Cortes is exactly right. Dawkins is not leading some assault against child molestors. If he were he would not be speaking on religion at all. No one has heard Dawkins say anything about child abuse outside of the Catholic church. He’s not attacking the boy scouts or swim coaches (the latest to be hit with sexual abuse allegations)…or leading people against individuals. He simply wants to bash another belief because it is different than his own.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…do you think it’s enough to believe in god and his rules, and follow those rules as well as you can even as “wolves” are increasing in numbers?
[/quote]
I’m still not sure I understand what you mean here. I mean the antithetical answer would be, “No, because the ‘wolves’ are increasing in number I think I should stop believing in God and following his rules.”
Is it just a rhetorical question?[/quote]
…is there something you feel you can do to stop these “wolves”, and counter the influence they have?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…do you think it’s enough to believe in god and his rules, and follow those rules as well as you can even as “wolves” are increasing in numbers?
[/quote]
I’m still not sure I understand what you mean here. I mean the antithetical answer would be, “No, because the ‘wolves’ are increasing in number I think I should stop believing in God and following his rules.”
Is it just a rhetorical question?[/quote]
…is there something you feel you can do to stop these “wolves”, and counter the influence they have?
[/quote]
Alright, before we go further define “wolves.”[/quote]
…i’m not sure, it’s a term coined first by pat in another thread. I think it pertains to something Jesus alledgedly said about men taking over the church who weren’t sincere in their faith?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i’m not sure, it’s a term coined first by pat in another thread. I think it pertains to something Jesus alledgedly said about men taking over the church who weren’t sincere in their faith?
[/quote]
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves (Matt. 7:15).
“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16).
“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29).
Eph, you battle false prophets with the truth. And knowledge. And discernment.[/quote]
…you have a lot of work ahead of you then, push. A lot of work…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
.and yet, throughout history, absolutely every absolute moral rule has been broken, trampled on or ignored by those who were supposed to uphold them. What is the point?
[/quote]
The point for me was to discern the principle behind the law and to live by it.
To follow the rules is slavery to live by principles is freedom.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
.and yet, throughout history, absolutely every absolute moral rule has been broken, trampled on or ignored by those who were supposed to uphold them. What is the point?
[/quote]
The point for me was to discern the principle behind the law and to live by it.
To follow the rules is slavery to live by principles is freedom.
[/quote]
…yet for some religious folks that can’t be enough. Principles need to be backed by divine moral inspiration or else it’s powerless, or so they say. Whatever it is, it’s a fascinating topic…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
.and yet, throughout history, absolutely every absolute moral rule has been broken, trampled on or ignored by those who were supposed to uphold them. What is the point?
[/quote]
The point for me was to discern the principle behind the law and to live by it.
To follow the rules is slavery to live by principles is freedom.
[/quote]
…yet for some religious folks that can’t be enough.
[/quote]
I agree with you on this point.
I noticed that most people were not necessarily joining a religion to serve God but to self serve.
The majority did not seem to want be responsible adults in the world with a trained conscience but co-dependant with a religious order/governing body to account to.
Same with people who want big government/political order to organize their lives for them, deal with the people they don’t want to deal with and tell them how to go about their business in the world.
When you are co-dependant you can overlook a lot of crimes and misdemeanours, both with religious leaders and presidents.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
God didn’t create Sin.
When the God-created mechanism is followed, i.e.,"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” THEN atrocious wrongs are avoided.[/quote]
I thought God created EVERYTHING.[/quote]
That’s an old game. Been played for long, long time. And it’s nothing more than a game. But a young guy like you might think it’s kewl to play it again. In other words it’s a badge of immaturity to bring it up.
Sin is not a thing. God did not create Sin.
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
God didn’t create Sin.
When the God-created mechanism is followed, i.e.,"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” THEN atrocious wrongs are avoided.[/quote]
I thought God created EVERYTHING.[/quote]
That’s an old game. Been played for long, long time. And it’s nothing more than a game. But a young guy like you might think it’s kewl to play it again. In other words it’s a badge of immaturity to bring it up.
Sin is not a thing. God did not create Sin. [/quote]
LOL! Best post.
So I guess push etc would go around raping children if they thought god didn’t exist. They claim god is the basis of their morality yet their reason for following (or claiming to follow) his word is purely self interest (ie going to heaven not going to hell).
We can judge things wrong or right without the universe caring about our judgments or holding us accountable for them. The universe is utterly indifferent. The good suffer and the bad prosper, and although the idea of an afterlife which balances things out makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside, that’s no evidence for a god or an afterlife.
To ask where our ability to judge good comes from or why we think one thing is right or wrong might seem like a special sort of question, but it’s really no different than asking how do we interpret certain wavelengths as red or blue or green, or how do we experience the taste of an orange when tasting an orange. A rough answer lies in the fact that some things promote the proliferation of genes (we experience these as pleasurable) and some things hinder it (these are painful). As societies become more complex that which is associated with the good becomes less strongly correlated with raw or base pleasure.
And obviously different societies have different ideas of rightness and wrongness. This doesn’t entail moral subjectivity, since some societies could simply be wrong. There are plenty of ways to root morality other than a deity. Kant used rationality. Mill used pleasure. Rand used self-interest.
[quote]wramsey wrote:
So I guess push etc would go around raping children if they thought god didn’t exist. They claim god is the basis of their morality yet their reason for following (or claiming to follow) his word is purely self interest (ie going to heaven not going to hell).
We can judge things wrong or right without the universe caring about our judgments or holding us accountable for them. The universe is utterly indifferent. The good suffer and the bad prosper, and although the idea of an afterlife which balances things out makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside, that’s no evidence for a god or an afterlife.
To ask where our ability to judge good comes from or why we think one thing is right or wrong might seem like a special sort of question, but it’s really no different than asking how do we interpret certain wavelengths as red or blue or green, or how do we experience the taste of an orange when tasting an orange. A rough answer lies in the fact that some things promote the proliferation of genes (we experience these as pleasurable) and some things hinder it (these are painful). As societies become more complex that which is associated with the good becomes less strongly correlated with raw or base pleasure.
And obviously different societies have different ideas of rightness and wrongness. This doesn’t entail moral subjectivity, since some societies could simply be wrong. There are plenty of ways to root morality other than a deity. Kant used rationality. Mill used pleasure. Rand used self-interest.
[/quote]
Just to add to this, God really does not help their case at all.
Either they believe that some things are right or wrong and they accept that God has made it so and internalize it and make it their own, than they could arrive at that conclusion in a number of other ways.
Or, they simply bow down because otherwise they will get surprise buttsecks for eternity, but that is submission and not a moral decisision.
Just because your God tells you to do something does not mean that you have to do it, you can refuse. Insofar accepting his ideas of what is “right” is a decisions people are responsible for.
[quote]wramsey wrote:
So I guess push etc would go around raping children if they thought god didn’t exist. They claim god is the basis of their morality yet their reason for following (or claiming to follow) his word is purely self interest (ie going to heaven not going to hell).
We can judge things wrong or right without the universe caring about our judgments or holding us accountable for them. The universe is utterly indifferent. The good suffer and the bad prosper, and although the idea of an afterlife which balances things out makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside, that’s no evidence for a god or an afterlife.
To ask where our ability to judge good comes from or why we think one thing is right or wrong might seem like a special sort of question, but it’s really no different than asking how do we interpret certain wavelengths as red or blue or green, or how do we experience the taste of an orange when tasting an orange. A rough answer lies in the fact that some things promote the proliferation of genes (we experience these as pleasurable) and some things hinder it (these are painful). As societies become more complex that which is associated with the good becomes less strongly correlated with raw or base pleasure.
And obviously different societies have different ideas of rightness and wrongness. This doesn’t entail moral subjectivity, since some societies could simply be wrong. There are plenty of ways to root morality other than a deity. Kant used rationality. Mill used pleasure. Rand used self-interest.
[/quote]
Very good post!
[quote]wramsey wrote:
And obviously different societies have different ideas of rightness and wrongness. This doesn’t entail moral subjectivity, since some societies could simply be wrong. There are plenty of ways to root morality other than a deity. Kant used rationality. Mill used pleasure. Rand used self-interest.[/quote]
exactly. it amazes me every time how religious people chose to completely ignore philosophy as a source of morality, even though it has been around just as long as religion.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This, if you think about it, actually strengthens my case and weakens yours. Because if you want to run with the “biology is the causation of my morality” ethos then we’re back to wolves, dolphins, and chimps (and Down’s syndrome people); in other words morality just ebbs and flows by chance with no creator or guide in place.[/quote]
This is an Argument from Consequences. Just because you don’t like the consequences of a creator not existing, doesn’t mean one exists. [/quote]
Excellent post. It reminds me of an old guru I once met at the top of a mountain who told me, “Just because you don’t like the consequences of a creator existing, doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.”
It was decades ago that I had that encounter and have never had the opportunity to use it til just now. Thanks for jogging my memory. [/quote]
Just because I pointed out an error you were making doesn’t automatically allow you to accuse me of making the same error. You disappoint me push, I expected better from someone who once met an old guru on top of a mountain.
[quote]wramsey wrote:
So I guess push etc would go around raping children if they thought god didn’t exist. They claim god is the basis of their morality yet their reason for following (or claiming to follow) his word is purely self interest (ie going to heaven not going to hell).
[/quote]
Again with you guys coming in here telling people what they believe and their rationales. You guys, I will assume you are atheist, really don’t do a lot for your arguments when you so severely mischaracterize theists’ motivations. Here, just so we can save all of the back and forth, since I’ve been doing it for 20 pages now : Those of us who believe that the source of Absolute Morality is God do not have to follow the morality because of self-interest (Heaven) or fear (Hell).
We follow it for the same reason you probably follow it, because it’s what you ought to do. I don’t know if you are trying to be funny or you are just that ignorant, but if you really believe that the only thing keeping Christians and other theists out of a bloody clownsuit is fear of Heaven or Hell then you are dead wrong.
The difference between us and you is that there actually is a solid foundation and thousands of years of history and philosophy upon which our idea of morality is based. The point, from the beginning, has been that you guys don’t.
[quote]
We can judge things wrong or right without the universe caring about our judgments or holding us accountable for them. The universe is utterly indifferent. The good suffer and the bad prosper, and although the idea of an afterlife which balances things out makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside, that’s no evidence for a god or an afterlife.[/quote]
There’s no evidence for a not-god and a not-afterlife, either. It’s beside the point to what we’ve been arguing here.
[quote]
To ask where our ability to judge good comes from or why we think one thing is right or wrong might seem like a special sort of question, but it’s really no different than asking how do we interpret certain wavelengths as red or blue or green, or how do we experience the taste of an orange when tasting an orange. A rough answer lies in the fact that some things promote the proliferation of genes (we experience these as pleasurable) and some things hinder it (these are painful). As societies become more complex that which is associated with the good becomes less strongly correlated with raw or base pleasure.[/quote]
Did you just jump on the thread just now? Because evolution and culture as a basis for morality has been covered at least twice now. The arguments did not lead to a nice place, either.
The first two sentences here are correct. And it almost sounds like you are arguing the same thing I’ve been arguing the entire time: That there is, indeed, an Absolute Morality, and that individuals and societies violate it at their peril. However, if you are going to base yours upon something other than a Moral Law that exists and has always existed, then you had better do more than drop names as if the book is closed. Everyone else here so far has been doing their own work. If you want to come in here and you think you’re going to tear down 20 pages of arguments in a single post, you are mistaken. I don’t count on God to do my work for me, you’ll not find a single reference to the Bible in a single one of my posts. Kant isn’t going to do your work for you. Nor is Mill. Rand sure as hell isn’t going to do it for you. Do your own work. Tell me where that foundation is located. I’ve read my share of philosophy and been in this thread from the beginning, and not one person so far has provided an argument that didn’t fall to pieces under scrutiny.
[quote]novocaine wrote:
[quote]wramsey wrote:
And obviously different societies have different ideas of rightness and wrongness. This doesn’t entail moral subjectivity, since some societies could simply be wrong. There are plenty of ways to root morality other than a deity. Kant used rationality. Mill used pleasure. Rand used self-interest.[/quote]
exactly. it amazes me every time how religious people chose to completely ignore philosophy as a source of morality, even though it has been around just as long as religion.[/quote]
Ahh, so philosophy is the “source” of morality.
So then, is science the “source” of the Laws of Physics?