Here’s a bit of a take-off (thanks Carol).This article refers to an ongoing discussion of a very old topic — the moral compass of Atheists. Some of our critics choose to think that since we have no bible, we can have no objective source for our morality.They’re right. We Don’t.Our detractors’ flaw is in their premise — they don’t have one either. They have their own ideas, find it in the Bible, and then SAY that their ideas are absolute and objective, when in fact they are just personal opinion.For example, Many of our Christian and Jewish friends look at the first part of Lev 20:13 (“If a man lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination”) as an objective judgement against homosexual behavior. They choose to ignore the second part of the SAME SENTENCE (“they shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them”). Because they find that PART of the sentence immoral, they find a way to ignore it, don’t talk about it, and don’t teach it to their kids, making that PART of the sentence somehow not-objective-truth, even though they are words of God himself, and in the same sentence as the words they hold dear. One part of the sentence is morality — the next part is not.Another example is how slavery was/is viewed. The very phrases in Exodus that the slave traders used to justify their wretched industry merely 200 years ago (Ex 20-21) are now dismissed by nearly everyone of conscience as “a sign of the different times”. Same phrase, different meaning, giving far different moral views.See where I’m going? They CHOOSE their own morality just as we all do. The only difference is that they support/blame their decision on the Bible, and we must be responsible for our own opinions. Their trap is sprung when we forget this fact — when we try to point out our objective source for morality, which does not exist. We fail, and their point is made. This universe is not made up of blacks and whites — rather shades of gray. Objective moral laws are myths — like the gods who make them.
Dagny2
What do you base these theories on?
To me its clear that by allowing yourself to be dishonest you gradually numb your conscience by lying to yourself. BUT you are totally aware all the time of tha what you are doing is dishonest.
Deadly,
It’s so good to meet another person who knows about Objectivism! There seem to be so few of us, and locating one another is difficult. Have you heard of _The Sword of Truth_ series? Its author, Terry Goodkind, is also an Objectivist. It’s a fantasy series, but you’d probably like it, because it’s still a good story (writing in the fantasy genre gives him more leeway to promote reason outright). Also check out JohnGaltGifts.com.
You’re right that dishonest people are aware of their dishonesty; the problem is, they convince themselves that dishonesty is okay, or even merited, in their particular circumstances (the old “the ends justify the means” scenario). They have fooled themselves into thinking that, in intellectual terms, they can get away with it, that they can continue their deception without hurting themselves. My theories are based on reason, of course. Everything ultimately boils down to 2 choices: be rational, or be irrational. To me, the only real sin a person can commit is to purposely and knowingly act irrationally.
Dagny2
Ok. Let’s say you theory is correct.
Do you ever sin, i.e. act irrationally?
Of course I act irrationally; we all make mistakes. I said it was a sin to act irrationally *on purpose, knowingly*. Honest errors are possible. I just remember to learn from my mistakes so I don’t repeat them. To act irrationally on purpose is like what you mentioned earlier, the people who are fully aware that they’re being dishonest, but continue to do it anyway. That’s committing intellectual sin. If I repeat incorrect information, then technically, that’s a lie, but if I honestly didn’t realize the info. was false, then it’s an honest error. Do you see the difference?
Goose,
My take on this is that sin is an invention of religion (perhaps Xianity). Sin is a transgression of acceptable acts prescribed by an accepted god.
As I accept no god, I therefore ascribe the concept of sin as the arbitrary pronouncements of men and women long dead. Obviously I am not bound to recognise such edicts – and therfore sin is not a valid concept to me.
So I think your first premise only applies to ‘true believers’.
Goose:
You are forgiven, my son.
I have troubles w/the concept of ‘conditional love’ (as apparently, there ain’t no such thing as ‘unconditional’).
Hey, I’ve pointed out the world around us many times, & have shown (or speculated) that your deity doesn’t exist, from the plethora of examples where s/he/it doesn’t follow the rules of the road.
But I admit doubt when confronted w/specific items. Because I flatter myself about being an honest man.
Of course it would.
Mockery is 1 litmus test of a supposition: can it stand of its own accord?
If it collapses easily, then it’s naught but a house of c_ards.
Test the waters.
Test your faith.
Is it so fragile, it cannot w/stand the mockery of many?
Goose:
“First of all, we are all sinners. No one is a bigger sinner than the next guy. I am not saying anyone made a consciuos decision to be gay, i don’t know what causes it.
But i believe homosexuality is not along the lines of Gods plan for the world and is a consequence of living in a sinful world.”
Yes, you don’t know what causes it, but if you look for the answer, you’ll see homosexuality is a sexual preference you born with (at least almost in every case). I ask you again, if you have this pre-implanted god-morality as you said… how in the name of god is this happening?!! (sarcasm here).
And you keep saying homosexuality is a sin, that’s why I’m against this kind of beliefs, (I still respect the believers, though). Because only cause intolerance, ignorant intolerance. I?m not gay, but I respect them, I have sufficent education to understand they are no sinners, just people with a different preference. BTW homosexuality occurs in all animal species, is something natural.
“Yes, but if the price of disobeying would be eternal damnation, wouldn’t you then follow the rules even if you disliked them? I think you would.”
You are wrong again, I think, if your god exists, heaven will be no much different from hell, because if you read your bible, like you said, to me god is a sinner, probably the worst. And maybe hell is more fun, and like Al Pacino said, the devil is “a true humanist”.
But, at least if god existence is proven, then I could make an informed desicion. Otherwise, without this certainity, god could not punish me for not following his rules, this is the most basic logic. There is people in this world who don’t even know there is a bible!, how could god demand obedience from this people?.
Please goose answer that.
atheiststatic said:
“why do we still suffer the effects of original sin? ie Death, childbirth, ect?”
This gives me an opportunity to again quote from my favorite book, “A Short History of Nearly Everything” by Bill Bryson.
In Catholic grade school it was drummed into our heads that the punishment of original sin was that men must earn a living “by the sweat of their brow” and women must endure pain during childbirth. That seemed pretty unfair to me but I had to admit that female animals had it much easier when it came to childbirth and I wondered why. The lightbulb came on when I read:
“Bipedalism is a demanding and risky strategy. It means refashioning the pelvis into a full load-bearing instrument. To preserve the required strength, the birth canal must be comparatively narrow. This has two very significant immediate consequences and one longer-term one. First, it means a lot of pain for a birthing mother and a greatly increased danger of fatality to mother and baby both. Moreover to get the baby’s head though such a tight space it must be born while its brain is still small–and while the baby, therefore, is still helpless. This means long-term infant care–which in turn implies solid male-female bonding.”
In a nutshell, the reason why we must endure painful childbirth is because we walk upright. Bingo.
atheiststatic, I know your question didn’t ask for a literal answer–it was directed at xians and their belief that Jesus died to atone for original sin, so why do we still suffer. But thanks for giving me the opening to share this bit of information about our evolutionary process.
oh goose your one of those people who had “a religious experience” i know of somebody who had one of those – i have yet to ask him about it. many of them are caused by external chemical influences. i thought i saw a pink rabbit in the clouds once when i was high. – that doesnt mean god is a pink rabbit. as for sinning – i try not to because it is dishonorable – but sometimes those who are wronged deserve it and i shouldnt let good peoples names be smudged by making them do somehting about it. as for proof of god. – if some guy came down form the sky and told me i would be damned to hell i would first try to kill him – and if he/she/it really was god i would fail. i would require phisically for god to prove himself by 4 mericals.
1 he would have to be able to heal ailments, 2 i would like to visit hell – maybe its not so bad, 3 i would want to see him kill a newborn baby(afterall to you he does it on a daily basis), and 4 for the biggest merical – i would want him to hook me up with som1 who by no amount of work and wooing would go out with me. then i would believe your god exists. so goose you pray to him/her/it tonight before oyu go to bed to come to my dorm room – dress casual of course – i dont want the on campus theist groups bothering me while god proves me wrong. oh and tell em to bring some food – im out.
Arguing with believers is tricky. There’s a few things I think should be avoided.
Directly attacking their belief. eg: calling the Bible’s accuracy into question.
The reason this fails is the believer’s faith is purely emotional and pretty much defies logic.
The final statement of the believer, which he/she feels pulls the rug from under us is “You can’t prove God does not exist.”
I agree. That is why it is useless, and dangerous, to even start down that road.
Of course, it is absurd to suggest something has substance simply because you can’t prove its’ non-existence.
There are an infinite number of things, as many things as you can imagine, which we are unable to disprove the existence of.
You can’t disprove Father Christmas, faries, Zues, goblins, sea monsters, aliens, or anything else you care to mention. But I doubt most Christians would take any of these concepts seriously.
2) Moral compass
Christians sometimes say the Bible and God “guide” them to becoming better people.
By this logic, they have a moral judgement OUTSIDE of the Bible by which they can compare their behavour with or without following the word of God.
Otherwise, how would they know they are better people for it?
If their judgement is purely based on the Bible, they can only say they are better people according to the Bible.
It’s a subtlety usualy lost on believers. They don’t see the contradiction in the idea that God gives free will but also tells us how to behave.
Reluctant
Of course it would.
Mockery is 1 litmus test of a supposition: can it stand of its own accord?
If it collapses easily, then it’s naught but a house of c_ards.
Test the waters.
Test your faith.
Is it so fragile, it cannot w/stand the mockery of many?
My faith can stand whatever mockery the world throws at me. I jsut don’t see any point with witnessing about how i met God.
Xytras
“Yes, you don’t know what causes it, but if you look for the answer, you’ll see homosexuality is a sexual preference you born with (at least almost in every case). I ask you again, if you have this pre-implanted god-morality as you said… how in the name of god is this happening?!! (sarcasm here).”
Because we live in a fallen world. And i said everyone is a sinner, not just gay people.
But ok you don’t think they are sinner. Ok. Who do you think is a sinner then?
“You are wrong again, I think, if your god exists, heaven will be no much different from hell, because if you read your bible, like you said, to me god is a sinner, probably the worst. And maybe hell is more fun, and like Al Pacino said, the devil is “a true humanist”.”
Key word “to me”. I think if you read the bible it’s pretty clear how sin is defined. And it is not by our arbitrary opinions.
Again, if God would exist in the way i described earlier i think the whole world would follow him out of fear.
“But ok you don’t think they are sinner. Ok. Who do you think is a sinner then?”
A sinner is someone who doesn?t respect anothers people’s rights, like for example their sexual preferences. Ooops!, you are a sinner.
Seriously, I don’t use the word sin. My point is, with your predisposition to believe a gay person is a sinner, automaticly you are acting with prejudice, intolerance and ignorance. And yet you have to do it because is your god’s order.
Remember, in any religion, never, their god or gods are beyond the prejudice of their makers.
And I still want your answer about god punishing people who don’t know his bible.
I was sick yesterday and geez, this thread exploded. BTW, “moral compass” is a great topic. I’ve enjoyed reading the posts. Welcome to the new posters.
GooseHenry,
I must beg to differ with you here. Not all, but many of us here were theists once. Me, not so long ago. Five or six years? I forget now. I have examined the same evidence that convinced you there was a god and found it lacking. Did you look into the things I asked you a few months ago at all, like 1) actually read the Bible, 2) study the history of your religion and how it evolved, 3) study mythologies of other cultures and compare and contrast. If not then discussion will serve absolutely no purpose. You probably think this research is worthless since it appears you have had a spiritual experience, but I assure you it is essential if you wish to understand remotely where we’re coming from on certain issues. We’ve explained the same things over and over on previous threads.
And I put it to you again, as I think I have before, that even IF a god did exist, that still does not mean it would be worthy of worship. Certainly not the Judeo/Christian Bible-god. Should something automatically be worshipped because it is supposedly more “powerful” than we are? Should we bow down because we fear it? I’m not saying I wouldn’t be afraid of it, and I might run and hide from it, but I would not willingly worship such a being.
Goose, I think you are polite and I do think you’re a nice guy, but I think these discussions for the most part are pointless.
Christians always seem to have an “out”. If they have the atrocities and very human behavior of the OT god pointed out to them, they point out that along with the NT came the “New Covenant” and for the most part invalidated the entire OT. Then why use it at all? Because without it, they would not have the convenient references to homosexuality being an “abomination”, the 10 C’s, etc. They hop-scotch back and forth to the point that it becomes ridiculous, and they cannot see it. Simonh is right, their Bible-belief defies logic so there is really no way to argue these points. They will not listen.
The bottom line is that primitive humans felt they needed religion to explain the world around them. Now that science has explained many of these things, we no longer need gods but people still cling to the old beliefs because it just makes them feel so much better, no matter how irrational even they know it sometimes is. We have morals because we need them to function in society, not because they were dictated by a psycho god.
“Mockery is 1 litmus test of a supposition: can it stand of its own accord?”
Mockery, as an arbitrarily chosen litmus test, doesn’t facilitate effective communication, it facilitates defensiveness. Are you interested in understanding or merely in delegitimizing the supposition?
I can understand that this is an atheist oriented forum, and as such it’s a place for atheists to discuss and find support for their shared philosophy. It’s becoming clear to me that theists are appreciated more for their entertainment value than any thoughtful participation here.
reluctant, when I presented a rational argument related to the idea of omnipotence as a characteristic of God (“Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible (C.S. Lewis)), you countered with an answers.com dictionary definition (Fron answers.com – omnipotence:
“Omnipotence (literally, “all power”) is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power.”) as if that’s an obviously valid refutation. But when abstract philosophical or metaphysical concepts are debated, people (on both sides) employ functional definitions to try to make sense of a concept. Offering me a dictionary definition suggests that you don’t really want to think about it.
Point: I’m happy to go away if you prefer mockery to rational debate. This is, after all, your forum…I’m just a guest.
wdo,
I think many people here appreciate a considered reasoned argument. Unfortunately many theists and some atheists tend toward unsupported assumptions and invalid logic in their positions. Sometimes we take the time to point out their errors, other times we indeed degrade into poking fun at the ineptitude. Agreed that it is not constructive, but it can point to other observers how fallacious are some arguments.
Notwithstanding the above, I, for one, welcome anyone that is interested in reasoned debate. I care not one whit if you are Atheist, Xian, Muslim, Zoroastrian, etc. It is the arguments that stand or fall on their own merit. And consequently may be treated either with respect or derision. So I welcome your interest in rational debate.
You posed the position:
This is a definitional change from the position usually understood (in this forum at least). It places boundaries on omnipotence, which seems to me to make it self-contradictory.
But let’s run with it for a minute. My question would be “who decides what is and is not intrinsically possible?” Aside from logical contradictions (eg square triangle, irresistible force meeting immovable object, etc) what else might come under the umbrella of intrinsic impossibility for a supernatural entity living both inside and outside of space and time?
Does intrinsic possibility mean that we must obey the laws of physics? Not if one believes the buybull I guess.
Seriously I can’t think of anything.
wdo,
Deligitimizing a supposition is a valid endeavour. Suppositions, unchallenged, can be used to build a formidable argument. A debater worth their salt will deconstruct an argument (especially one found personally disagreeable) in an attempt to root out any ‘illegitimate’ suppositions (premises).
Mockery may or may not be an appropriate means to expose such logical fallacies depending on their nature, the audience, and the motivation behind thier inclusion (and probably other factors).
HeatheNZ
“Did you look into the things I asked you a few months ago at all, like 1) actually read the Bible, 2) study the history of your religion and how it evolved, 3) study mythologies of other cultures and compare and contrast”
Well, even if its pointless i will answer your questions.
1) I have a cuople of lesser prophets left (from Amos to the NT)
2) No. But i follow this blog (even though i don’t write that much). I think it has “enlightened” me to a certain degree
3) same as 2)
Goose,
I’m not sure to whom the questions in your previous posting belong, – but it was not I.
GooseHenry,
Actually those were not HeatheNZ’s questions, they were mine. But that’s okay.
I am delighted to learn you are reading the Bible. Still no change of opinion regarding it?
But I’m sad to learn you still haven’t researched much into the history of Christianity or other mythologies. I seriously think you need to do this.
How has this blog enlightened you? You don’t seem very different as far as opinions. Or were you being sarcastic? (I noted the enclosing quotes…”enlightened”.)
Susan:
Thanks for the info. I didn’t realise it was that complex. Do you have any links about it for me?
Now now, aren’t we being a litte rough on GooseHenry? If we pride ourselves on being rational men and women, then don’t we have a duty to hold true to it even in the face of irrational beliefs?
You can’t win someone over by insults and name calling – if that is indeed your goal. It’s the quiet, calm voice that wins after everyone else has shouted themselves to silence.
If your right, your right. No amount of threats, insults, or ad hominem will change that.
I didn’t say it was an invalid tactic, I was asking about his intent.
Mockery is based on an intent to ridicule. It targets the debater, not the argument. In fact, it often tends to overshadow the argument in this forum.
BTW, I’ll respond to the other post (re omnipotence) later.
Good morning everyone.
Took me quite awhile, but I think I’ve finally caught up on this thread. Great stuff, interesting debate. I’ve had a similar debate with my sister on this issue – she’s a very vocal evangelical xian – and one question I have asked several times, and to several people, but have not been able to find an answer is “Why do our morals have to come from some being, or power other than our own comunity?”
Please forgive me if I’ve missed it on this thread, but really, why? Why are we as a species not able to come up with our own set of morals and ethics? Why is some devine power needed?
-Jeremy
wdo:
I’m all for understanding.
Mockery in & of itself is also a litmus test, at least for me. How someone handles it is a way for me to analyze just who I’m dealing w/exactly.
It’s also how I talk to people in the real world, BTW.
You’ve comported yourself well, IMO.
Well, truthfully, it’s a little of both. For myself, at least.
I’m something of a xenophile: I find diversity, other people’s thought processes & belief systems fascinating, & among the religious, there’s no dearth of diversity.
I might also add, that my oldest & dearest friend is a BAX, & spanders & I get along remarkably well. I count him as a friend, whom I met here.
Nope, sorry. I use dictionary definitions to make sure that I & the respondent are indeed on the same page.
For instance, in brief tussles w/creationists/ID’ers, they use 1 specific definition of the word ‘theory’, whereas I use another 1 entirely.
It’s the equivalent of the translation of the NT from Aramaic to Greek, for instance.
Aramaic is a language that has many meanings for 1 word, whereas Greek has many words for 1 meaning.
English tends to be the latter.
Hey, I prefer both. They’re not mutually exclusive, you know. I just balk at obsequiousness. Never been that good at it.
But an opinion is an abstract: it isn’t the sum total of its holder.
You have every right to your opinion, as I have mine. I reserve the right to call your opinion silly if I so choose. Likewise, back atcha.
I’m just a guest too, FYI.
So, in short, sure, I’m all for rational debate.
But I reserve the right to make fun. So, no, I’ll not refrain. Sorry.
Just don’t take it (or yourself) too seriously. Bit of a suggestion there.
wdo,
What you said was:
I think it is necessary to understand a supposition in order to be able to effectively delegitimize it. So I guess the question you posed (aside for being a bifurcation logical fallcy) does not even offer mutually exclusive options. Indeed, understanding must surely be a precursor to legitimization or illegitimization.
As to intent. I assume you are referring to the intent of employing mockery rather than the intent of deconstructing the argument. In this I would tend to agree with you. Mockery does not foster effective communication.
However I do defend the right to mock in some cases. Especially when the discourse involves emotive terminology. For example, if a theist were to refer to their deity as “My Lord and saviour” I would feel justified in responding with “Your imaginary friend in the sky”.
Other times I admit that I lose patience and respond to some particularly inane argument with farce and derision, and am likely to do so in the future.
Goose:
Here is a thing that flusters me to no end, in debates w/y’all: unwillingness to shout it from the rooftops.
Somewhere in your dusty tome, it states that you will be mocked/denigrated/insert verb of choice here, for your beliefs.
I can somewhat understand the reluctance to quantify it in a roomful of strangers who are obviously adverse to the concept, from subtle to not-so-subtle. & it’s a personal, almost intimate detail. My good friend can’t really describe it so well. I ask for the qualifications: were there physical symptoms (for wont of a better word)? How did it make you feel? That sort of thing. It’s always
A. Indescribable, or
B. I don’t want to get into it here.
Personally, I have indeed had experiences of an unquantifiable nature occur to me. Strange feelings, dreams, the blossoming of energy flowing thru me, that aren’t very, well, atheistic, if you catch my drift. I can indeed understand your reticence. I can attribute some of them to being under the influence of…substances, but not all of them. Not even the bulk of them. Chances are, some of them have perfectly rational explanations (those experienced not under the ‘influence’, which BTW I put all that sort of thing away decades ago).
As an atheist, I feel I’m obliged to question EVERYTHING, including myself, even my atheism.
Because nothing is locked in stasis. Nothing.
Peach63
“How has this blog enlightened you? You don’t seem very different as far as opinions. Or were you being sarcastic? (I noted the enclosing quotes…”enlightened”.)”
I used enclosing quotes as i didn’t know which word to use.
On one hand, i’ve been enlightened because i know better how you think.
On a personal level i haven’t. As my relation to God is already established no amount of science/history/folklore etc. can get in the way.
Reluctant
“Here is a thing that flusters me to no end, in debates w/y’all: unwillingness to shout it from the rooftops.”
I have no problem shouting out my faith from the rooftops, go ahead and mock it, it is what i expect as a christian.
How i met God is a different issue. I save that for christian brothers and sisters at is serves no function here. If i’d meet you in person i’d tell you though.
My experience from my indocrinated youth is that one is happy to disuss their personal faith related experiences only in the company of those of like mind. They have a strong expectation that noone is going to question their ‘experiences’, indeed they can expect a considerable amount of positive reinforcement.
Sharing the same experiences as an individual with a group of outsiders is a different story. They can expect to receive skepticism, or if they are unlucky, derision.
Goose, I don’t blame you for not exposing your personal experiences to the skepticism of we atheists. The reponse would not likely be supportive.
However, I think that such an attitude shows the fragility of such experiences.
Or, it might be that Goose is just a regular, non-masochistic kind of guy who doesn’t see the value in eliciting a deluge of acerbic criticism.
That might be it.