Another What's the Alternative Thread

[Guest]

KevinSim -- Just as there are hundreds (if not thousands) of churches you could attend in order to determine a path, there are ten thousand times more books.

If "good"means to you "moral good", then your choices are very broad, as all religions offer teachings in regards to what is morally good. But that perhaps could narrow your reading selection. Perhaps seek out books that describe the moral teachings of various religious groups?

Also, the atheism/agnostic argument for moral good outside of religion is valid. These arguments are usually more focused on what is ethical, rather than what is moral. From the point of view of a person with faith (me), the idea that religion is beneficial because it instills morality, is a reduction of faith.

What is "good" is also a philosophical discussion.

I don't know your background, but, I am biased towards Catholicism. :) I like the philosophical discussions of Dr. Peter Kreeft. He used to offer his lectures for free on his website. Now he has put them up on iTunes for $2. http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio.htm Perhaps you'll see something of interest. If not, I recommend the writings of Augustine, who was not only an influential philosopher but an influential theologian. His writings are freely available on the internet. Most philosophy courses start with "The City of God". http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm

Pray always, for God to lead you to Him.

[_KevinSim]

I don't think you are interested in a honest discussion.

A misunderstanding does not make one of the parties uninterested in honest discussion.

Your own OP indicates you had certain conclusions about what atheists or agnostics say and nothing so far can change your mind. Even this thread after you left has been going over what atheists and agnostics are doing and believing about improving the human condition. How you can think they say do nothing and believe nothing suggest to me a very biased mind.

I didn't mean to say atheist groups "do nothing and believe nothing." I apologize if I came across that way. What I meant to say was that when I posted my request for information in the first thread, some posters told me an alternative was for me to believe nothing, to have no beliefs about God at all. I didn't mean to say the mentioned groups did nothing and believed nothing.

[_KevinSim]

What is so hard about answering such a simple question, especially when you ask others about good.

In a way, I have already answered the "simple question."

A request was made for me to articulate what real good is. You, Themis, asked me why I didn't "just answer the question and stop dodging it"? I asked you why you were asking me this question. You didn't answer, so I will answer for you. You were asking me the question because people generally conclude that open and honest discussion is a good thing. People generally think that when one person asks another a question, within reason the latter should give an answer to the former. Why? Because the discussion involved in such an exchange is, people think, a good thing.

Some people think that good needs to be rigorously defined, but it really doesn't. Just the act of defining what good is would be a good thing; if we didn't understand what good was before we defined it, why would we define it? If we didn't already understand that having an open and honest discussion was a good thing, we'd all be trolls, just posting random things on forums like this one to provoke responses. In fact, this forum would have no reason to exist if enough people didn't think that open and honest discussion was a good thing, and therefore worth getting involved in.

[_KevinSim]

Therefore one atheist from a list of philanthropists can be proven to be doing more good than your invisible, unknown "good god."

Of course said atheist can! When you're talking about proof, that atheist has an obvious advantage. The question is, is that atheist doing enough? Is that atheist actually aiming high enough?

I say there's a God who will preserve forever some good things. I fully admit I have no way to prove that God will do that. So what? Am I supposed to become an atheist just because there's no way to prove that my God is doing more lasting good than the mentioned atheist is?

If the atheist realizes that that atheist's conscience requires her/him to work toward eternal goals, then that's something, and that's what I was asking for in the OP. If the atheist doesn't even recognize the need for someone who understands how to preserve forever some good things, then in my opinion that atheist doesn't really understand her/his obligations to future generations of humanity, and I will stick with people who do understand said obligations.

[_KevinSim]

I talk about it incessantly, I agree. It is "the crux of all" my arguments, I agree. And therefore you ask me to tell you what "real good" is, why?

It's hard to have respect for someone who has no respect for others by not answering a simple question, about something he is proposing. The discussion really cannot go anywhere until this person shows some respect for others and answers the question.

Exactly! This discussion and pretty much any discussion implies that respect. That respect is a good thing. You can't have a meaningful discussion between a group of people if all the people don't realize that having that respect is a good thing and therefore they should do it. As I stated in the other article, if we didn't understand that having that respect was a good thing we'd all be trolls, and nobody would take anybody else seriously.

That is the answer to Just Me's question. We couldn't have an open and honest discussion without an understanding that that open and honest discussion was a good thing.

People think we need to have a rigorous definition of what good things are. But if we didn't understand what good was in the first place, why would anybody bother trying to define it?

[_KevinSim]

I no longer care about any potential eternal reward that may or may not be waiting for me after this life - My goal is to enjoy what I have now and make the best of it.

Well said. Why not worry about the life that is now. You can always worry about forever when it becomes now.

We're talking about different kinds of forevers. I'm not talking about preserving someone's life forever. I'm talking about our obligation today to all future generations. Those future generations may live out finite lives just like we do, but we do have an obligation to make those finite lives as good as we possibly can.

[_KevinSim]

There are multiple examples in this thread of atheists and agnostics (individuals and groups) actually doing things to make a positive difference to humanity in the short term and as a legacy.

So your OP has been answered comprehensively and it seems you are the only one not to see that.

Look, Drifting, I see entirely where you're coming from. Your point is that there is solid evidence that atheists and agnostics have made great contributions to the welfare of humans of this generation and way into the future, whereas you are aware of no evidence that any supernatural being even exists, let alone has contributed to the welfare of any humans at all. I don't have any problem at all seeing why you would be more attracted to those atheists than you are to any faith group, and if I hadn't been raised by a woman who firmly believed in God, I would very possibly have gravitated to those atheists myself, and would have thought I was making a completely adequate contribution by doing so.

But that wasn't what my OP was about. I commend those atheists for their philanthropy, and would like to see more philanthropy like it from great numbers of other people. What my OP said was that although such contributions are good, they aren't enough.

In five billion years from now the Sun is going to expand into a helium star and engulf the three inner planets, killing every single resident still on Earth (assuming there still are people on Earth). Those people are real people, with hopes, dreams, and feelings not that far removed from yours and mine. Five billion years is a long time, so maybe some people will be thinking that we can look for some way to keep away the pain and early death from those people when we get closer to the actual date. But the problem with that approach is that we don't know how long it's going to take to find a solution to get those billions of people off the planet. If we don't start now, can we really be sure we'll have enough time when the actual day of destruction arrives?

And that event is just a minor detail compared to another astronomical disaster. In roughly 100 billion years the universe is going to run out of hydrogen, all the stars are going to die, and all people on planets that rely on the stars for energy are going to be in big trouble. Once again (assuming they actually do get off Planet Earth before it's annihilated), these are real people, with hopes, dreams, and feelings. Can we in clear conscience say we don't care about those people, because they live so far in the future?

You might say both those events are so far away they don't really matter. I disagree, but those are just the calamities we know about; there could be many more in the centuries until them that might also have quite a bunch of potential to wipe out the human race if we don't hunt them down and find out how to survive them. In fact, does anybody really know that global warming isn't such a species-threatening object?

I have no problem at all expending great amounts of energy joining with atheists and agnostics to achieve an enormous amount of short term philanthropy. But that doesn't give us the right to ignore future generations of humans facing such disasters, just because they live so far in the future.

All is now being asked is that you respond in kind and show us what God is doing to make a positive difference to humanity in the short term and as a legacy.

I admit I can't. But the OP wasn't about what someone like me could show God was doing, either for short term gain or for gain as a legacy. It was about meeting our eternal obligations, about how we're going to do some good that will in fact last forever. I know that I can't prove that God will help us with preserving forever that good. But that good has got to be done by somebody. If not by God, by who? Are you up to it, Drifting? Can you by yourself come up with solutions that will promote the welfare of all future generations of humanity?

I know I'm not up to it. I'll do my part, my fair share of the work, but I can't take the whole burden on my shoulders. I'm simply not cut out for it. But somebody has to do it. That's why I believe in God. Not because there's any evidence that God exists, but for the simple fact that humanity needs God, and I'm not in a position to take the place of God.

The fact that you have 'no idea how to prove God is doing anything at all' should give you pause for thought.

Why should it give me "pause for thought"? I recognize I'm going on faith. I challenge you to work toward eternal philanthropy without going on faith.

[_KevinSim]

So I ask you again, what alternative is there to the LDS Church for a person to whom it is a foregone conclusion that the LDS Church is the true church?

Having a conscience sensitive to the needs of all future generations is not the same thing as having "a foregone conclusion that the LDS Church is the true church."

[_Themis]

If you cannot articulate what they are then your question about alternatives makes no sense.

How does that follow?

I could list some of the things that I consider good in this life, and how they might be preserved. My list of good things would reflect my LDS upbringing, like raising our three children, making my wife happy, and entertaining a group of toddlers in my church's nursery, etc. But I'd like to think that if someone were to successfully persuade me that those things are not good, and that the real good things are something else entirely, my commitment to find ways to forever preserve some good things would be transfered over to the new things that I'd been persuaded were good. My commitment is to good things, not to the things I get when I articulate what preserving good things is.

Is this why you have been dodging people's question of what you think is real good. Remeber these posts

By good things I mean things that are good. Drifting, are you saying that you don't know what good means?

Just because different people have different views of what good is, doesn't mean that real good doesn't exist.

You seem to be saying you don't know what real good is, which in turn would mean you made it up. Why not just admit it from the beginning instead of the run around you have been doing?

[_Themis]

Exactly! This discussion and pretty much any discussion implies that respect. That respect is a good thing. You can't have a meaningful discussion between a group of people if all the people don't realize that having that respect is a good thing and therefore they should do it. As I stated in the other article, if we didn't understand that having that respect was a good thing we'd all be trolls, and nobody would take anybody else seriously.

That is the answer to Just Me's question. We couldn't have an open and honest discussion without an understanding that that open and honest discussion was a good thing.

Well, start having some respect then. You brought up the term good. Other provided examples which did not meet what you then introduced as real good. They asked what that would be, and you never have answered it. You brought it up so answer it.

People think we need to have a rigorous definition of what good things are. But if we didn't understand what good was in the first place, why would anybody bother trying to define it?

Then answer the question if you think we have to have an understanding of what it is.