Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

[ephrem]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

No, it really wouldn’t. I’m too old now anyway, a baby would kill me.

[ephrem]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

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!
[/quote]

See Cortes, it’s bullshit that you couldn’t critique behaviour without moral law. Perhaps that for you personally the idea of reward or punishment from god after death keeps you on the straight and narrow, but that also makes you weak.

Obviously you’re not weak; not physically nor mentally, so explain to me why you can diet down or work [-out] hard to achieve a certain goal, but you wouldn’t be able to stop yourself from indulging yourself if there was no moral law? What is the disconnect in your mind between being strong to achieve a positive outcome, and sliding down the path of indulgance towards negativity?

[ephrem]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

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.
[/quote]

It is, and it isn’t. People like to think they’re special and unique, and in their minds they are exactly that, but the physical aspects of being human is the same for us all. In general, the way the brain works, and how it affects our perception and gives rise to our sense of self, that doesn’t differ much from person to person.

When you realise how this works, and how the mind works [that’s basically a pastiche] then no, i may not know the content of their deepest motivations [and i doubt they may know themselves] but the motivations are always the same variations of a couple of things: inferiority complex, mommy/daddy issues, fear of being loved/abandoned, fear of rejection and other attachment-issues.

We all want two things: we want to be loved, and we want to love. If that desire is obstructed for whatever reason, behaviour changes. It can become destructive, ambitious, religious, promiscuous, reclusive etc… etc… We are complex beings, at least, we like to think so. But what drives and motivates us is more often than not mundane and sometimes even banal.

[Cortes]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

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.
[/quote]

It is, and it isn’t. People like to think they’re special and unique, and in their minds they are exactly that, but the physical aspects of being human is the same for us all. In general, the way the brain works, and how it affects our perception and gives rise to our sense of self, that doesn’t differ much from person to person.

When you realise how this works, and how the mind works [that’s basically a pastiche] then no, i may not know the content of their deepest motivations [and i doubt they may know themselves] but the motivations are always the same variations of a couple of things: inferiority complex, mommy/daddy issues, fear of being loved/abandoned, fear of rejection and other attachment-issues.

We all want two things: we want to be loved, and we want to love. If that desire is obstructed for whatever reason, behaviour changes. It can become destructive, ambitious, religious, promiscuous, reclusive etc… etc… We are complex beings, at least, we like to think so. But what drives and motivates us is more often than not mundane and sometimes even banal.
[/quote]

I don’t disagree with a single word of this.

I still disagree with the other statement.

Although our actions are often motivated by just a few key elements, to attribute one as the primary driving force behind the majority of individual’s decisions to believe or not believe in a God (actually, the original statement was just “religion,” making it even more vague) is, like I said, presumptuous. We may be simply motivated, but to sweepingly categorize, what, 80%? 90%? of all people past and present as being motivated toward “religion” by the fear of death is, yeah, I’ll just say presumptuous again and refrain from using the word I’m really thinking.

[ephrem]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

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.
[/quote]

It is, and it isn’t. People like to think they’re special and unique, and in their minds they are exactly that, but the physical aspects of being human is the same for us all. In general, the way the brain works, and how it affects our perception and gives rise to our sense of self, that doesn’t differ much from person to person.

When you realise how this works, and how the mind works [that’s basically a pastiche] then no, i may not know the content of their deepest motivations [and i doubt they may know themselves] but the motivations are always the same variations of a couple of things: inferiority complex, mommy/daddy issues, fear of being loved/abandoned, fear of rejection and other attachment-issues.

We all want two things: we want to be loved, and we want to love. If that desire is obstructed for whatever reason, behaviour changes. It can become destructive, ambitious, religious, promiscuous, reclusive etc… etc… We are complex beings, at least, we like to think so. But what drives and motivates us is more often than not mundane and sometimes even banal.
[/quote]

I don’t disagree with a single word of this.

I still disagree with the other statement.

Although our actions are often motivated by just a few key elements, to attribute one as the primary driving force behind the majority of individual’s decisions to believe or not believe in a God (actually, the original statement was just “religion,” making it even more vague) is, like I said, presumptuous. We may be simply motivated, but to sweepingly categorize, what, 80%? 90%? of all people past and present as being motivated toward “religion” by the fear of death is, yeah, I’ll just say presumptuous again and refrain from using the word I’m really thinking.
[/quote]

Most humans are terrified of non-existence, e.i. death. The idea that, if you believe in a god, you continue to exist in a everlasting heaven with all your loved ones, sooths this fear.

It is presumptuous, maybe arrogant, perhaps even ignorant of me to think that, but that’s the only thing many believers value the most: the afterlife. Why is that if they do not fear death?

[Cortes]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

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!
[/quote]

See Cortes, it’s bullshit that you couldn’t critique behaviour without moral law. Perhaps that for you personally the idea of reward or punishment from god after death keeps you on the straight and narrow, but that also makes you weak.

Obviously you’re not weak; not physically nor mentally, so explain to me why you can diet down or work [-out] hard to achieve a certain goal, but you wouldn’t be able to stop yourself from indulging yourself if there was no moral law? What is the disconnect in your mind between being strong to achieve a positive outcome, and sliding down the path of indulgance towards negativity?[/quote]

Okay, see, you’ve got a deductive fallacy in your assessment of my answer. The “I” described in my statement above is someone who is not the same as the “I” who is speaking to you right now. He cannot be, not even in an exercise of the imagination. Because the rules themselves change in your example. There are no morals. There is NO reason to act good. And being good for goodness sake begs the question : what is good?

You also make the false assumption that those of us who believe in God are primarily motivated by the fear of death. The reality is, while the reality of death is certainly going to affect my beliefs, actions and motivations, it is NOT the only reason for adopting a religion or a morality.

You want my honest answer to “why be good?” I try to be good because I feel that Jesus Christ was the perfect man, someone I should try with every ounce of my being to imitate, and to love, and to serve. And the more that I can do that, the better life will be, both this one and the next one.

Also I know that learning to control my baser urges, exercising self-discipline, and charity are inherently good acts, both because I have been taught this by society, have studied the effects on my own, have experienced the effects first-hand, have come to accept the doctrines of the Catholic Church, because of my personal history, because I had a pious, loving mother and disciplinary but loving father, because I grew up in Texas, and on and on and on.

Now, you want to ask me “why be good” in the absence of God? Well that’s the whole problem. I don’t believe it would be possible in the first place. You’ve got to have some authority or none of it means a damned thing. The authority has to come from somewhere and it needs to be something permanent, immutable, not subject to the whims of fickle humans. Take a quick flip through a history book and see how well we do on our own.

Man I know why I act good. And I know why you act good and most of our reasons overlap. Only difference between me and you is that I have thousands of years of moral authority, theology, philosophy, experience and evidence to set my beliefs upon.

[Cortes]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

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.
[/quote]

It is, and it isn’t. People like to think they’re special and unique, and in their minds they are exactly that, but the physical aspects of being human is the same for us all. In general, the way the brain works, and how it affects our perception and gives rise to our sense of self, that doesn’t differ much from person to person.

When you realise how this works, and how the mind works [that’s basically a pastiche] then no, i may not know the content of their deepest motivations [and i doubt they may know themselves] but the motivations are always the same variations of a couple of things: inferiority complex, mommy/daddy issues, fear of being loved/abandoned, fear of rejection and other attachment-issues.

We all want two things: we want to be loved, and we want to love. If that desire is obstructed for whatever reason, behaviour changes. It can become destructive, ambitious, religious, promiscuous, reclusive etc… etc… We are complex beings, at least, we like to think so. But what drives and motivates us is more often than not mundane and sometimes even banal.
[/quote]

I don’t disagree with a single word of this.

I still disagree with the other statement.

Although our actions are often motivated by just a few key elements, to attribute one as the primary driving force behind the majority of individual’s decisions to believe or not believe in a God (actually, the original statement was just “religion,” making it even more vague) is, like I said, presumptuous. We may be simply motivated, but to sweepingly categorize, what, 80%? 90%? of all people past and present as being motivated toward “religion” by the fear of death is, yeah, I’ll just say presumptuous again and refrain from using the word I’m really thinking.
[/quote]

Most humans are terrified of non-existence, e.i. death. The idea that, if you believe in a god, you continue to exist in a everlasting heaven with all your loved ones, sooths this fear.

It is presumptuous, maybe arrogant, perhaps even ignorant of me to think that, but that’s the only thing many believers value the most: the afterlife. Why is that if they do not fear death?
[/quote]

Never even implied that they don’t fear death. It’s just a gross over-simplification to discount the thousand other factors that come into play, including the possibility even of a genetic predisposition to belief in God(s). Also the statement implies that atheists are somehow “tougher,” that they do not fear death. I highly doubt this is honestly the case for most atheists.

And in any case, go back and look at the few posts before you wrote that and look at the company you put yourself in. Kind of hard to argue for an atheistic “enlightenment” with that albatross hanging around your neck. >;)

[swoleupinya]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

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. [/quote]

I don’t think you understand what I was saying. What I a suggesting is that the concept of “morals” is an attempt by humans to define something that is an inherited tool as an external force. So, no. This does not go beyond hard science. In fact, it pulls it back into that realm.

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.

Perhaps I was not clear enough here. There is in fact little possibility that we will ever be able to fully understand motivations in another being, animal, etc… However, there have been a number of well-designed experiments in the past ten years or so that have been able to eliminate the understanding of the context of altruism in animals that regularly exhibit altruistic behaviors. The ability to place these inherited behavioral tools in philosophical context appears to be unique to our species… a byproduct of our cognitive prowess.

This is an incredibly complex topic, and I highly recommend that if you actually have an interest in it that you spend some time reading the work of leaders in the field.

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.

Now, you’re just being obstinate. We can call them whatever we like… and, we can decide that what is generally understood as moral behavior serves us well and should be embraced, regardless of its origin. This is just being intelligent.

Incidentally, I suggest that you also spend more time studying the concept of moral relativism. It is often misunderstood, and as of yet I don’t see evidence that you do in fact understand it. BTW - I’m not a moral relativist.

[quote] 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?
[/quote]

Think more critically.

[ephrem]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

See Cortes, it’s bullshit that you couldn’t critique behaviour without moral law. Perhaps that for you personally the idea of reward or punishment from god after death keeps you on the straight and narrow, but that also makes you weak.

Obviously you’re not weak; not physically nor mentally, so explain to me why you can diet down or work [-out] hard to achieve a certain goal, but you wouldn’t be able to stop yourself from indulging yourself if there was no moral law? What is the disconnect in your mind between being strong to achieve a positive outcome, and sliding down the path of indulgance towards negativity?[/quote]

Okay, see, you’ve got a deductive fallacy in your assessment of my answer. The “I” described in my statement above is someone who is not the same as the “I” who is speaking to you right now. He cannot be, not even in an exercise of the imagination. Because the rules themselves change in your example. There are no morals. There is NO reason to act good. And being good for goodness sake begs the question : what is good?

You also make the false assumption that those of us who believe in God are primarily motivated by the fear of death. The reality is, while the reality of death is certainly going to affect my beliefs, actions and motivations, it is NOT the only reason for adopting a religion or a morality.

You want my honest answer to “why be good?” I try to be good because I feel that Jesus Christ was the perfect man, someone I should try with every ounce of my being to imitate, and to love, and to serve. And the more that I can do that, the better life will be, both this one and the next one.

Also I know that learning to control my baser urges, exercising self-discipline, and charity are inherently good acts, both because I have been taught this by society, have studied the effects on my own, have experienced the effects first-hand, have come to accept the doctrines of the Catholic Church, because of my personal history, because I had a pious, loving mother and disciplinary but loving father, because I grew up in Texas, and on and on and on.

Now, you want to ask me “why be good” in the absence of God? Well that’s the whole problem. I don’t believe it would be possible in the first place. You’ve got to have some authority or none of it means a damned thing. The authority has to come from somewhere and it needs to be something permanent, immutable, not subject to the whims of fickle humans. Take a quick flip through a history book and see how well we do on our own.

Man I know why I act good. And I know why you act good and most of our reasons overlap. Only difference between me and you is that I have thousands of years of moral authority, theology, philosophy, experience and evidence to set my beliefs upon.
[/quote]

I understand how the religious backing of your moral code brings creedence and authority to that code, and at some level i get why that’s important [to you].

It feels good to belong to something, to be a part of something you admire. And from that conviction good things arise, i’m sure.

It will come as no surprise to you that i view life as essentially without meaning, except the meaning you give it. That means that authority is meaningless [to me] if it doesn’t come from within. The questions, “what is good?”, and “why do good?” become self-explanatory if you peel back the layers of confusion that cloud the mind.

We’re trying to bridge a gap in perception that’s almost impossible to bridge, simply because, eventhough they rather similar, they’re also polar opposites. I still enjoy picking your brain though.

[ephrem]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Most humans are terrified of non-existence, e.i. death. The idea that, if you believe in a god, you continue to exist in a everlasting heaven with all your loved ones, sooths this fear.

It is presumptuous, maybe arrogant, perhaps even ignorant of me to think that, but that’s the only thing many believers value the most: the afterlife. Why is that if they do not fear death?
[/quote]

Never even implied that they don’t fear death. It’s just a gross over-simplification to discount the thousand other factors that come into play, including the possibility even of a genetic predisposition to belief in God(s). Also the statement implies that atheists are somehow “tougher,” that they do not fear death. I highly doubt this is honestly the case for most atheists.

And in any case, go back and look at the few posts before you wrote that and look at the company you put yourself in. Kind of hard to argue for an atheistic “enlightenment” with that albatross hanging around your neck. >;)

[/quote]

I speak only for myself Cortes, and i’m only accountable for my own actions, not someone elses.

I do think that, in light of our technological advances, our minds are solidly stuck in the bronze age. At least what religion is concerned. It’s time to move on, but i don’t think that will happen any time soon.

[Cortes]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

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. [/quote]

I don’t think you understand what I was saying. What I a suggesting is that the concept of “morals” is an attempt by humans to define something that is an inherited tool as an external force. So, no. This does not go beyond hard science. In fact, it pulls it back into that realm.

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.

Perhaps I was not clear enough here. There is in fact little possibility that we will ever be able to fully understand motivations in another being, animal, etc… However, there have been a number of well-designed experiments in the past ten years or so that have been able to eliminate the understanding of the context of altruism in animals that regularly exhibit altruistic behaviors. The ability to place these inherited behavioral tools in philosophical context appears to be unique to our species… a byproduct of our cognitive prowess.

This is an incredibly complex topic, and I highly recommend that if you actually have an interest in it that you spend some time reading the work of leaders in the field.

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.

Now, you’re just being obstinate. We can call them whatever we like… and, we can decide that what is generally understood as moral behavior serves us well and should be embraced, regardless of its origin. This is just being intelligent.

Incidentally, I suggest that you also spend more time studying the concept of moral relativism. It is often misunderstood, and as of yet I don’t see evidence that you do in fact understand it. BTW - I’m not a moral relativist.

[quote] 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?
[/quote]

Think more critically.
[/quote]

Nice try you arrogant windbag. How about answering my challenges instead up cluttering up the thread repeating yourself over and over and dodging my points?

One more time, in the simplest of terms: how do we decide “what serves us well?” Who gets to say? Do we take a vote? I think owning a gun “serves me well.” A lot of people disagree with me. Who is correct? Some people think having butt sex with 5 year olds serves both them and the 5 year olds well. Others of this type think it serves them well, but don’t give a fuck about the 5 year olds, murder them and have sex with their body parts and then gleefully torment the parents of the child with evidence of the murders.

Tsutomu Miyazaki

Do they get one vote? What makes their idea of the evolutionary imperative less valid?

How do I know you are just talking shit? Because I’ve already explicitly addressed this exact argument earlier in the thread. There’s nothing wrong with coming in late to a thread, but when you do this and attack one of the long time posters with ad hominems to cover up your own inability to address the real issue, that’s shameful.

I may completely disagree with a few of the atheists/relativists here, but we do respect one another, and we do each other the service of arguing in good faith. I expect you to, as well, if you want to stay. However, if you insist upon keeping up with the patronizing tone when speaking with me instead of addressing my points directly, then you can kindly go fuck yourself.

[Cortes]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

See Cortes, it’s bullshit that you couldn’t critique behaviour without moral law. Perhaps that for you personally the idea of reward or punishment from god after death keeps you on the straight and narrow, but that also makes you weak.

Obviously you’re not weak; not physically nor mentally, so explain to me why you can diet down or work [-out] hard to achieve a certain goal, but you wouldn’t be able to stop yourself from indulging yourself if there was no moral law? What is the disconnect in your mind between being strong to achieve a positive outcome, and sliding down the path of indulgance towards negativity?[/quote]

Okay, see, you’ve got a deductive fallacy in your assessment of my answer. The “I” described in my statement above is someone who is not the same as the “I” who is speaking to you right now. He cannot be, not even in an exercise of the imagination. Because the rules themselves change in your example. There are no morals. There is NO reason to act good. And being good for goodness sake begs the question : what is good?

You also make the false assumption that those of us who believe in God are primarily motivated by the fear of death. The reality is, while the reality of death is certainly going to affect my beliefs, actions and motivations, it is NOT the only reason for adopting a religion or a morality.

You want my honest answer to “why be good?” I try to be good because I feel that Jesus Christ was the perfect man, someone I should try with every ounce of my being to imitate, and to love, and to serve. And the more that I can do that, the better life will be, both this one and the next one.

Also I know that learning to control my baser urges, exercising self-discipline, and charity are inherently good acts, both because I have been taught this by society, have studied the effects on my own, have experienced the effects first-hand, have come to accept the doctrines of the Catholic Church, because of my personal history, because I had a pious, loving mother and disciplinary but loving father, because I grew up in Texas, and on and on and on.

Now, you want to ask me “why be good” in the absence of God? Well that’s the whole problem. I don’t believe it would be possible in the first place. You’ve got to have some authority or none of it means a damned thing. The authority has to come from somewhere and it needs to be something permanent, immutable, not subject to the whims of fickle humans. Take a quick flip through a history book and see how well we do on our own.

Man I know why I act good. And I know why you act good and most of our reasons overlap. Only difference between me and you is that I have thousands of years of moral authority, theology, philosophy, experience and evidence to set my beliefs upon.
[/quote]

I understand how the religious backing of your moral code brings creedence and authority to that code, and at some level i get why that’s important [to you].

It feels good to belong to something, to be a part of something you admire. And from that conviction good things arise, i’m sure.

It will come as no surprise to you that i view life as essentially without meaning, except the meaning you give it. That means that authority is meaningless [to me] if it doesn’t come from within. The questions, “what is good?”, and “why do good?” become self-explanatory if you peel back the layers of confusion that cloud the mind.

We’re trying to bridge a gap in perception that’s almost impossible to bridge, simply because, eventhough they rather similar, they’re also polar opposites. I still enjoy picking your brain though.[/quote]

The feeling is 100% mutual, my friend. I don’t know if I would stay in these threads as long as I do if you didn’t put up with my constant badgering of you to answer just one more question. You definitely are my brain’s work-out partner

Anyway, just to keep things going, though. I know you believe that, because that’s the conclusion we ended up at in the previous thread. I am just wondering how you think this is justifiable as a moral system applicable to a society. Because someday, somebody may just come along with a system that you don’t agree with and tell you that you had damned well better accept it. (I think this is a believable possibility, too. I mean, you do live in Europe!

What then? How do you defend yourself? How do you rally support? How do you demonstrate the superiority of your moral system? What do you do?

Maybe you don’t care now, but I (sort of) entertained your hypothetical. Please do me the favor of following my thought problem.

[Cortes]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Most humans are terrified of non-existence, e.i. death. The idea that, if you believe in a god, you continue to exist in a everlasting heaven with all your loved ones, sooths this fear.

It is presumptuous, maybe arrogant, perhaps even ignorant of me to think that, but that’s the only thing many believers value the most: the afterlife. Why is that if they do not fear death?
[/quote]

Never even implied that they don’t fear death. It’s just a gross over-simplification to discount the thousand other factors that come into play, including the possibility even of a genetic predisposition to belief in God(s). Also the statement implies that atheists are somehow “tougher,” that they do not fear death. I highly doubt this is honestly the case for most atheists.

And in any case, go back and look at the few posts before you wrote that and look at the company you put yourself in. Kind of hard to argue for an atheistic “enlightenment” with that albatross hanging around your neck. >;)

[/quote]

I speak only for myself Cortes, and i’m only accountable for my own actions, not someone elses.

[/quote]

Heheh. Good answer

[ephrem]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I understand how the religious backing of your moral code brings creedence and authority to that code, and at some level i get why that’s important [to you].

It feels good to belong to something, to be a part of something you admire. And from that conviction good things arise, i’m sure.

It will come as no surprise to you that i view life as essentially without meaning, except the meaning you give it. That means that authority is meaningless [to me] if it doesn’t come from within. The questions, “what is good?”, and “why do good?” become self-explanatory if you peel back the layers of confusion that cloud the mind.

We’re trying to bridge a gap in perception that’s almost impossible to bridge, simply because, eventhough they rather similar, they’re also polar opposites. I still enjoy picking your brain though.[/quote]

The feeling is 100% mutual, my friend. I don’t know if I would stay in these threads as long as I do if you didn’t put up with my constant badgering of you to answer just one more question. You definitely are my brain’s work-out partner

Anyway, just to keep things going, though. I know you believe that, because that’s the conclusion we ended up at in the previous thread. I am just wondering how you think this is justifiable as a moral system applicable to a society. Because someday, somebody may just come along with a system that you don’t agree with and tell you that you had damned well better accept it. (I think this is a believable possibility, too. I mean, you do live in Europe!

What then? How do you defend yourself? How do you rally support? How do you demonstrate the superiority of your moral system? What do you do?

Maybe you don’t care now, but I (sort of) entertained your hypothetical. Please do me the favor of following my thought problem.
[/quote]

If the dutch system changes in such a way that it opposes my sense of morality, i’ll simply leave. That’s actually already happening in small ways. The christian-democrat party wants to crack down on cannabis, the coffeeshops and growers in an attempt to set the clock back 40 years.

Two years ago they banned magic mushrooms. Another small step i don’t agree with.

Now, obviously i have little regard for laws i don’t agree with. For a time i even grew my own weed at home, but it wasn’t cost effective. You can buy grow boxes and grow your own mushrooms, but that’s not necessary: the stupid man who put psylocibin on the list did not put sclerotia on there aswell, and that’s basically the same thing.

So, to answer your question: if laws are made i don’t morally agree with, i’ll break them if necessary. If too many laws are passed and the chance of being arrested becomes too great, again, i’ll leave. I’d love to go to Norway.

[espenl]

You are welcome
We have even stricter drug laws though.

[swoleupinya]

Nice try you arrogant windbag. How about answering my challenges instead up cluttering up the thread repeating yourself over and over and dodging my points?

As far as I can tell I’ve “answered all of your challenges”… it’s possible I’m missing something, though. BTW - I’ll take you calling me an “arrogant windbag” as a compliment, I think. What exactly am I dodging?

[quote] One more time, in the simplest of terms: how do we decide “what serves us well?” Who gets to say? Do we take a vote? I think owning a gun “serves me well.” A lot of people disagree with me. Who is correct? Some people think having butt sex with 5 year olds serves both them and the 5 year olds well. Others of this type think it serves them well, but don’t give a fuck about the 5 year olds, murder them and have sex with their body parts and then gleefully torment the parents of the child with evidence of the murders.

Tsutomu Miyazaki

Do they get one vote? What makes their idea of the evolutionary imperative less valid? [/quote]

This question is honestly sophomoric, but I’ll answer it for you. In our society, we’ve managed to do this fairly well via representative government. There are plenty of examples of cultures that have made this work out well… Ironically enough, representative governments appear to have an advantage over others.

How do I know you are just talking shit? Because I’ve already explicitly addressed this exact argument earlier in the thread. There’s nothing wrong with coming in late to a thread, but when you do this and attack one of the long time posters with ad hominems to cover up your own inability to address the real issue, that’s shameful.

I think I’ve done a pretty good job of explaining my position. I could be wrong… it happens. The core issue that we disagree on is whether or not morals are an immutable external force or an aspect of one, or a set of evolutionary tools. Judging by your response, I suspect we will never agree on this point.

In defense of my point, I can direct you to a wide body of scientific literature. Attempting to abridge it here would do it disservice.

I may completely disagree with a few of the atheists/relativists here, but we do respect one another, and we do each other the service of arguing in good faith. I expect you to, as well, if you want to stay. However, if you insist upon keeping up with the patronizing tone when speaking with me instead of addressing my points directly, then you can kindly go fuck yourself.

I think that you should re-read some of your posts from earlier in this thread. “Respect” is not a prominent aspect of your demeanor. It’s disingenuous for you to be so sensitive to it at this point.

Lastly, I honestly do not think that you understand moral relativism… more to the point, it appears that you wold like to pigeonhole the broad topic of moral relativism into the more nihilistic of its camps in which the prevailing theory is that there is no such thing as right or wrong. The more traditional mentality of moral relativism is that there is no immutable right or wrong, but rather right and wrong relative to any specific ethical decision. This philosophy still includes subjective levels of validity/ethical correctness.

Again, I am not a moral relativist.

[Cortes]

I thought you guys were the Great White Hope for legalized drugs. It’s a topic for another thread, but I would certainly like to hear why drugs are now starting to be criminalized in Holland.

[Fletch1986]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I thought you guys were the Great White Hope for legalized drugs. It’s a topic for another thread, but I would certainly like to hear why drugs are now starting to be criminalized in Holland. [/quote]

I was actually thinking about making a thread about it a couple days ago. I don’t know too much about the subject, but it never hurts to hear other opinions. You’ll see a related thread today.

[Cortes]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Nice try you arrogant windbag. How about answering my challenges instead up cluttering up the thread repeating yourself over and over and dodging my points?

As far as I can tell I’ve “answered all of your challenges”… it’s possible I’m missing something, though. BTW - I’ll take you calling me an “arrogant windbag” as a compliment, I think. What exactly am I dodging?

[quote] One more time, in the simplest of terms: how do we decide “what serves us well?” Who gets to say? Do we take a vote? I think owning a gun “serves me well.” A lot of people disagree with me. Who is correct? Some people think having butt sex with 5 year olds serves both them and the 5 year olds well. Others of this type think it serves them well, but don’t give a fuck about the 5 year olds, murder them and have sex with their body parts and then gleefully torment the parents of the child with evidence of the murders.

Tsutomu Miyazaki

Do they get one vote? What makes their idea of the evolutionary imperative less valid? [/quote]

This question is honestly sophomoric,[/quote] ad hominem…and a very ironic one, provided your answer[quote] but I’ll answer it for you. In our society, we’ve managed to do this fairly well via representative government. There are plenty of examples of cultures that have made this work out well… Ironically enough, representative governments appear to have an advantage over others.[/quote]
Already covered this. Hint: Spartan infanticide, Aztec human sacrifice and cannibalism, Nazi genocide. It was like a good B movie. Where were you?[quote]

How do I know you are just talking shit? Because I’ve already explicitly addressed this exact argument earlier in the thread. There’s nothing wrong with coming in late to a thread, but when you do this and attack one of the long time posters with ad hominems to cover up your own inability to address the real issue, that’s shameful.

I think I’ve done a pretty good job of explaining my position. I could be wrong… it happens. The core issue that we disagree on is whether or not morals are an immutable external force or an aspect of one, or a set of evolutionary tools. Judging by your response, I suspect we will never agree on this point.

In defense of my point, I can direct you to a wide body of scientific literature. Attempting to abridge it here would do it disservice. [/quote]appeal to authority…I said it’s an is/ought issue. Show me the science that confirms an ought, I would love to see it. Otherwise we are still talking behavior.[quote]

I may completely disagree with a few of the atheists/relativists here, but we do respect one another, and we do each other the service of arguing in good faith. I expect you to, as well, if you want to stay. However, if you insist upon keeping up with the patronizing tone when speaking with me instead of addressing my points directly, then you can kindly go fuck yourself.

I think that you should re-read some of your posts from earlier in this thread. “Respect” is not a prominent aspect of your demeanor. It’s disingenuous for you to be so sensitive to it at this point. [/quote]personal attack. You misrepresent me. Explained below.[quote]

Lastly, I honestly do not think that you understand moral relativism [/quote]straw man…with some weasel words now thrown in, I see.[quote]… more to the point, it appears that you wold like to pigeonhole the broad topic of moral relativism into the more nihilistic of its camps in which the prevailing theory is that there is no such thing as right or wrong. The more traditional mentality of moral relativism is that there is no immutable right or wrong, but rather right and wrong relative to any specific ethical decision. This philosophy still includes subjective levels of validity/ethical correctness.[/quote]this whole paragraph is a straw man…we’ve already gone through ALL of this WAY earlier in the thread. But you assume it’s okay to come and take my words out of the context of the small chunk you’ve read.[quote]

Again, I am not a moral relativist. [/quote]

I don’t care.

1. You have clearly not read this entire thread, nor the original thread. Like I said, that’s certainly excusable, as it’s ridiculously long at this point, but don’t come on here defining my beliefs and making all sorts of assumptions about me based upon the past few pages. I, along with a number of posters here who have stuck with this for over 25 pages, have been very thorough in defining our terms and setting out our premises.

2. Again you show yourself to be a drive-by shit-talking sophist. The only poster I’ve had issues with until you was krsoneeeee. And he, like you, drew first blood. I share a very friendly relationship with the vast majority of posters here. Even those with whom I disagree. Even Mak, ffs! You came in here dropping ad hominems and little turds of disrespect, and now you are trying to twist the dialog to make it appear that I am the unreasonable one.

3. If you really know so much about moral relativity, you should demonstrate the ability to construct a fallacy-free argument. I don’t give a shit about your petty insults, but ad hominems do not bolster your premises. Straw men do not make your argument valid. If you want to argue in good faith, I am more than happy to accommodate you as an opponent. But if you’re just here to hone your sophistry, I refuse to encourage such behavior.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Nice try you arrogant windbag. How about answering my challenges instead up cluttering up the thread repeating yourself over and over and dodging my points?

As far as I can tell I’ve “answered all of your challenges”… it’s possible I’m missing something, though. BTW - I’ll take you calling me an “arrogant windbag” as a compliment, I think. What exactly am I dodging?

[quote] One more time, in the simplest of terms: how do we decide “what serves us well?” Who gets to say? Do we take a vote? I think owning a gun “serves me well.” A lot of people disagree with me. Who is correct? Some people think having butt sex with 5 year olds serves both them and the 5 year olds well. Others of this type think it serves them well, but don’t give a fuck about the 5 year olds, murder them and have sex with their body parts and then gleefully torment the parents of the child with evidence of the murders.

Tsutomu Miyazaki

Do they get one vote? What makes their idea of the evolutionary imperative less valid? [/quote]

This question is honestly sophomoric,[/quote] ad hominem…and a very ironic one, provided your answer[quote] but I’ll answer it for you. In our society, we’ve managed to do this fairly well via representative government. There are plenty of examples of cultures that have made this work out well… Ironically enough, representative governments appear to have an advantage over others.[/quote]
Already covered this. Hint: Spartan infanticide, Aztec human sacrifice and cannibalism, Nazi genocide. It was like a good B movie. Where were you?[quote]

How do I know you are just talking shit? Because I’ve already explicitly addressed this exact argument earlier in the thread. There’s nothing wrong with coming in late to a thread, but when you do this and attack one of the long time posters with ad hominems to cover up your own inability to address the real issue, that’s shameful.

I think I’ve done a pretty good job of explaining my position. I could be wrong… it happens. The core issue that we disagree on is whether or not morals are an immutable external force or an aspect of one, or a set of evolutionary tools. Judging by your response, I suspect we will never agree on this point.

In defense of my point, I can direct you to a wide body of scientific literature. Attempting to abridge it here would do it disservice. [/quote]appeal to authority…I said it’s an is/ought issue. Show me the science that confirms an ought, I would love to see it. Otherwise we are still talking behavior.[quote]

I may completely disagree with a few of the atheists/relativists here, but we do respect one another, and we do each other the service of arguing in good faith. I expect you to, as well, if you want to stay. However, if you insist upon keeping up with the patronizing tone when speaking with me instead of addressing my points directly, then you can kindly go fuck yourself.

I think that you should re-read some of your posts from earlier in this thread. “Respect” is not a prominent aspect of your demeanor. It’s disingenuous for you to be so sensitive to it at this point. [/quote]personal attack. You misrepresent me. Explained below.[quote]

Lastly, I honestly do not think that you understand moral relativism [/quote]straw man…with some weasel words now thrown in, I see.[quote]… more to the point, it appears that you wold like to pigeonhole the broad topic of moral relativism into the more nihilistic of its camps in which the prevailing theory is that there is no such thing as right or wrong. The more traditional mentality of moral relativism is that there is no immutable right or wrong, but rather right and wrong relative to any specific ethical decision. This philosophy still includes subjective levels of validity/ethical correctness.[/quote]this whole paragraph is a straw man…we’ve already gone through ALL of this WAY earlier in the thread. But you assume it’s okay to come and take my words out of the context of the small chunk you’ve read.[quote]

Again, I am not a moral relativist. [/quote]

I don’t care.

1. You have clearly not read this entire thread, nor the original thread. Like I said, that’s certainly excusable, as it’s ridiculously long at this point, but don’t come on here defining my beliefs and making all sorts of assumptions about me based upon the past few pages. I, along with a number of posters here who have stuck with this for over 25 pages, have been very thorough in defining our terms and setting out our premises.

2. Again you show yourself to be a drive-by shit-talking sophist. The only poster I’ve had issues with until you was krsoneeeee. And he, like you, drew first blood. I share a very friendly relationship with the vast majority of posters here. Even those with whom I disagree. Even Mak, ffs! You came in here dropping ad hominems and little turds of disrespect, and now you are trying to twist the dialog to make it appear that I am the unreasonable one.

3. If you really know so much about moral relativity, you should demonstrate the ability to construct a fallacy-free argument. I don’t give a shit about your petty insults, but ad hominems do not bolster your premises. Straw men do not make your argument valid. If you want to argue in good faith, I am more than happy to accommodate you as an opponent. But if you’re just here to hone your sophistry, I refuse to encourage such behavior.[/quote]

Cortes,

It was a sophomoric question… I’m sorry if that characterization offends you.

I’m not certain what point you wish to make by referencing the Aztecs, Nazi Germany, etc… but if it is to argue that because some attempts at collective reasoning of morals were unsuccessful then the general idea is invalid, then you are opening a big can of worms. I could make the same argument in reference to religions, but it would not be a fair one… It would also be sophomoric.

I don’t agree that moralism is an ‘is’ vs. ‘ought’ issue. This, I think, is what you are missing about my argument. ‘Is’ and ‘ought’ are terms only applicable in the context of an immutable external force. I posit that such a thing does not exist. To ask me to provide you scientific evidence for an ‘ought’ shows a misunderstanding of my central point.

I have actually taken the time to read every page of this thread, and I apologize, but I still don’t see where you’ve demonstrated a thorough knowledge of moral relativism. To be fair, why not explain it now, so we can put this portion if the discussion to rest. You did actually characterize me as a moral relativist, which is why I think bridging this gap of understanding as important.

I make no attempt here to “define your beliefs.” I’m simply responding to those you have presented.