds and persons exist is first established and then morals are subsequently shown to be actual just like the door.

Therefore referring to your platonic reference, I think fails to push morals into a subjective, illusionary or nebulas arena. Morals exist, are actual and need an explanation for grounding. A moral God is the only way to explain them.

[tonyenglish7]

So everything is based upon majority rule? How do you justify social progress? Was Apartied ok? Was slavery OK? Were the Nazi's justified in thinking the Jews were less then human? See, under your rule that majority rule is what determines what is right, no progress is possible.

You're twisting my words to mean what you need them to mean.

I never said "everything" is based upon majority rule. I also neither said, nor implied, that majority rule makes something morally "right". All I said was that if the majority believes abortion is morally acceptable (in whatever-defined situations), then that is reflected in the law. If the majority did not believe that, they'd change the law to fit their moral beliefs.

Even though there's certainly a difference between what's legal and what's moral, our laws eventually reflect our morals. Though you (and I) may not like it, and though you may personally feel abortion is absolutely not morally acceptable to you (or for anyone else, either)... well... too bad. Go convince enough of your fellow citizens to change their ideas on what's morally acceptable in regard to abortion, and they'll then change the laws accordingly.

Majority rule doesn't determine what is (objectively or absolutely) right; it merely reflects what the majority of the people believe is right (morally acceptable), and does not, therefore, "fail its own standard". What the majority "believes" is subject to change. That's why apartheid, slavery, etc. were eventually made illegal: a majority of the people believed those things were wrong, and changed the laws to match.

You can scream and yell and thump all you want about abortion being immoral, but if 50.001% of the people disagree with you, you're entitled to your minority opinion, but not to change the law to fit it. First you need to convince that .001%, plus one person, to agree with your opinion and then take action to make the laws fit their newly found morality.

Jim

OK, I see what you are saying, you are not arguing that the majority is what makes it moral, only legal. I get it. You have not addressed what makes something immoral however. What makes something worth changing in a culture? What grounds and makes right the move to abolish slavery? Just the republicans? (which is who did it by the way), or is it something more?

And, let me ask you this; If the majority of people decided that killing atheist, (a minority at this point), was justified, would it be morally right to use force, killing, war to overthrow the majority?

[StillSearching]

Morals exist, are actual and need an explanation for grounding. A moral God is the only way to explain them.

You should have said, "One of the moral gods of the many that have been concocted by man is the only way to explain them."

In other words Tony, why should I be convinced that the morals of your god are the true, grounded morals to which we all should adhere? Especially when your god changed his own morality several times over the course of a few thousand years, and seems to have completely abandoned all efforts to make his current whims known to us. God grounds morals? Great, then let's have 'em and get on with it. We've got global news coverage these days. I'm sure we could fit him in between reality shows.

You have not addressed what makes something immoral however. What makes something worth changing in a culture? What grounds and makes right the move to abolish slavery? Just the republicans? (which is who did it by the way), or is it something more?

Let me address this by asking you a question. If morals are real, actual and grounded in God, then why do we need and have laws?

As an aside, the republicans who helped abolish slavery in the United States would puke if they could see the state and efforts of the GOP today. Also, here is a timeline of the abolition of slavery. Notice how far down the list you have to go before you get to the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Look further down the list. Look here. Two thousand years after Christ, who was supposedly the watershed revelation of God's will on Earth, and still there are many who haven't figured out that slavery is wrong.

[tonyenglish7]

Morals exist, are actual and need an explanation for grounding. A moral God is the only way to explain them.

You should have said, "One of the moral gods of the many that have been concocted by man is the only way to explain them."

In other words Tony, why should I be convinced that the morals of your god are the true, grounded morals to which we all should adhere? Especially when your god changed his own morality several times over the course of a few thousand years, and seems to have completely abandoned all efforts to make his current whims known to us. God grounds morals? Great, then let's have 'em and get on with it. We've got global news coverage these days. I'm sure we could fit him in between reality shows.

You have not addressed what makes something immoral however. What makes something worth changing in a culture? What grounds and makes right the move to abolish slavery? Just the republicans? (which is who did it by the way), or is it something more?

Let me address this by asking you a question. If morals are real, actual and grounded in God, then why do we need and have laws?

As an aside, the republicans who helped abolish slavery in the United States would puke if they could see the state and efforts of the GOP today. Also, here is a timeline of the abolition of slavery. Notice how far down the list you have to go before you get to the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Look further down the list. Look here. Two thousand years after Christ, who was supposedly the watershed revelation of God's will on Earth, and still there are many who haven't figured out that slavery is wrong.

Yes, gods (little g) have been concocted by man, and many worldviews and explanations for what exists. You are not out of the game, you have also accepted something that was concocted by man, namely materialism. You are not stating an argument here, you are only stating that man comes up with possible explanations to where and what we find in reality. The question is, which world view better explains our situation? Everything out of nothing for no reason, life from non-life, order from disorder and meaning from chaos and morality floating in mid air doesn't really seem to work at all. But if it does, why not make a positive argument for it instead of simply shooting down other views? I mean at least explain why you think your view is the default view needing no actual evidence?

Yes, sometimes it seems like morals change in the bible but they do not. I will give you an example, obeying driving rules is morally right. So, if the state changes the speed limit from 55 mph to 65 because they decide the gas mileage saved with the newer cars is not sufficient anymore to justify the lower limit, then the change is justified because of the new conditions, yet the moral imperative that following the state laws is still in place. Another example, if a child is 2 years old they will be told by their parents not to touch the steak knife but when they are 10 they are allowed. The moral rule, "obey your parents" is still in place but the conditions have changed on how that is played out.

Now, the bible records a theocracy where Israel attempts to be governed by God and a set of rules are set up with the direction of God for that specific set of conditions. God instructs very specific things to display his character during this period of history. But later, when the new agreement is in place which was both revealed and executed by his own blood, the rules changed. Yet the place where morals are grounded is still the same, in the character of who God is.

I am not sure what you mean by the reality show referrence but I am sure it was pithy! I guess you don't think anything is actually right or wrong?

[JustJim]

OK, I see what you are saying, you are not arguing that the majority is what makes it moral, only legal. I get it. You have not addressed what makes something immoral however. What makes something worth changing in a culture? What grounds and makes right the move to abolish slavery? Just the republicans? (which is who did it by the way), or is it something more?

And, let me ask you this; If the majority of people decided that killing atheist, (a minority at this point), was justified, would it be morally right to use force, killing, war to overthrow the majority?

Tony,

I think we’re all dancing around the question that really matters in this discussion, without directly addressing the possible answers and our individual reasons for choosing one answer over the others.

The question is: Where does our sense of morality come from? (And the associated sub-questions of whether or not there are such things as “absolute” moral standards, how we know what those are, and so on….)

To intentionally oversimplify it for myself, I’ll say that my sense of morality comes from my mother, and was confirmed in my early years by my father, my grandparents, my teachers in school, the books I used in school, my church, other significant ‘authority’ figures in my life, TV (Leave It to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Ozzie and Harriet, etc.), and other such influences. That’s the easy part.

But where did they get their senses of morality that they all passed on to me? I’ll assume from the same or similar sources as mine. And I’ll carry that on back to the very first human beings, however you determine who/what those people were. And when we get to that point, those people are then left with no parents, grandparents, schools, churches, TV, or other influences on their morality. They’re the “first” ones.

I think there are then two major avenues of thought people take as to how those original senses of morality developed.

First, there’s the view that we were “designed” by a theistic God with a ‘built-in’ sense of morality engraved on our hearts, minds, and souls. We then ‘discover’ those moral standards through our interactions with each other as individuals and groups. Much of our social norms and our laws then develop from those ‘discoveries’, to deal with people who don’t abide by those standards or who don’t agree on what the standards are. But the standards themselves come directly from God, whether we realize or accept that or not. I think this is generally your view, from what you’ve said here.

Second, there’s the view that our sense of morality evolved gradually over time as a result of our interactions with each other as individuals and groups, with those standards that contributed to the survival and well-being of our species prevailing. People who acted outside of those standards died off (or killed each other off), and, eventually, only the standards we now (virtually) universally accept have made it through to the present. I think this is the usual view of most atheists, from what they’ve expressed here and elsewhere.

(Remember, I’m oversimplifying!)

Either view allows for humanity having an obvious sense of right and wrong, good and bad, etc. long before any standards were written down on any tablets of stone or into any ‘codes’. Either view allows for what we observe around us in the way of moral standards shared by human beings across the globe, throughout all cultures, with so few exceptions they “prove the rule”. Both views allow for a complete sense of morality without regard to whether an individual believes in God or not (which, I think, pretty much trashes the frequent assertion by believers that atheists have no morals – what a stupid thing to say….)

So, what all that amounts to is this: We observe people acting in ways we consider to be moral or immoral, but we have major disagreements as to where that sense of morality comes from. I’ve read excellent support for both views. I’m not sure how/if we could ever “prove” one view over the other. And, other than as a subset argument for/against the existence of God, in terms of how we act and treat each other, I don’t see how it really matters where they come from in the first place!

Thoughts?

Jim

[tonyenglish7]

So, what all that amounts to is this: We observe people acting in ways we consider to be moral or immoral, but we have major disagreements as to where that sense of morality comes from. I’ve read excellent support for both views. I’m not sure how/if we could ever “prove” one view over the other. And, other than as a subset argument for/against the existence of God, in terms of how we act and treat each other, I don’t see how it really matters where they come from in the first place!

Thoughts?

I think we can determine which is right, and it matters where they come from because, if they are based upon a just God, we are obligated to the "sense" of morals you described. We will have a day in court so to speak. If I have a "sense" that I should follow the traffic laws which were derived from the result of all the people who didn't and were killed in traffic accidents, and therefore all those who survive, now drive safe, then I am in no real threat of a speeding ticket. But if the reality exists that I will be in danger of facing the traffic court, my "sense" of obligation is more real and carries some consequences.

God has an obligation to his own character of justice to punish all who have broken the moral code. He also is eternally loving, thus the cross of Jesus which satisfied the obligation for all those who accept it. But that is another discussion. I only point it out because you asked, why does it matter?

Your use of the word "prove" is dangerous for you because, as we have seen, you have pre-determined that the default view is atheism/naturalism/materialism. The reality is we are in a situation where we need to look at the evidence first, then determine which world view fits better, works better and is more logical. Not to the level of no doubt, but to the level of a reasonable doubt. Theism, when evaluated in that manner, prior to rejecting any world view, wins hands down.

A few other problems with your view. Humans, (homo sapien sapien's) have only been on earth according to most of the scientific community between 50K and 200K years. (There is no evidence right now that shows them more then about 50K but many speculate the other end of the range for thier own reasons). Either way, it is way too short a period for all the so called "immoral" people to have killed each other off. In other words, a "sense" of morality just doesn't arrise out of nothing in such a short period of time.

And finally, if you are right, and morals are just a result of breeding, like a bird dog who genetically hunts birds, then the smartest person is the one that works the system to his/her own benefit. Bernny Madoff without getting caught!

[JustJim]

I think we can determine which is right and it matters where they come from because if they are based upon a just God, we are obligated to the "sense" of morals you described. We will have a day in court so to speak. If I have a "sense" that I should follow the traffic laws which was derived from all the people who didn't were killed in traffic accidents and therefore all those who survive know to drive safe, then I am in no real threat of a speeding ticket. But if the reality exists that I will be in danger of facing the traffic court, my "sense" of obligation is more real and carries some consequences.

But when we both arrive in court for our "trials", the Judge will only see that we both followed the traffic laws equally - regardless of our reasons for doing so. Why would the Judge punish one of us, but not the other, when neither of us broke the law?

God has an obligation to his own character of justice to punish all who have broken the moral code. He also is eternally loving, thus the cross of Jesus which satisfied the obligation for all those who accept it. But that is another discussion. I only point it out because you asked, why does it matter?

Okay, but this still really only says that it matters because God makes it matter to himself. And even if he 'has an obligation to his own character to punish' those who have broken his moral code, the type, level, severity, and duration of the punishment is totally up to him, so he can make the punishment fit the crime. If God planted a sense of morality in all our hearts, he forgot to make it obvious to us how the punishment (eternal damnation) fits the crime (whatever failures to live up to the moral code), and that makes Him appear to be immoral, based on the standard he planted in us.

Your use of the word "prove" is dangerous for you because, as we have seen, you have pre-determined that the default view is atheism/naturalism/materialism. The reality is we are in a situation where we need to look at the evidence first, then determine which world view fits better, works better and is more logical. Not to the level of no doubt, but to the level of a reasonable doubt. Theism, when evaluated in that manner, prior to rejecting any world view, wins hands down.

Let me get this straight.... A pre-determined default worldview of atheism/naturalism/materialism is "dangerous", but a pre-determined default worldview of theism "wins hands down"? Do I have that right? I agree with your assertion that we should look at the evidence first, without a pre-determined "default" position, and then decide which fits our observations and experiences better and makes more logical sense. That's why I'm not an atheist. That's also why I'm not a theist, and why, incidentally, if I was a theist, my God would be very much unlike the God of the Bible. But that's another discussion. I also agree with your contention that we don't need to reach a level of no doubt, but rather a level "beyond a reasonable doubt." I think that's where I am - most of the time. Or at least that's where I strive to be.

A few other problems with your view. Humans, (homo sapien sapien's) have only been on earth according to most of the scientific community between 50K and 200K years. (There is no evidence right now that shows them more then about 50K but many speculate the other end of the range for thier own reasons). Either way, it is way too short a period for all the so called "immoral" people to have killed each other off. In other words, a "sense" of morality just doesn't arrise out of nothing in such a short period of time.

Actually, I think it wouldn't take more than a handful of generations - less than a thousand years, say - to extinguish some of the more obvious self-destructive "wrong" moral behaviors (murder is virtuous, human babies are a dietary delicacy, all female babies should be killed at birth, and other equally absurd things). What kinds of immoral behaviors do you have in mind that might take longer than we've been here to extinguish from the gene pool?

Jim

[OzAnt]

But when we both arrive in court for our "trials", the Judge will only see that we both followed the traffic laws equally - regardless of our reasons for doing so. Why would the Judge punish one of us, but not the other, when neither of us broke the law?

Actually, I'd like to think that that imaginary Judge would say something along the lines of, "You followed the road rules 'cause you were shit-scared of me, but you, you followed the road rules because you realised it was the right thing to do without any big-brother pressures. You have indeed truly shown that you have evolved."

Ant

[Atheist37]

God has an obligation to his own character of justice to punish all who have broken the moral code. He also is eternally loving, thus the cross of Jesus which satisfied the obligation for all those who accept it.

Do you understand how clearly and unambiguously schizophrenic this is? But that's par for the course when it comes to mysticism.

The reality is we are in a situation where we need to look at the evidence first, then determine which world view fits better, works better and is more logical. Not to the level of no doubt, but to the level of a reasonable doubt. Theism, when evaluated in that manner, prior to rejecting any world view, wins hands down.

This is almost a non-sequitur! You are saying that it is far more logical that an all-powerful being created an absolute moral foundation that does not, has not, and cannot adapt to new circumstances. Arbitrary rules such as not working on the "sabbath" day are the manifestation of eternal and divine justice. We are all required according to this eternal logic to believe in and submit to an invisible and nonsensical father figure. If "wins hands down" means "loses", then I suppose I agree with you.

A few other problems with your view. Humans, (homo sapien sapien's) have only been on earth according to most of the scientific community between 50K and 200K years. (There is no evidence right now that shows them more then about 50K but many speculate the other end of the range for thier own reasons). Either way, it is way too short a period for all the so called "immoral" people to have killed each other off. In other words, a "sense" of morality just doesn't arrise out of nothing in such a short period of time.

There is plenty of research and evidence to the contrary. (ref.)

And finally, if you are right, and morals are just a result of breeding, like a bird dog who genetically hunts birds, then the smartest person is the one that works the system to his/her own benefit. Bernny Madoff without getting caught!

Sometimes the immoral gene wins. Madoff is evidence of that, if you think he was born with a sociopathic predisposition. But guess what? As successful as we are cooperating within a social framework, we cannot adapt our social structures without the occassional rebel. We would still be ruled by monarchs if everybody followed the rules. Some rebels, like George Washington, produce great results that endure through time. And other rebels produce terrible results that only serve as an object lesson; "if it's too good to be true, it's probably not true".

[tonyenglish7]

I think we can determine which is right and it matters where they come from because if they are based upon a just God, we are obligated to the "sense" of morals you described. We will have a day in court so to speak. If I have a "sense" that I should follow the traffic laws which was derived from all the people who didn't were killed in traffic accidents and therefore all those who survive know to drive safe, then I am in no real threat of a speeding ticket. But if the reality exists that I will be in danger of facing the traffic court, my "sense" of obligation is more real and carries some consequences.

But when we both arrive in court for our "trials", the Judge will only see that we both followed the traffic laws equally - regardless of our reasons for doing so. Why would the Judge punish one of us, but not the other, when neither of us broke the law?

God has an obligation to his own character of justice to punish all who have broken the moral code. He also is eternally loving, thus the cross of Jesus which satisfied the obligation for all those who accept it. But that is another discussion. I only point it out because you asked, why does it matter?

Okay, but this still really only says that it matters because God makes it matter to himself. And even if he 'has an obligation to his own character to punish' those who have broken his moral code, the type, level, severity, and duration of the punishment is totally up to him, so he can make the punishment fit the crime. If God planted a sense of morality in all our hearts, he forgot to make it obvious to us how the punishment (eternal damnation) fits the crime (whatever failures to live up to the moral code), and that makes Him appear to be immoral, based on the standard he planted in us.

Your use of the word "prove" is dangerous for you because, as we have seen, you have pre-determined that the default view is atheism/naturalism/materialism. The reality is we are in a situation where we need to look at the evidence first, then determine which world view fits better, works better and is more logical. Not to the level of no doubt, but to the level of a reasonable doubt. Theism, when evaluated in that manner, prior to rejecting any world view, wins hands down.

Let me get this straight.... A pre-determined default worldview of atheism/naturalism/materialism is "dangerous", but a pre-determined default worldview of theism "wins hands down"? Do I have that right? I agree with your assertion that we should look at the evidence first, without a pre-determined "default" position, and then decide which fits our observations and experiences better and makes more logical sense. That's why I'm not an atheist. That's also why I'm not a theist, and why, incidentally, if I was a theist, my God would be very much unlike the God of the Bible. But that's another discussion. I also agree with your contention that we don't need to reach a level of no doubt, but rather a level "beyond a reasonable doubt." I think that's where I am - most of the time. Or at least that's where I strive to be.

A few other problems with your view. Humans, (homo sapien sapien's) have only been on earth according to most of the scientific community between 50K and 200K years. (There is no evidence right now that shows them more then about 50K but many speculate the other end of the range for thier own reasons). Either way, it is way too short a period for all the so called "immoral" people to have killed each other off. In other words, a "sense" of morality just doesn't arrise out of nothing in such a short period of time.

Actually, I think it wouldn't take more than a handful of generations - less than a thousand years, say - to extinguish some of the more obvious self-destructive "wrong" moral behaviors (murder is virtuous, human babies are a dietary delicacy, all female babies should be killed at birth, and other equally absurd things). What kinds of immoral behaviors do you have in mind that might take longer than we've been here to extinguish from the gene pool?

Jim

God will only execute his justice in a fair way, but it is true fairness, not our somewhat distorted view of fairness. It is not based upon your opinion.

You think that we could breed into the human race the opposite of morals? The point is, you are claiming that the "sense" of morals we experience is an illusionary result of natural selection away from those who choose to be immoral and therefore were killed off before being able to pass their genes along? How is that possible? I mean, why didn't the ones that were the most successful and beating the system pass their genes along instead?

And if the sense of morals are the result of simple natural selection, then even your view of morality may not be based upon a rational person deciding the facts but more based upon the prior random selection of natural events, therefore you cannot even know if you are actually right or wrong? You have no basis from which to even make an argument! You are a complicated random event and that is it!

[StillSearching]

And if the sense of morals are the result of simple natural selection, then even your view of morality may not be based upon a rational person deciding the facts but more based upon the prior random selection of natural events, therefore you cannot even know if you are actually right or wrong? You have no basis from which to even make an argument! You are a complicated random event and that is it!

Tony, it's interesting to me that you seem to argue against all of us with the presumption that we are all card-carrying materialists. That all of us are dead set in thinking that the world is just random atoms and matter and energy, and that morals are illusions, completely self-centered and subjective. I'm not sure that accurately describes anyone on this forum, even the most hardline atheists among us.

That's one end of the spectrum. At the other end are your ridiculously archaic views on God and morality, shared by religious fundamentalists in every other religion and culture. Personally, I'm somewhere in between, no longer captive to the idea that there is some ethereal white-bearded guy in the sky that is literally dictating the laws and morals of the universe, and watching my every move. And yet not resigned to the idea that everything is up to chance, out of my control, and meaningless.

I won't speak for everyone else. But I have a feeling most of the folks here, including Emery, would fall into this camp. And so it seems you keep making misguided arguments against materialism, instead of facing the real difference of opinion. I simply think your God, and the gods of others are illogical, outdated, and too rigid for a globally aware humanity.

[OzAnt]

You are a complicated random event and that is it!

Actually, add the words "cheap" and "organic" and go a bit less M-theory on me and I'll agree with you. We're all just cheap, complicated, organic devices. You've only got to lookup how many kids are dying per minute in 3rd world countries to see the sense in that statement.

Ant