Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Then i don’t understand what you’re getting at.
[/quote]

I’m attempting to demonstrate to you that you do actually believe that certain acts are unequivocally moral or immoral.

You can come up with all the explanations and justifications and postulations you want to, but in the end, everyone except for maybe true sociopaths ends up having to admit that there are certain “truths,” he holds to be “self-evident.”

[/quote]

Cortes, there are things i would only do in extreme situations, and there are things i would never do no matter the circumstance. What i would never do [cheat on my wife, for instance] some people don’t think twice about.

Joining an army, go abroad and invade a country is another thing i would never do.

And yet, these immoral acts aren’t perceived that way by many, many people. Would i ever kill a baby? No, i would not. Do i think that people who do kill babies are immoral? Yes, because the act of killing a baby is something i would never do.

Still, babies are killed everyday by people who think they’re doing the right thing. Why is that Cortes? Is it because what one finds moral changes with circumstance? I think so.

What i think are immoral acts are acts i’d never do myself.[/quote]

Totally beside the point.

What another person feels means nothing. What’s important is that you believe there IS a moral standard, as you hold yourself to it, would never violate it in certain respects, and you use this standard when comparing the acts of others (indeed, you are using it in this very post).

My entire point, from months ago on the Arrest the Pope thread, even, has been this. Press hard enough, and, unless they are a total, out and out sociopath, everyone ends up admitting that there are certain acts that they feel are just fucking wrong no matter what.

And at this point, my friend, I can point to Sloth’s recent posts to forlife about such a moral code either being a lie (which I certainly don’t think is the case with you), an actual Law which exists independent of the physical universe, or just the same as the faith/ignorance/protectionary mechanism-based fantasy delusions we Christians comfort ourselves with.

Something tells me you are not really cool with options 2 or 3, either. [/quote]

I never denied having a moral standard Cortes. Whatever gave you that idea?
[/quote]

Well, can you clarify for me what your definition of a moral standard is, right here and now? Maybe that’s why we keep going round and round and ending up in the same place.

Because I was under the distinct impression that you had a set of feelings about what is right and wrong, influenced by biology, society, and your own circumstances. And if this is so, my statement stands, and you are going to have to either choose option 1, 2, or 3, or provide me with a plausible option 4.

For clarification. Your statement: I have a moral standard.

So, it follows:

  1. I don’t really have a moral code. I’ve just been trolling you guys. I’m actually a nihilist. Haha! Good one, eh?

  2. Yeah, I guess you’re right, Cortes. There really is such a thing as a Moral Law out there. It can be discovered, and is, at its core, unchanging throughout time, location or circumstance. Certain acts are wrong under any circumstances.

  3. My moral code is valid, but there is no Moral Law. The moral codes of others are valid so long as they do not deviate too far from my moral code. How do I know this? Faith! Divine revelation! Praise be to my Conscience, for It is Good.

4.[You can fill this in, but I really do not see too much wiggle room past the first three options, given what you’ve stated so far.][/quote]

How come morals can’t be derived from natural law? Like there’s only so many ways a star can form, there are only so many ways a decision can be moral. [/quote]

Natural Law = from God.

362

natural law=from an uncaused cause that we currently have no way of knowing anything about

363

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Indeed, I would surmise that, in the final moments of life, it is the Christians who, right or wrong, are going to pass away more peaceful and content. [/quote]

The fact that this comforts you is worrying to me. Peaceful that you covered your bases…i smell a bitch in my gym!

Im just going to train all my life and when the devil comes a knocking imma knock him the fuck out. Soz religion is BS[/quote]

That’s awesome.

I bet you can curl, like, 300lbs, can’t you?

[/quote]

haha try 500KG’s! - sorry man I stopped taking this seriously when old mate said I WILL go to hell and that there IS a God whether i like it or not…

Im going to argue FOR religion now - see what conclusion we can come to! who knows maybe ill have a mid life crisis like ZEB :stuck_out_tongue:

364

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
In a grave to rot back into the earth or cremated. hence don’t waste your ONE life - Unfortunately we’ll never know who was right/wrong - but ignorance is a powerful emotion. good luck.[/quote]

If we’re right, we all will know.[/quote]

It’s probably more likely we’ll find out with in our lifetimes but who knows, lets wait and see!

365

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
The fear of death is the main drive behind religion. It’s the main drive behind much of what we do. And that’s fine if you’re into that sort of thing. [/quote]

The need for self-affirmation is the main drive behind atheism. It’s the main drive behind much of what we do. And that’s fine in you’re into that sort of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-affirmation[/quote]

I have no problems with that. I think almost everything and anything we do is somehow motivated as a form of self-affirmation. “Self” is all we know, and as a consequence, everything we believe about “self” in- and after death, is dependant on this knowledge.
[/quote]

I know you don’t have any problem with it. That’s why you so frustrate me sometimes :wink:

What’s funny to me, though, is that this post of yours is a confirmation of the massive bias in the post your wrote before it.

Neither you nor Kip Dynamite knows the heart of anyone but your own self. It may make you feel good to say that the theists are just clinging to their fantasy like a child does a security blanket, but what it finally amounts to is the kinds of posts that you wrote “GOOD DISCUSSION” about earlier on. It’s a childish put-down without any basis in empirical knowledge.

Truth is, we don’t know what motivates you atheists just the same as you don’t know what motivates us. Maybe we are religious because the only way we can cope with reality in the face of our eventual demise is to construct a fantasy world to comfort us. And maybe you guys are atheists because you secretly hold sexual perversions that are so far from acceptable to even the most liberal of societies that you must reject God to stay out of cognitive dissonance and justify your sick desires.

:smiley:

You know I’m joking, but both statements are equally provable.[/quote]

I have to respectfully disagree Cortes. The canvas on which the painting of “self” is painted, and the oils used to paint “self”, is the same for everyone. It’s the painting of “self” itself that’s different and unique, but the underlying structure of “self”; that is knowable and the same for everybody.

366

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I never denied having a moral standard Cortes. Whatever gave you that idea?
[/quote]

Well, can you clarify for me what your definition of a moral standard is, right here and now? Maybe that’s why we keep going round and round and ending up in the same place.

Because I was under the distinct impression that you had a set of feelings about what is right and wrong, influenced by biology, society, and your own circumstances. And if this is so, my statement stands, and you are going to have to either choose option 1, 2, or 3, or provide me with a plausible option 4.

For clarification. Your statement: I have a moral standard.

So, it follows:

  1. I don’t really have a moral code. I’ve just been trolling you guys. I’m actually a nihilist. Haha! Good one, eh?

  2. Yeah, I guess you’re right, Cortes. There really is such a thing as a Moral Law out there. It can be discovered, and is, at its core, unchanging throughout time, location or circumstance. Certain acts are wrong under any circumstances.

  3. My moral code is valid, but there is no Moral Law. The moral codes of others are valid so long as they do not deviate too far from my moral code. How do I know this? Faith! Divine revelation! Praise be to my Conscience, for It is Good.

4.[You can fill this in, but I really do not see too much wiggle room past the first three options, given what you’ve stated so far.][/quote]

Inspite of your unwillingness to accept the validity of my moral code, i still have one and it’s my own. Whatever the conditions you attach to having a moral code; that’s not my problem.

I’m going to go with #3 Cortes, but i do not need some kind of faith to support that code. What i won’t do is enough law for me. I have little trouble acting on what i find right or wrong, and i won’t deviate from it.

Why does this moral code require a divine source at all? Are you a man who will kill, rape and torture if your god’s moral law didn’t prevent you from doing that? I can’t imagine that so.

Could you answer that question please?

367

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Maybe the atheist should concern himself less with the religious transmitting faith to their children, and start actually having children.[/quote]

I don’t like children. It’s better for me, and for them, not to have kids.[/quote]

If overpopulation is your concern, I wouldn’t worry too much about it in Westernized society. In fact in many European nations, the problem they’re having is that they don’t have enough young bodies for the job market. I actually agree with Sloth on this one. Overpopulation is really a problem in the underdeveloped countries. I wish there weren’t so many atheists that thought it’s doing the Earth a disservice by adding a couple or so more people on the planet.[/quote]

It’s not that. I just know i wouldn’t be a good father. That’s all.

368

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Being good for the sake of being good should be enough…[/quote]

Okay, cool. I can definitely roll with that. I happen to feel like “brainwashing” children from young age is “good.” On what authority do you oppose me?
[/quote]

The fact that it has to be explained in simplistic terms which leads to misunderstandings. If you truly want children to understand your religion, you should be teaching them the things that people on this board have claimed I should learn if I “want to understand”. If I am required to read extra material at age 24, what makes you think a 7 year old is going to understand?

369

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Being good for the sake of being good should be enough…[/quote]

Okay, cool. I can definitely roll with that. I happen to feel like “brainwashing” children from young age is “good.” On what authority do you oppose me?
[/quote]

The fact that it has to be explained in simplistic terms which leads to misunderstandings. If you truly want children to understand your religion, you should be teaching them the things that people on this board have claimed I should learn if I “want to understand”. If I am required to read extra material at age 24, what makes you think a 7 year old is going to understand?[/quote]

If I thought my kid would suffer eternal torment for not believing in something, I would make damned sure to give that kid every opportunity I could to prevent that fate. It’s easy for me to understand a Christian’s perspective on it. It’s also a lot of the reason many Christians would like to see people converted and introduce Christianity around the globe.

370

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
natural law=from an uncaused cause that we currently have no way of knowing anything about[/quote]

Which the Catholic Church calls God, and as Catholics do know about.

371

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Being good for the sake of being good should be enough…[/quote]

Okay, cool. I can definitely roll with that. I happen to feel like “brainwashing” children from young age is “good.” On what authority do you oppose me?
[/quote]

The fact that it has to be explained in simplistic terms which leads to misunderstandings. If you truly want children to understand your religion, you should be teaching them the things that people on this board have claimed I should learn if I “want to understand”. If I am required to read extra material at age 24, what makes you think a 7 year old is going to understand?[/quote]

If I thought my kid would suffer eternal torment for not believing in something, I would make damned sure to give that kid every opportunity I could to prevent that fate. It’s easy for me to understand a Christian’s perspective on it. It’s also a lot of the reason many Christians would like to see people converted and introduce Christianity around the globe. [/quote]

If I thought my kid needed this knowledge, I’d make damned sure they understood it properly.

372

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
natural law=from an uncaused cause that we currently have no way of knowing anything about[/quote]

You’re gettin there :slight_smile:

373

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
natural law=from an uncaused cause that we currently have no way of knowing anything about[/quote]

You’re gettin there :)[/quote]

:stuck_out_tongue:

374

In contrast to the rather narrow and simple-minded set of options that Cortes laid out above, science is beginning to do a pretty good job of determining the origins of what might appear to be a universally shared moral code among humans. Some good books to read that touch on this topic are:
Wild Minds by Marc Hauser
The Making of Intelligence by Ken Richardson

Hauser, in Wild Minds, has compiled a thorough collection of the most significant and recent work in animal psychology, specifically that which deals with animals’ abilities to recognize themselves in the context of larger groups and to behave ethically. There are tons of examples of higher primates and certain birds behaving cooperatively, respecting property rights, respecting right to life, etc… The difference seems to be that they have less ability to place themselves within the context of their societies. They also don’t possess the same cognitive abilities.

The “take-away” is that our relatives in the evolutionary tree exhibit most, if not all of the higher-level ethical/moral behavioral traits that we do. They just interact with it in a much simpler manner.

Richardson looks more at the developmental stages of intelligence and ethical interactions of human, trying to pin down the effects of phenotypic regulation on development of intelligence. There are some good comparisons in his work of the developmental stages of humans and primates, though which relate back to Hauser’s direction.

So, here’s a number 4 for Cortes (though, it likely warrants a number of sub-headings) - What we consider to be morals are tools that our species have developed through advantageous evolution. Respect for property rights, cooperation, integrity, respect for life, etc… are all exhibited by our less-evolved cousins. With our highly-evolved cerebral cortex, we now have the cognitive ability to sit around and reason the hell out of these behaviors. As we seem to always do, we’ve taken the easy way out and assigned them relevance if not immutability and externalized them… attributed them to some force outside of ourselves. And, as science seems to always do, it is digging into the matter rationally and providing the hard truth.

375

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< I have no problems with that. I think almost everything and anything we do is somehow motivated as a form of self-affirmation. “Self” is all we know, and as a consequence, everything we believe about “self” in- and after death, is dependant on this knowledge.
[/quote]Self is most assuredly not all I know and it’s not all you or anybody else knows either. I may have to pull out Romans 1 for the 10th time.

376

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
In contrast to the rather narrow and simple-minded set of options that Cortes laid out above, science is beginning to do a pretty good job of determining the origins of what might appear to be a universally shared moral code among humans. Some good books to read that touch on this topic are:
Wild Minds by Marc Hauser
The Making of Intelligence by Ken Richardson

Hauser, in Wild Minds, has compiled a thorough collection of the most significant and recent work in animal psychology, specifically that which deals with animals’ abilities to recognize themselves in the context of larger groups and to behave ethically. There are tons of examples of higher primates and certain birds behaving cooperatively, respecting property rights, respecting right to life, etc… The difference seems to be that they have less ability to place themselves within the context of their societies. They also don’t possess the same cognitive abilities.

The “take-away” is that our relatives in the evolutionary tree exhibit most, if not all of the higher-level ethical/moral behavioral traits that we do. They just interact with it in a much simpler manner.

Richardson looks more at the developmental stages of intelligence and ethical interactions of human, trying to pin down the effects of phenotypic regulation on development of intelligence. There are some good comparisons in his work of the developmental stages of humans and primates, though which relate back to Hauser’s direction.

So, here’s a number 4 for Cortes (though, it likely warrants a number of sub-headings) - What we consider to be morals are tools that our species have developed through advantageous evolution. Respect for property rights, cooperation, integrity, respect for life, etc… are all exhibited by our less-evolved cousins. With our highly-evolved cerebral cortex, we now have the cognitive ability to sit around and reason the hell out of these behaviors. As we seem to always do, we’ve taken the easy way out and assigned them relevance if not immutability and externalized them… attributed them to some force outside of ourselves. And, as science seems to always do, it is digging into the matter rationally and providing the hard truth.[/quote]

Okay, let me attempt to be more broad minded for you.

What you are talking about is an inference of morals from behavior. To take this anywhere outside of a description of behaviors that are evolutionarily advantageous takes us outside the realm of hard science into, well, faith. You’re talking about jumping from biology to anthropology or even possibly religion.

Sorry, morals are more than simple behavioral responses. We need motives. We need intent. We can look at animals and infer that is what’s going on, but because humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize, we run into the danger of jumping to all sorts of conclusions that are way on the other side of a vast gorge.

The other issue, that no moral relativist here really seems to want to get too close to, is that if we, the moral absolutists, are wrong, and our actions really are just a set of behaviors dictated by evolution and our reaction to our environment, then we have no right to be calling them morals at all. Indeed, the entire concept of a morality goes out the window, because every action can be explained in this manner. Therefore nothing is wrong. Nor is anything right. It just IS.

Again, morals are not IS’s, they are OUGHTS. If what you are suggesting is true, then no action, no matter how heinous, can be called bad, because it is just the result of forces beyond our control. There is no intent. There is no motive. There is just behavior, and who are you to tell me that I’m not fulfilling my evolutionary imperative?

377

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
The fear of death is the main drive behind religion. It’s the main drive behind much of what we do. And that’s fine if you’re into that sort of thing. [/quote]

The need for self-affirmation is the main drive behind atheism. It’s the main drive behind much of what we do. And that’s fine in you’re into that sort of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-affirmation[/quote]

I have no problems with that. I think almost everything and anything we do is somehow motivated as a form of self-affirmation. “Self” is all we know, and as a consequence, everything we believe about “self” in- and after death, is dependant on this knowledge.
[/quote]

I know you don’t have any problem with it. That’s why you so frustrate me sometimes :wink:

What’s funny to me, though, is that this post of yours is a confirmation of the massive bias in the post your wrote before it.

Neither you nor Kip Dynamite knows the heart of anyone but your own self. It may make you feel good to say that the theists are just clinging to their fantasy like a child does a security blanket, but what it finally amounts to is the kinds of posts that you wrote “GOOD DISCUSSION” about earlier on. It’s a childish put-down without any basis in empirical knowledge.

Truth is, we don’t know what motivates you atheists just the same as you don’t know what motivates us. Maybe we are religious because the only way we can cope with reality in the face of our eventual demise is to construct a fantasy world to comfort us. And maybe you guys are atheists because you secretly hold sexual perversions that are so far from acceptable to even the most liberal of societies that you must reject God to stay out of cognitive dissonance and justify your sick desires.

:smiley:

You know I’m joking, but both statements are equally provable.[/quote]

I have to respectfully disagree Cortes. The canvas on which the painting of “self” is painted, and the oils used to paint “self”, is the same for everyone. It’s the painting of “self” itself that’s different and unique, but the underlying structure of “self”; that is knowable and the same for everybody.
[/quote]

I’ll grant all that, and I’ll still stand by what I said. If you have come to conclusions so vastly different from another group of people, assuming you understand their deepest motivations when your thought processes are so clearly removed from one another is presumptuous, to say the least.

378

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I never denied having a moral standard Cortes. Whatever gave you that idea?
[/quote]

Well, can you clarify for me what your definition of a moral standard is, right here and now? Maybe that’s why we keep going round and round and ending up in the same place.

Because I was under the distinct impression that you had a set of feelings about what is right and wrong, influenced by biology, society, and your own circumstances. And if this is so, my statement stands, and you are going to have to either choose option 1, 2, or 3, or provide me with a plausible option 4.

For clarification. Your statement: I have a moral standard.

So, it follows:

  1. I don’t really have a moral code. I’ve just been trolling you guys. I’m actually a nihilist. Haha! Good one, eh?

  2. Yeah, I guess you’re right, Cortes. There really is such a thing as a Moral Law out there. It can be discovered, and is, at its core, unchanging throughout time, location or circumstance. Certain acts are wrong under any circumstances.

  3. My moral code is valid, but there is no Moral Law. The moral codes of others are valid so long as they do not deviate too far from my moral code. How do I know this? Faith! Divine revelation! Praise be to my Conscience, for It is Good.

4.[You can fill this in, but I really do not see too much wiggle room past the first three options, given what you’ve stated so far.][/quote]

Inspite of your unwillingness to accept the validity of my moral code, i still have one and it’s my own. Whatever the conditions you attach to having a moral code; that’s not my problem.

I’m going to go with #3 Cortes, but i do not need some kind of faith to support that code. What i won’t do is enough law for me. I have little trouble acting on what i find right or wrong, and i won’t deviate from it.

Why does this moral code require a divine source at all? Are you a man who will kill, rape and torture if your god’s moral law didn’t prevent you from doing that? I can’t imagine that so.

Could you answer that question please?
[/quote]

Well you have to take things one step at a time. You know what I believe, but I’m not necessarily arguing from the position that a divine source must have established Moral Law, I’m first just trying to establish that one exists. Once we can agree that there is a Moral Law, then we can move onto the argument of where it comes from.

Now, speaking frankly, I think there’s a lot more evidence for Moral Law than there is for God. Yet, I would also posit that the existence of a Moral Law is, in itself, very strong evidence for the existence of a designing intelligence.

As to how I would act if there was no God, if I KNEW, beyond any shadow of a doubt that there was nothing but behavioral responses to the environment. Well, this is a bit of a catch-22. As I do not believe we would even exist if not for that “uncaused-cause,” any answer I give is going to be invalid, but…

Man, I have to say that, despite all socialization, there are some pleasures I’d be a lot more inclined to indulge in. And that indulgence would very likely lead to further and further push the “behavioral” envelope, as the taste I had would likely lead to an increase in desire (very natural). I’m not talking about killing, raping and torturing, but then, as kamui stated earlier, the most heinous crimes start with the giggling of a cute 12 year old girl.

And if anybody says differently, well, I can’t get too upset, as I know their critique is nothing more than a simple behavioral response to their environment, too.

It’s all good…er…behavioral!

379

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Maybe the atheist should concern himself less with the religious transmitting faith to their children, and start actually having children.[/quote]

I don’t like children. It’s better for me, and for them, not to have kids.[/quote]

If overpopulation is your concern, I wouldn’t worry too much about it in Westernized society. In fact in many European nations, the problem they’re having is that they don’t have enough young bodies for the job market. I actually agree with Sloth on this one. Overpopulation is really a problem in the underdeveloped countries. I wish there weren’t so many atheists that thought it’s doing the Earth a disservice by adding a couple or so more people on the planet.[/quote]

It’s not that. I just know i wouldn’t be a good father. That’s all.
[/quote]

You might surprise yourself.

Seriously.

380

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Being good for the sake of being good should be enough…[/quote]

Okay, cool. I can definitely roll with that. I happen to feel like “brainwashing” children from young age is “good.” On what authority do you oppose me?
[/quote]

The fact that it has to be explained in simplistic terms which leads to misunderstandings. If you truly want children to understand your religion, you should be teaching them the things that people on this board have claimed I should learn if I “want to understand”. If I am required to read extra material at age 24, what makes you think a 7 year old is going to understand?[/quote]

No no no no no. On what authority do you oppose that fact that I FEEL something is moral that you do not? What makes you the moral authority?