What is wrong with Penn state students???

[brehon]

I think you are misunderstanding me - not sure. You said not believing in God does not preclude having a moral code. Perhaps it is just semantics, but I don't think I said that. What I was trying to say is that many people who say they do not believe in God actually do have a moral code. But when asked what they base that moral code on, they really have no way to do that. They betray that there must be some standard - an objective standard outside of all of mankind's mind - that is the basis for a moral code.

 

I think perhaps you (and others who are Christians but who believe in evolutionary theory) haven't quite thought it all the way through. Books have been written about this topic so I don't think I can adequately address it here, but I will just get the ball rolling with this idea.

 

If theistic evolution were true, then many, many living organisms had to die before man came on the scene. That means that death entered the universe and world long before Adam and Eve (or if you prefer, mankind in general, if you think of Adam and Eve metaphorically or symbolically). Theologically speaking that means that death was already a fact of life (sorry, no joke intended there) and that the whole idea of man sinning and falling from God's grace (literally or metaphorically) and thereby bringing suffering and death into the world is moot. If the fact that sin does not cause death is no longer tue than we do not need a Savior. If we do not need a Savior, then we do not need Christ and we do not need Christianity.

 

However, if God really did create man on the 6th day of creation and all of creation up to and including that point was good, even very good, according to scripture then there were no eons of years filled with death. Death was a consequence of Adam's and Eve's rebelliion against God's one simple command in the Garden of Eden and the first death happened after mankind was on earth - it was the death of Abel. If our sin causes suffering and death and separates us from a Holy God, then we do need a Savior. We need someone who can save us from the wages of sin - death.

 

I don't see how evolution and Christianity are compatible in any way just from examining that one aspect of the argument. There are many books out there that explain it much better than I can though and I encourage you to at least examine the topic. Don't take my word, or Ken Ham's or John Whitcomb's or any theistic evolutionists' word. Search the scriptures as the Bereans did to see whether or not these things be so.

 

Kathleen, thank you for writing out your thoughts. I think I understand what you were trying to say. However, many people who do not believe in God say they do have a basis for their moral code. It's simply different from yours.

 

You and I have diametrically opposite approaches to Scripture. I simply have never believed in sola scriptura. Both the tradition I was raised in and the tradition I currently worship in believe in Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, and (for RC) the Magisterium. I have done extensive reading both of Scripture, the ECFs, and other religious and non-religious sources, to say nothing of scientific articles and texts. My thoughts (and they have been many and wide ranging) remain unchanged.

 

And I still maintain that it was wrong to even insinuate that people who believe in evolution somehow are to blame for young, impressionable, passionate, misguided students reacting to compounding horror.

[LibraryLover]

Then maybe that makes the primates more evolved than us.:tongue_smilie: If they don't have to have a defined moral code to act with compassion and with emotion.

 

 

Imagine. Compassion and goodness for the sake of it. No hell needed.

Edited November 11, 2011 by LibraryLover

[justamouse]

Well, I can only say that you are wrong about why I said what I did. I did not intend to insult anyone, I did not see the opportunity to create a soapbox, I was not trying to divide people. I read the title to the post and actually have been thinking about those students all day after reading the headlines. I truly believe what's wrong with those students is exactly what I stated in my first post and was simply stating my perspective and opinion. I don't understand why that is seen as some kind of problem. Folks are certainly allowed to disagree - I have no problem with that. I certainly expected it. I realize there are many differing viewpoints on this board. Am I not entitled to mine?

 

You are totally entitled to your POV, and we are entitled to point out flaws in your logic.

 

As to insulting people. Well, the way I see it people can choose to be insulted or not. I have no control over that. I am not going to tiptoe around what I believe to be true to avoid offending people. I am not the type to be politically correct and worry about everyone's feelings. Many people read my post and completely misunderstood it and were insulted. I have tried in several posts to correct that misunderstanding. I'm not insulted or hurt that a lot of you here do not agree with me. That's to be expected on a public forum. Isn't that what the Greeks did in ancient times? Discuss ideas, put ideas out there to discuss and consider?

 

From my vantage point it seems that it's okay to have an opinion here as long as it's acceptable to everyone here. Sorry, I can't do that. I have my opinion. Take it or leave it. I imagine most of you will leave it. That's fine. But I do believe I'm entitled to it nonetheless. I suggest that if you find that you are insulted it is because you misread my post. If you truly think you got it and are still insulted please forgive me - it was completely unintentional.

It's ok to have any opinion. But people pointing out the flaws in your logic aren't disagreeing with your beliefs, (as many of us ARE Christians) and it's kind of a cheap excuse to chalk up the disagreement to that.

 

And yes, I still do find it insulting that you think that people rioting is because they believe in evolution.

 

 

I am only stating what I believe to be true according to my beliefs based on the Bible. I have no problem with others differing with me. But I do believe I have the right to state what I think is true.

 

You can't say they're based on the bible. That is not true. They are based on your INTERPRETATION of the bible. It's the truth as you see it.

 

Many of us believe in the bible and come to a completely different conclusion, so again, it's an easy out.

[kalanamak]

Imagine. Compassion and goodness for the sake of it. No hell needed.

 

I went looking for that quote about Man being the only animal that blushes, or has need to, and found this list of howlers:

 

http://www.twainquotes.com/Man.html

 

(I do know that there are many here who can't stand Twain, but for those of those who love him, quite the chuckle.)

[redsquirrel]

Please tell me where I said that. I do not believe I did. I think it's obvious that if someone is appalled by the men involved in this scandal and these particular students' response to it, they certainly do have a moral compass. I think I've stated that many, many times in several different posts. I am simply amazed at how many people have missed my point entirely. What confuses me is how can someone who believes man is only a more evolved life form than animals can also say he has a moral code as well? I believe you have one. I just don't think that having a moral code - especially if you are going to hold others to your moral code, thereby making it some kind of universal moral code - is compatible with the theory of evolution.

Well, clearly you aren't explaining it very well if so many people are not understanding it. You may want to try again. I think there may be a few people in the bleachers you have not offended.

 

And saying having a moral code that is not based on your concept of Christianity cannot co-exist with an acceptance of evolution just makes no sense. What the heck does that even mean? What do you know about evolution? What do you know about anyone's moral code and how they apply it?

 

So, if one is a fundamentalist christian with a pre-scientific worldview who does not accept evolution one has the right to stand in judgment of others and tell them that their behavior is good or bad? But, if one is not a fundamentalist christian with a pre-scientific worldview then one must accept the bad behavior of others with no comment? Because an acceptance of evolution means that we have ceded any right to expect good behavior from others and hold them accountable for their actions?

 

What?

[LibraryLover]

I went looking for that quote about Man being the only animal that blushes, or has need to, and found this list of howlers:

 

http://www.twainquotes.com/Man.html

 

(I do know that there are many here who can't stand Twain, but for those of those who love him, quite the chuckle.)

 

 

HA! Those are awesome.

 

I've always been a Twain lover, so I can't speak to the Twain haters.:tongue_smilie:

[happypamama]

These students are doing the right thing. My hope is that by tomorrow night the word will travel and the number of students will be significant.

 

I hope so! *That* is the Penn State spirit there, along with the students who raise money to fight childhood cancer, the student who wrestled a gun away from a shooter and prevented more deaths, and so many more students who do good every day. They are proving that they are so much more than this tragedy.

 

As for the rioters, it really is only a small portion of the students, very far from the entire student population. And I don't think that most of them truly think football is more important than children, but I suspect they aren't really thinking it all through very well and realizing how it looks.

[Kathleen in VA]

I didn't mean to imply that evolutionists are to blame for the students' behavior or the other scandalous behavior. Everyone is responsible for their own behavior. I guess that is what I have been missing in all of these replies. Sorry. Perhaps I should have said that it is possible for someone to reach the conclusion that every man can choose what's right and wrong for himself if he has been brought up to believe in evolution - that he is just an animal. Isn't that the way biology textbooks classify man - a primate? an animal? I took biology in college in 1980 (state school - not Christian) and I'm pretty sure that's what it said. What I meant was it doesn't surprise me that if someone gets taught that line of thinking all their lives, it seems reasonable to conclude that we can all make up what we think is right and wrong. It's possible those students just see themselves as the product of time and chance with no moral restraints. And if that's true for them, then it's true for everyone else as well, including the folks involved in the scandal.

 

Someone else pointed out that there were many students who did not agree with the rioters - I haven't looked at the news reports this evening but I think someone here said that. I imagine these students, too, were brought up to believe evolution is true (at least the vast majority of them anyway). So there is evidence that they did not reach that same conclusion, just as many of the the theistic evolutionists and athiests here did not reach that conclusion. I know you have a moral code - your posts reveal that. What puzzles me is why. I can't help that it puzzles me - it sincerely does. It's even more puzzling to me that those who have a moral code seem to have reached a general consensus on what that moral code is.

 

If we all evolve as individuals (and we do according to evolution, right?) then how did we all come up with the same general moral principles (give or take a few)? Doesn't anyone else find that puzzling? Even an evolutionist ought to find that interesting and worth searching out.

 

I may just be a simple minded person - I'll grant that's certainly a possibility. I was only trying to state an answer to the OP's question. See, I'm so simple minded it never occurred to me that it might be a rhetorical question. I really have been musing on this all day. Someone posted about it on facebook yesterday (the scandal) and it just made me wonder about where atheists get the idea of morals if they think we're just evolved over millions years, by chance (see, that's the biggie for me - if it's all chance then how can you be sure you evolved correctly and that your morals are the right ones?). It didn't (and, sorry, it still doesn't) make sense to me.

[Kathleen in VA]

Well, clearly you aren't explaining it very well if so many people are not understanding it. You may want to try again. I think there may be a few people in the bleachers you have not offended.

 

And saying having a moral code that is not based on your concept of Christianity cannot co-exist with an acceptance of evolution just makes no sense. What the heck does that even mean? What do you know about evolution? What do you know about anyone's moral code and how they apply it?

 

So, if one is a fundamentalist christian with a pre-scientific worldview who does not accept evolution one has the right to stand in judgment of others and tell them that their behavior is good or bad? But, if one is not a fundamentalist christian with a pre-scientific worldview then one must accept the bad behavior of others with no comment? Because an acceptance of evolution means that we have ceded any right to expect good behavior from others and hold them accountable for their actions?

 

What?

 

OK, I just tried to clarify in my last post which you hadn't had the opportunity to read when you posted this.

 

I take objection to your term "pre-scientific." Technically, if God created the world then He is the Author of science and there is nothing in the Bible that has been refuted by science - not observable science anyway. I really don't want to get into that - it's just that I want to make it clear that I don't agree with creationism being unscientific. Of course, I realize you don't believe that God created the world so it's probably not worth going back and forth over. I don't think either of us will be able to convince the other.

 

I'm hoping that I'm not holding anyone to my version of Christianity or my version of anything. Obviously, I have to have some beliefs that I call my own about the Bible. My pastor says that it is a good thing we have different denominations - he thinks it is God's way of keeping man humble and continually searching the scriptures. I do think the moral code found in the Bible is the correct one. I realize that Christians can disagree on that here and there, too. Some Christians believe the death penalty is fine; others believe it breaks the commandment not to kill. I get that there are differing viewpoints even among Christians. I will only say that all of us (Christians, that is) need to keep going back to scripture and reading it carefully and praying for the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. We are fallen creatures - our minds and hearts are fallen as well - we will not know all there is to know until we are in Heaven. (Now we see through a glass darkly; then face to face. I Cor. 13 near the end.) What I am holding up as the standard is not my version of anything, but hopefully I am pointing folks to the Word of God - the Bible.

 

ETA: I just realized I did not address your question, What do you know about evolution? Well, I admit I haven't read Darwin's Origin of the Species, but I was taught all though school and college from an evolutionary viewpoint. All the PBS specials and other cable tv channels that cover animals, origins, etc. teach it. Like I said before, I took Biology 101 in a state college (James Madison University) and a science methods course for elementary education, both of which were taught by firm believers in evolution - the methods professor was almost militant about it. I know that the basic premise is that all of life formed from non-life. First small one-celled beings existed and then gradually over millions (billions?) of years all the life forms we see today evolved to their present states of being. This evolution was not purposed by any mind - it occurred by pure chance and that is why it needed so many millions of years to happen. The beings (I'm trying not to call them creatures) or organisms, if you will, somehow "knew" what adaptations they needed so they gradually adapted to accommodate these needs and became the reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals, humans, insects, and other organisms (thinking now of molds, paramecium, bacteria, etc.) that are on the planet today. Is that basically it?

Edited November 11, 2011 by Kathleen in VA

[simka2]

OK, I just tried to clarify in my last post which you hadn't had the opportunity to read when you posted this.

 

I take objection to your term "pre-scientific." Technically, if God created the world then He is the Author of science and there is nothing in the Bible that has been refuted by science - not observable science anyway. I really don't want to get into that - it's just that I want to make it clear that I don't agree with creationism being unscientific. Of course, I realize you don't believe that God created the world so it's probably not worth going back and forth over. I don't think either of us will be able to convince the other.

 

I'm hoping that I'm not holding anyone to my version of Christianity or my version of anything. Obviously, I have to have some beliefs that I call my own about the Bible. My pastor says that it is a good thing we have different denominations - he thinks it is God's way of keeping man humble and continually searching the scriptures. I do think the moral code found in the Bible is the correct one. I realize that Christians can disagree on that here and there, too. Some Christians believe the death penalty is fine; others believe it breaks the commandment not to kill. I get that there are differing viewpoints even among Christians. I will only say that all of us (Christians, that is) need to keep going back to scripture and reading it carefully and praying for the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. We are fallen creatures - our minds and hearts are fallen as well - we will not know all there is to know until we are in Heaven. (Now we see through a glass darkly; then face to face. I Cor. 13 near the end.) What I am holding up as the standard is not my version of anything, but hopefully I am pointing folks to the Word of God - the Bible.

This is where I am getting confused by you. If not your standard than whose are you holding up?

[Mergath]

Holy crap. I've read some insulting stuff on here, but this one takes the cake.

 

I think we can safely invoke Poe's Law here, too.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

[Mergath]

If we all evolve as individuals (and we do according to evolution, right?) then how did we all come up with the same general moral principles (give or take a few)? Doesn't anyone else find that puzzling? Even an evolutionist ought to find that interesting and worth searching out.

 

 

We didn't. Try studying a little anthropology sometime. Or really, a little of anything other than the bible. Value systems vary wildly from culture to culture, and between different time periods. It's the society one lives in that shapes our morals, combined with a person's natural tendencies. So that includes religious belief in a whole mountain of other things. An accurate understanding of evolution is not one of the things that decide a person's values.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Mergath

[Rosie_0801]

You don't have to agree, but do try to remember the atheist arguments carefully provided next time you automatically go to say there aren't any. We can handle "that's a lousy reason," but "there aren't any reasons" is tedious when we know you have been introduced to them.

 

 

I am proposing that atheists and evolutionists are betraying their true belief in a higher authority.

 

Yeah, my momma. She taught me manners.

 

Atheists don't believe in a higher authority in the way you mean, and not with the constancy you do.

 

There are times when the higher authority, as you call it, is the collective. It's bad for the vast majority when people rape and pillage.

 

Sometimes the higher authority is our own thoughts. You know that line, "be the change you want to see in the world?"

 

Define "greater societal good." Who decides what that is?

Define "a better place". Who decides what's better and what isn't?

 

That's what philosophers are for. That's what historians are for. That's what anthropologists are for. That's what lawmakers are for in so far as they are making laws to encourage health and safety, not legislating against hanging washing to dry. :glare: Any evolutionist who thinks s/he can get about raping and pillaging because they are just an animal is either a sociopath, woefully educated or "merely" an immature jerk, as far as I can imagine.

 

Hitler thought the greater good was to put to death a lot of Jews, Gypsies, Christians, and others. He was wrong. He convinced a lot of people that he was right. I don't want just anyone defining the "greater good" for me.

 

Shame on them for being convinced. Shame on the allies for giving Hitler such an opening. I don't think it will disrupt humanity if you define the greater good for yourself, which you have done really in choosing to be Christian, because you are only one person. I'm only one person too and I sure don't have the power to influence large sections of humanity.

 

What, particularly, did I say that was insulting to non-creationists?

 

I found nothing offensive in wondering how we could have a moral code. If you want to know, you have to ask, after all. I do think some participants in the thread are a bit too high on their horsies to realise they are accusing you of things you haven't said. I know you haven't accused atheists and old earth creationists of having no morals.

 

The bit where you seemed to imply we really do believe in God but are too thick to have noticed was insulting. If God was really that obvious, we would have to be monumentally stupid not to have noticed! No one likes being called stupid so to be called monumentally stupid goes further than a mere difference of opinion.

 

if it's all chance then how can you be sure you evolved correctly and that your morals are the right ones?).

 

Hey, how do you know God's morals are the right ones? You are obviously taking his word for it. How do you know He isn't tricking you? Or the Bible wasn't dictated while He was in a smart alec mood? How do you know God is the absolute supreme master of rhetoric to the point where his meaning could never be ambiguous? Maybe God likes to ramble and some of the stuff in the scriptures was a totally irrelevant tangent. Maybe God was PMSing at certain times, (we were created in God's image, so it's plausible!) so we should politely gloss over the jealous and vengeful bits. Presumably you look around at the world and see that when God's morals are put into play, things work a whole lot more harmoniously than when they aren't? That's more or less correct?

 

Well the rest of us read, speak and listen to people, think about ideas and look around at the world and see that when certain ideas are implemented, life goes on more harmoniously. And we see that when they aren't, it doesn't. It's a pretty similar process, I think.

 

 

Rosie

[Laurie4b]

There was apparently as much condemnation of Sandusky as there was support for Paterno. Some of those angry at Paterno's firing felt that the intense focus on Paterno actually took away focus from where it should be--on the victims. And the student body is organizing a blue-out (they usually wear white) at the Nebraska game to show solidarity with the abuse victims (Blue is the color of the stamp out child abuse ribbons.) So while some students acted like idiots, there was more to it than what was splashed across the headlines in national news. See the Pennlive site for more info.

[Mrs Mungo]

Hitler thought the greater good was to put to death a lot of Jews, Gypsies, Christians, and others. He was wrong. He convinced a lot of people that he was right. I don't want just anyone defining the "greater good" for me.

 

Hitler also considered himself a Christian, not an atheist. It was part and parcel of his reasoning for killing the Jews, the killers of Christ. But, many Christians, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and atheists alike could recognize his actions as immoral and wrong.

 

What I was trying to say is that many people who say they do not believe in God actually do have a moral code. But when asked what they base that moral code on, they really have no way to do that. They betray that there must be some standard - an objective standard outside of all of mankind's mind - that is the basis for a moral code.

 

I am sorry, but have you actually read the ancient texts recommended in TWTM? Do you realize that many of these moral codes *that society deem to be morally correct today* were considered to be true before The Bible ever existed? Way before Christ? That some of the stories and laws in The Bible were written down well before any of the Biblical books in their canonized forms? You and I may believe those ideas originate with God, but to insist all moral codes originate from The Bible is simply foolish.

 

I think perhaps you (and others who are Christians but who believe in evolutionary theory) haven't quite thought it all the way through. Books have been written about this topic so I don't think I can adequately address it here, but I will just get the ball rolling with this idea.

 

Well, I think the same of YECs, so, fair enough. If you are honestly interested in why I think the way I do, then you could ask. But, http://www.answersincreation.org would be a good place to start.

 

If theistic evolution were true, then many, many living organisms had to die before man came on the scene. That means that death entered the universe and world long before Adam and Eve (or if you prefer, mankind in general, if you think of Adam and Eve metaphorically or symbolically). Theologically speaking that means that death was already a fact of life (sorry, no joke intended there) and that the whole idea of man sinning and falling from God's grace (literally or metaphorically) and thereby bringing suffering and death into the world is moot. If the fact that sin does not cause death is no longer tue than we do not need a Savior. If we do not need a Savior, then we do not need Christ and we do not need Christianity.

 

However, if God really did create man on the 6th day of creation and all of creation up to and including that point was good, even very good, according to scripture then there were no eons of years filled with death. Death was a consequence of Adam's and Eve's rebelliion against God's one simple command in the Garden of Eden and the first death happened after mankind was on earth - it was the death of Abel. If our sin causes suffering and death and separates us from a Holy God, then we do need a Savior. We need someone who can save us from the wages of sin - death.

 

Old Earth Creationists/Theistic Evolutionists do not all believe the same way about this. Some believe death existed outside the garden rather than in the garden. Some believe the death spoken of in those passages refers to spiritual death, only man has a soul and therefore is the only creature who dies a spiritual death. Some believe it is allegory. It in no way impacts our belief in our need for our Savior's saving grace.

 

eta: This article is a relatively quick and easy read, but deals with some of the issues that you bring up: http://www.answersincreation.org/bookreview/dino_mystery/the_great_dinosaur_mystery_solved.htm

 

Edited again to add another article:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html

 

I don't see how evolution and Christianity are compatible in any way just from examining that one aspect of the argument.

 

But you are clearly not well versed on what such people believe, so why would you find it compatible?

 

Perhaps I should have said that it is possible for someone to reach the conclusion that every man can choose what's right and wrong for himself if he has been brought up to believe in evolution - that he is just an animal. Isn't that the way biology textbooks classify man - a primate? an animal?

 

Man is not "just" an animal. Man has developed reason. We work together. We live in societies. We choose laws that help those societies function. And not all societies have the same moral codes, that is a fallacy on your part to believe that they do.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[FiveOaksAcademy]

You should have edited the other one, too.

 

Nope. I said what I wanted to. I just decided to drop the thing and go to bed. Thanks for trying to make my decisions for me, though. :lol:

 

I stand by Kathleen.

 

The results after going to bed are just what I expected. Her thoughts and opinions were thoroughly ganged up on by many.

[Haiku]

What is wrong with them? They are short-sighted and self-absorbed.

 

Tara

[FiveOaksAcademy]

From my vantage point it seems that it's okay to have an opinion here as long as it's acceptable to everyone here. Sorry, I can't do that. I have my opinion. Take it or leave it. I imagine most of you will leave it. That's fine. But I do believe I'm entitled to it nonetheless. I suggest that if you find that you are insulted it is because you misread my post. If you truly think you got it and are still insulted please forgive me - it was completely unintentional.

 

I am only stating what I believe to be true according to my beliefs based on the Bible. I have no problem with others differing with me. But I do believe I have the right to state what I think is true.

 

:iagree: Not only should you have the right to state your beliefs, but you should have the right to do it and not be ripped apart for it.

[MariannNOVA]

My response to the original question:

 

 

Perhaps they have not developed critical thinking skills.

Edited November 11, 2011 by MariannNOVA

[Mrs Mungo]

The results after going to bed are just what I expected. Her thoughts and opinions were thoroughly ganged up on by many.

 

:iagree: Not only should you have the right to state your beliefs, but you should have the right to do it and not be ripped apart for it.

 

She has the right to say what she wants (in this case, within the TOS in this board). I have the right to disagree and explain why. That is how rights work. We both have them. Nobody ripped her apart. Nobody called her names. Nobody made unfair assumptions about her. Nobody threatened her. People respectfully (if vehemently) disagreed.

 

I am tired of disagreement being called flaming or slamming or tearing apart. If someone can't handle people disagreeing with them (and I am not saying that is the case with any one person) then it might be wise to keep one's thoughts to oneself with regard to controversial topics.

[LidiyaDawn]

I'm not sure why so many people are *surprised* at Kathleen's comments.

 

There are many, many Christians who hold the very same beliefs -- I've attended churches filled with those folks.

 

Kathleen - of course you have the "right" to voice your opinion. The thing is, when your opinion is a negative one about OTHER PEOPLE (in this case: Atheists and Christians who believe in evolutionary science) those people may very well get ticked off at you. That comes along with it, y'know?

[chiguirre]

:iagree: Not only should you have the right to state your beliefs, but you should have the right to do it and not be ripped apart for it.

 

No, you have the right to state your beliefs. Others ALSO have the right to state their beliefs. If you go out of your way to insult and annoy others, you should be ready for their outraged response. If you don't realize that what you're saying is profoundly insulting, you can either turn it into a learning opportunity by apologizing and rephrasing your statement in the form of a question or continue to dig your hole and end up on a lot of ignore lists.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm not sure why so many people are *surprised* at Kathleen's comments.

 

 

I don't think anyone is surprised that those people exist. I think they were surprised to hear it come from Kathleen. She usually seems pretty reasonable. To have her wildly lash out in a thread that has nothing to do with creationism or religion is pretty weird. I would bet money that at least some of the students rioting are from Christian backgrounds. A belief in Christ or Creationism doesn't protect you from being wrong or a jerk.

[Marylou]

She has the right to say what she wants (in this case, within the TOS in this board). I have the right to disagree and explain why. That is how rights work. We both have them. Nobody ripped her apart. Nobody called her names. Nobody made unfair assumptions about her. Nobody threatened her. People respectfully (if vehemently) disagreed.

 

I am tired of disagreement being called flaming or slamming or tearing apart. If someone can't handle people disagreeing with them (and I am not saying that is the case with any one person) then it might be wise to keep one's thoughts to oneself with regard to controversial topics.

 

When someone gives her opinion and then another person thanks her for the "laugh", it is seen as disrespect.

 

Maybe you didn't see that post.

[gingersmom]

I thought the same thing. It saddens me.

 

Tonight they are having some kind of vigil for the victims.

[Mrs Mungo]

When someone gives her opinion and then another person thanks her for the "laugh", it is seen as disrespect.

 

Maybe you didn't see that post.

 

I did, but I don't think it was any more disrespectful than Kathleen saying that I haven't thought out my beliefs or that atheists have no moral code (which, I think was heavily implied in her posts).

[chiguirre]

When someone gives her opinion and then another person thanks her for the "laugh", it is seen as disrespect.

 

 

 

No, if you say something laughable, you should expect a :lol:. That you meant what you said seriously doesn't mean that everyone has to treat it that way. Consider it an online "bless your heart".

[Marylou]

I did, but I don't think it was any more disrespectful than Kathleen saying that I haven't thought out my beliefs or that atheists have no moral code (which, I think was heavily implied in her posts).

 

 

Really, Mrs. Mungo? She said atheists have no moral code?

 

Oh brother.

 

And it's okay to be disrespectful if someone else is first?

 

What philosopher thinks that is good for society?

Edited November 11, 2011 by dmmosher

[LidiyaDawn]

I did, but I don't think it was any more disrespectful than Kathleen saying that I haven't thought out my beliefs or that atheists have no moral code (which, I think was heavily implied in her posts).

 

Really, Mrs. Mungo? She said atheists have no moral code?

 

Oh brother.

 

Did you ignore the bolded part on purpose?

[Mrs Mungo]

Really, Mrs. Mungo? She said atheists have no moral code?

 

Oh brother.

 

Implied and said are two different words. Yes, it was implied, why else would it be a factor in students rioting in protest of the firing?

 

Steve Demme has spoken about his eldest almost lost hisfaith when he went away to college because he realized that atheists, liberals and people who believed in evolution were good, decent people with good reasons for what they believe. That is the danger all-or-nothing Christians face.

[Mrs Mungo]

And it's okay to be disrespectful if someone else is first?

 

What philosopher thinks that is good for society?

 

I try very hard to present reasoned, respectful arguments. I don't have to answer for what other people do.

[J-rap]

I'm going to take a risk and completely change the course of this discussion, getting back to the original question re the students protesting.

 

This is why I steer far away from any mass protest or movement. I don't think that type of thing is unusual even for educated adults. People get caught up in the momentum of something, and it feels exciting and good to stand for something. In reality, they haven't taken the time to think it all through. Most people don't like to take the time. It's too much work, and much easier to assume that someone else has thought it through for them.

 

In this particular case, however, it doesn't seem like you'd need to be too informed in order to come to a wiser conclusion. It's quite sad.

[*Lulu*]

Really, Mrs. Mungo? She said atheists have no moral code?

 

Oh brother.

 

 

The op by Kathleen did seem to strongly imply that, yes. However, in her posts that followed she said several things that were contrary to that notion. Her initial assertion and her thoughts that followed seem to be contradictory, IMO.

 

Either atheists have no moral code, or they have one, but are in denial about its origin. I do not see how you can have it both ways. *sarcasm on* That being said, I have not delved heavily into formal logic and am one of those OEC who suffers from poor reading comprehension and delusions caused by false teaching. *sarcasm off*

[*Lulu*]

To the original question, I think there are going to be a few of that group that are really regretful of their participation in the original protest. I also think there are a few who will never get why they were wrong.

 

I am very glad to see the student population's reaction to the incident and the first protest.

[Rivka]

Not only should you have the right to state your beliefs, but you should have the right to do it and not be ripped apart for it.

 

Being criticized by people on a message board is not being "ripped apart."

 

There is no entitlement, in the Constitution or anywhere else, to be free from criticism, strong disagreement, or even ridicule. We are all responsible adults here. We can and should take ownership of our words, and not expect other people to protect us from their consequences.

[*********]

What I was trying to say is that many people who say they do not believe in God actually do have a moral code. But when asked what they base that moral code on, they really have no way to do that. They betray that there must be some standard - an objective standard outside of all of mankind's mind - that is the basis for a moral code.

 

This is a very interesting topic, and dh and I have discussed it before. I believe there might be a Way of the Master episode about it, too. We believe that all people are created with a conscience, given by God (who created them even if they don't believe in him), to determine 'right' from 'wrong', and that is where an athiest's moral standard comes from.

 

Kathleen, thank you for writing out your thoughts. I think I understand what you were trying to say. However, many people who do not believe in God say they do have a basis for their moral code. It's simply different from yours.

 

This was Kathleen's question; what is thier basis.

 

I'm not sure why so many people are *surprised* at Kathleen's comments.

 

There are many, many Christians who hold the very same beliefs -- I've attended churches filled with those folks.

 

Kathleen - of course you have the "right" to voice your opinion. The thing is, when your opinion is a negative one about OTHER PEOPLE (in this case: Atheists and Christians who believe in evolutionary science) those people may very well get ticked off at you. That comes along with it, y'know?

 

I'm sure Kathleen does know that her beliefs can make others mad. I know that about my beliefs, and I'm ok with it.

[Frontier Mom]

I heard an interview with 3 kids from Penn State on the radio. They were expressing the same shock. One kid said "I hope everyone realizes that there are 44,000 students at Penn State and it was 2,000 who did this. The other 42,000 were appalled."

 

:iagree: We also don't know where they were getting their information about the firing. If it was social media, which I suspect, then being inflamed to the point of rioting doesn't surprise me. Not every student should be labelled by the action of a few.

[Avila]

I'm sure Kathleen does know that her beliefs can make others mad. I know that about my beliefs, and I'm ok with it.

 

It isn't her beliefs that make me mad. She has every right to them. But saying that people who disagree with her haven't thought THEIR beliefs out is insulting. Everyone here that I have heard disagree with her seems very well-prepared to do so.

 

It is condescending and patronizing to tell people who disagree with you that they disagree because they haven't thought things through.

 

The idea that if everyone else would just read the Bible, all the issues would go away because we would agree with her is very presumptuous.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Asenik

[Free]

This was Kathleen's question; what is thier basis.

 

Regentrude put it very nicely in her post a few pages back. I am just going to quote her:

 

No, they do not require a higher authority to have morals. Man, as a being with reason (which developed through evolution), can choose to overcome his animal instincts and govern himself according to moral principles which originate from his thinking.

 

The very laws that many believe were handed down by a god, were in my belief created by men.

[brehon]

Nope. I said what I wanted to. I just decided to drop the thing and go to bed. Thanks for trying to make my decisions for me, though. :lol:

 

I stand by Kathleen.

 

The results after going to bed are just what I expected. Her thoughts and opinions were thoroughly ganged up on by many.

 

Just because people disagree with a stated position does not mean anyone ganged up on Kathleen.

:iagree: Not only should you have the right to state your beliefs, but you should have the right to do it and not be ripped apart for it.

 

Yes, you should. And it applies both ways. Kathleen made several strong statements which others disagreed with. Disagreement and contention are *NOT* ripping anyone apart.

 

She has the right to say what she wants (in this case, within the TOS in this board). I have the right to disagree and explain why. That is how rights work. We both have them. Nobody ripped her apart. Nobody called her names. Nobody made unfair assumptions about her. Nobody threatened her. People respectfully (if vehemently) disagreed.

 

I am tired of disagreement being called flaming or slamming or tearing apart. If someone can't handle people disagreeing with them (and I am not saying that is the case with any one person) then it might be wise to keep one's thoughts to oneself with regard to controversial topics.

 

 

Thank you. I, too, tire of people crying foul when there is disagreement (both here and IRL).

[unsinkable]

I do know that many Christians claim to also believe in evolution. It's called theistic evolution and it is a false teaching.

.

 

It is the tone of posts like this one. No, Kathleen doesn't need to apologize for her beliefs. It is the condescending dismissal of everyone else's beliefs that is *irksome.*

 

It isn't her beliefs that make me mad. She has every right to them. But saying that people who disagree with her haven't thought THEIR beliefs out is insulting. Everyone here that I have heard disagree with her seems very well-prepared to do so.

 

It is condescending and patronizing to tell people who disagree with you that they disagree because they haven't thought things through.

 

The idea that if everyone else would just read the Bible, all the issues would go away because we would agree with her is very presumptuous.

 

:iagree:

[mommaduck]

It is the tone of posts like this one. No, Kathleen doesn't need to apologize for her beliefs. It is the condescending dismissal of everyone else's beliefs that is *irksome.*

 

 

 

:iagree:

And I think there were several people trying to nicely point that out to her.

[LibraryLover]

And I think there were several people trying to nicely point that out to her.

 

 

And don't ask me why I even care...but it also felt hurtful and dismissive.

 

Not that I am giving myself the Sensitivity award. My aggravation levels can lead me to places I don't want to go, for sure,

 

I do personally kow devout folks. I might not share their beliefes, but as long as they are not pushing at me to believe what they believe (and I can't think of anyone but my mother who does this to me, and my mother gets a pass. I know she is seriously worried about my eternal soul), I am not even going to judge their beliefs. I might even enjoy certain parts of it, and I appreciate certain lessons. I recognize the tremendous role religion has played in human history. I even participate in their celebratory rituals (baptism, bris, always difficult, but I get it, religious weddings etc) . As for dear old Mom, if I could bring myself to believe in a literal bible or a literal god, or a young earth, or tiny dinos on the ark, I would. It would make her so happy, But I can't. I continue to be gentle with her, and she continues to pray for me. She does blame herself, as she did not raise us as Baptists. I told her she would feel worse if I grew up in something and left it. She agrees she would have felt she failed. Mommy. :)

 

I do feel a sense of loss . My mother is not the mother of my childhood. But that's my own issue to deal with; I see a lot of my mother in Kathleen. Sweetness, gentlenss, intelligence etc. I think that's why it felt more personal than it should have.

Edited November 11, 2011 by LibraryLover

[brehon]

This is a very interesting topic, and dh and I have discussed it before. I believe there might be a Way of the Master episode about it, too. We believe that all people are created with a conscience, given by God (who created them even if they don't believe in him), to determine 'right' from 'wrong', and that is where an athiest's moral standard comes from.

 

 

 

This was Kathleen's question; what is thier basis.

 

Well, as I'm not atheist, I won't purport to speak for those who hold that view. Many members of this board have on previous threads made their position known (i.e. the basis of their moral code(s)) and, minus a deity, it seems pretty coherent and solid to me.

 

I'm sure Kathleen does know that her beliefs can make others mad. I know that about my beliefs, and I'm ok with it.

 

I don't care what Kathleen's beliefs are (meaning that she has every right to them and I won't and don't think less of her because of them). To be told that I just need to read and study more and I'll suddenly see the light is condescending, at the very least. To be told that I simply haven't thought things through is...hmmm...insulting, quite frankly.

 

I realize Kathleen and I are approaching this from vastly different experiences and (apparently) belief systems. As I said before I do not hold to sola scriptura. This one difference in how we approach Holy

Scripture leads to a fundamental difference in how we view many things. I'm not mad at Kathleen or her beliefs. I just wish she'd accord me the same respect I accord her and her beliefs.

 

As far as the Penn State students - they're young, passionate, and just had their world turned upside down. They're struggling to deal with unfolding events just as we all are only they are physically and emotionally closer to the scene. I imagine most of those students are just as horrified and sick and feel the same overwhelming sadness for the victims that we all do.

[Marylou]

Did you ignore the bolded part on purpose?

 

 

I didn't ignore it. She said in several posts that she believes that all people have a moral code. Maybe you missed it.

[Marylou]

As far as the Penn State students - they're young, passionate, and just had their world turned upside down. They're struggling to deal with unfolding events just as we all are only they are physically and emotionally closer to the scene. I imagine most of those students are just as horrified and sick and feel the same overwhelming sadness for the victims that we all do.

 

I imagine that they just don't care.

 

But I'm cynical like that.

[DianeW88]

Ok...maybe I missed this somewhere, I haven't read everything...but how on earth was the conclusion drawn by some posters that the Penn State protesters are only atheists/evolutionists? :001_huh: Did they fill out a questionnaire before the rioting began? Was there some sort of religious litmus test before vehicles were set on fire? I'm willing to bet that these protesters beliefs are all over the board and represent all religions. Because stupidity knows no bounds.