Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
961

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Fairy tales posit the existence of something in the universe, whether natural or supernatural, without providing evidence for the claim. Values are not fairy tales, but the hypothetical existence of a supernatural being is.
[/quote]

Show me these values in the universe. If you say ‘feelings’ or ‘opinion,’ well, you’ll have stalemated yourself with the religious.[/quote]

Again, fairy tales posit the material existence of objects in the universe like gods, aliens, or invisible pink unicorns, without reliable evidence to support the claim. Values, perceptions, and emotions aren’t physical objects.[/quote]

So, you do not sound like an ass for calling religious stories “fairy tales,” the accepted vernacular in religious studies is “myth.”

962

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Swole, were the actions of the Boston Strangler evil (if you’re uncomfortable with the word, ‘wrong’ will suffice)?[/quote]

We are not talking here about my definition of evil or wrong. [/quote]

Answer the question.[/quote]

Okay. I’ll play along - I think his actions were wrong. [/quote]

You’re now responsible for creating and maintaing the evil of his acts. [/quote]

COME ON! Seriously… Sloth, I can confidently say that you are not this stupid.

I am not omnipotent.

Omnipotent - Having unlimited power; able to do anything. Having ultimate power and influence.

The concepts of right and wrong existed long before I did. But, they did not exist before your god, as you define him. The difference here is the most vast divide conceivable. [/quote]

Just because God is all powerful does not mean he doesn’t have limits on himself, otherwise known as characteristics. God is good, nothing that is not good is in Him. God cannot create a rock so heavy God couldn’t pick it up, it’s illogical. God cannot create evil, he created free will and knowledge, we choose knowledge over immortality.[/quote]

Right… honestly, I was just trying to point out the illogicality of god as the prime mover.

I think it is safe to say that much of christian theology falls outside of the bounds of logic. That’s fine. I really do not begrudge anyone for believing on something that is not logical. My mind doesn’t work that way, though. [/quote]

Besides the idea that reason has created more madmen in this world than anything else, I have no qualms with reason, what parts of Christianity does not use logic?[/quote]

Faith[/quote]

How does Faith in the Catholic Church not use logic?

963

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re now responsible for creating and maintaing the evil of his acts. [/quote]

He didn’t create everything. God did that. God is responsible.[/quote]

You still have not answered how God created evil.

964

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
This tread is a clusterfuck from hell. Whats the topic really? is it about if god exist or not? Or is it about the origins of morals and ethics? [/quote]

Don’t try to change the subject…[/quote]

then explain to me what the subject is? I have read this entire tread and no clear subject stands out.
So I would be gratefull if you pointed out for me what the topic is and I can chip in if I have any thougts
on the matter and if I dont, I want bother.
[/quote]

No. I see what you’re attempting. You’re trying to change the subject by making the subject about the subject we’re supposed to be debating in this thread. [/quote]

hehehe… I do that sometimes I guess, my bad :stuck_out_tongue:

But ok let me try to understand this tread:

atheists: God doesnt exist, because nobody can prove his existence!

religious: Thomas Aquinas five arguments for God.

atheists: (I didn’t read anything on that) You don’t have proof.

religious: Two kinds of proof reason (T. Aquinas) and empirical (St. Bonaventura or Mysticism)

Mak: Some =/= one event 2000 years ago.

Brother Chris: Same difference, our faith is not based on 2000 year old events, we have more recent stuff like…Apparition of Our Lady of Gaudelupe!

Cortes: Articles about the Tilma in Mexico City, where in 20 years, 9 Million people converted to Catholicism.

atheists: That did not happend in a controlled enviroment, blow it up again!

religious: Are you insane, Its holy and we don’t test God in such manner!

atheists: So you are still without proof then!

religious: Well without god there is no morals, you are a moral relativist just like hitler and stalin!

atheists: Well we believe that morals is part of the evolution?

religious: blabla…

atheists: blabla…

This is my perception of the tread. If I have missed something, please point it out.

btw: can someone explain that theory about morals and evolution again. Is it backed up by empirical data or is it based on rational thinking?

sorry if I am being an ass, but cant help myself :slight_smile:

[/quote]

There you go edited it a little bit.

965

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Since god is the creator of everything[/quote]

But it’s right there. EVERYTHING. That includes evil.

By denouncing evil you spit in the face of His creation.[/quote]

Is this directed at me or at Sloth?

[/quote]

No, Mak’s just rolling with some Heresy that the Catholic Church put to sleep a while back. Been going like a train for the past ten pages or so, saying the same thing.

966

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Since god is the creator of everything[/quote]

But it’s right there. EVERYTHING. That includes evil.

By denouncing evil you spit in the face of His creation.[/quote]

You’re failing. Your charge means you can’t define evil acts, or you are responsible for creating evil.[/quote]

I didn’t create the universe. God defines evil, not me.

967

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re now responsible for creating and maintaing the evil of his acts. [/quote]

He didn’t create everything. God did that. God is responsible.[/quote]

You still have not answered how God created evil.[/quote]

Simple, God created everything. Your own doctrine makes this necessary, as God is the prime mover, creating everything. Unless you are suggesting something existed before God?

968

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
This tread is a clusterfuck from hell. Whats the topic really? is it about if god exist or not? Or is it about the origins of morals and ethics? [/quote]

Don’t try to change the subject…[/quote]

then explain to me what the subject is? I have read this entire tread and no clear subject stands out.
So I would be gratefull if you pointed out for me what the topic is and I can chip in if I have any thougts
on the matter and if I dont, I want bother.
[/quote]

No. I see what you’re attempting. You’re trying to change the subject by making the subject about the subject we’re supposed to be debating in this thread. [/quote]

hehehe… I do that sometimes I guess, my bad :stuck_out_tongue:

But ok let me try to understand this tread:

atheists: God doesnt exist, because nobody can prove his existence!

religious: Oh we have proof, ever heard about the holy cloth in mexico that surived a bomb!

atheists: That did not happend in a controlled enviroment, blow it up again!

religious: Are you insane, Its holy and we dont want to make god mad!

atheists: So you are still without proof then!

religious: Well without god there is no morals, you are a moral relativist just like hitler and stalin!

atheists: Well we believe that morals is part of the evolution?

religious: blabla…

atheists: blabla…

This is my perception of the tread. If I have missed something, please point it out.

btw: can someone explain that theory about morals and evolution again. Is it backed up by empirical data or is it based on rational thinking?

sorry if I am being an ass, but cant help myself :slight_smile:

[/quote]

You can look here:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/catholic_v_protestant_robert_george_v_cornel_west?id=4108666&pageNo=14

and here:

It turns out to be a pretty well established correlative of descriptive relativism. [/quote]

I read the wikipedia link and it was a good read, but I still have questions about it.
The wiki article did not say if it where an biological evolution or a cultural one in regards to human morality. If you know something about this, I would love to hear it.
[/quote]

At some point it would become a combination of both… genetic mutation and cultural evolution.

969

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Since god is the creator of everything[/quote]

But it’s right there. EVERYTHING. That includes evil.

By denouncing evil you spit in the face of His creation.[/quote]

You’re failing. Your charge means you can’t define evil acts, or you are responsible for creating evil.[/quote]

I didn’t create the universe. God defines evil, not me.[/quote]

You’re an atheist. In your disbelief of God, you’re carrying your own definitions. You lost this little argument from the beginning. God created a being with free will. In atheist-land parents decide to have children, propagating free will. God defined what actions are good. In atheist-land, parents and society (including Mak) define what actions are good. Blame parents, society, and yourself Mak.

970

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Since god is the creator of everything[/quote]

But it’s right there. EVERYTHING. That includes evil.

By denouncing evil you spit in the face of His creation.[/quote]

You’re failing. Your charge means you can’t define evil acts, or you are responsible for creating evil.[/quote]

I didn’t create the universe. God defines evil, not me.[/quote]

You’re an atheist. In your disbelief of God, you’re carrying your own definitions. You lost this little argument from the beginning. God created a being with free will. In atheist-land parents decide to have children, propagating free will. God defined what actions are good. In atheist-land, parents and society (including Mak) define what actions are good. Blame parents, society, and yourself Mak. [/quote]

Sure. But we don’t claim to be omnipotent or omniscient. We created evil? Well we’re trying to deal with it. We aren’t justifying it or excusing it by making it part of someone’s grand plan.

By the way, what IS your theology? You’ve done exceptionally well at avoiding explaining in general terms, what you’re beliefs are. Please explain them to us. Otherwise we’ll be the constant butt of your “that’s not my faith, that’s someone else’s!” comments

971

[quote]
At some point it would become a combination of both… genetic mutation and cultural evolution. [/quote]

you make it sound like if it was self-evident, or necessary.
but it’s not.

it’s an hypothesis, and, interrestingly enougn, it’s testable.

first, the “cultural evolution” part

this one is indeed self-evident.

morality is cognitive.
and as such, morality is definitely cultural.

by definition.

now,

to affirm it’s biological too, you would need to show that moral judgements have a distinct genetic basis.

in other words, you would need to prove that some genes specifically determine moral judgements but no other judgements.

to my knowledge, we never found such a gene, for now.
studies on psychopathy and sociopathy were the best bet on this topic, but it was not really a resounding success.

what we found is genetic specifities affecting some parts of morality, and some non-moral cognitive functions.
but nothing like a “gene of morality” or even a genetic complex directly and specifically linked to morality.

if such a gene doesn’t exist, it means that, even if general cognition emerged from evolution, morality itself is now culturaly determined in its integrality and is only indirectly affected by natural evolution.

972

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Believing god exists isn’t a value…it is a factual statement about the nature and origin of the universe.[/quote]

You claimed your morality exists according to your feelings and personal opinion (human value system). What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

[/quote]

Nope. I’m making no claims about the actual facts of the universe…but you are.[/quote]

Of course you are, you’re claiming your moral system exists. [/quote]

My moral system only exists in my head. Are you similarly willing to admit that your god only exists in your head?[/quote]

Nope. That’s not my philosophy, it’s yours. But now that we know morality only exists in your head, you can’t expect us to acknowledge your claim to having morality.[/quote]

That difference is why you believe in fairy tales and I don’t. I honestly differentiate between what exists in my head and what exists in the factual universe, while you conflate both without supporting evidence for doing so.

I would rather admit what I don’t know than claim something is true just because I want it to be true.

973

[quote]kamui wrote:

I didn’t mean to make it sound self-evident… I honestly just wanted to keep it simple, as any time I insert complexity into my posts they seem to be misconstrued.

That being said, if we agree that morality is by definition cognitive, then could it not be linked to the genetic complex of our general cognitive functions?

And, I think that requiring that I (or any advocate of evolutionary morality) prove that “some genes specifically determine moral judgements but no other judgements” is an artificial reduction. Genome doesn’t work in such a direct and isolated manner… you invoke this later in your post.

I’m not trying to link any specific moral code here, just the function of moral reasoning.

974

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
“Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.”

–Albert Einstein

I’m just throwing it out there b/c Einstein’s like my hero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality[/quote]

Hey, at least I’m in good company :slight_smile:

Then again, what did Einstein know? He was one of those backwoods hicks that believe in “dusty old science”.

975

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

Sure. But we don’t claim to be omnipotent or omniscient. We created evil? Well we’re trying to deal with it. We aren’t justifying it or excusing it by making it part of someone’s grand plan.

[/quote]

Yes, you create/maintain evil. You do differentiate between evil and good, no? Evil wouldn’t exist if you guys would simply refrain from determining what is good. Rape isn’t evil unless you choose to look at it as evil. Therefore, you’re responsible for the evil of rape. See? Told you the objection carries an absurd principle.

976

[quote]forlife wrote:
[That difference is why you believe in fairy tales and I don’t. [/quote]

Yes, you do. You’ve already said you have morals.

977

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

Sure. But we don’t claim to be omnipotent or omniscient. We created evil? Well we’re trying to deal with it. We aren’t justifying it or excusing it by making it part of someone’s grand plan.

[/quote]

Yes, you create/maintain evil. You do differentiate between evil and good, no? Evil wouldn’t exist if you guys would simply refrain from determing what is good. Rape isn’t evil unless you choose to look at it as evil. Therefore, you’re responsible for the evil of rape. See? Told you the objection carries an absurd principle.[/quote]

Is there some reason why you refuse to acknowledge the difference between an omnipotent being and a mortal?

We’re talking about your belief’s here… right?

978

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

Sure. But we don’t claim to be omnipotent or omniscient. We created evil? Well we’re trying to deal with it. We aren’t justifying it or excusing it by making it part of someone’s grand plan.

[/quote]

Yes, you create/maintain evil. You do differentiate between evil and good, no? Evil wouldn’t exist if you guys would simply refrain from determing what is good. Rape isn’t evil unless you choose to look at it as evil. Therefore, you’re responsible for the evil of rape. See? Told you the objection carries an absurd principle.[/quote]

Is there some reason why you refuse to acknowledge the difference between an omnipotent being and a mortal?

We’re talking about your belief’s here… right?[/quote]

Omnipotence has nothing to do with it. Defining evil is ‘creating’ evil. Without defining, every action is just an action.

979

yes
but then it means that general cognition has an evolutionnary origin.
not that morality itself as an evolutionnary origin (ie : is the result of specific mutations and specific selections).

it’s not the same thing.

if we agree that there is a genetic complex of cognitive functions, moralilty can still be “created” by cultural processes after/with these cognitive functions.

and then, you have to shift toward cultural anthropology to explain it.

[quote]
And, I think that requiring that I (or any advocate of evolutionary morality) prove that “some genes specifically determine moral judgements but no other judgements” is an artificial reduction. Genome doesn’t work in such a direct and isolated manner… you invoke this later in your post.[/quote]

yes, genome doesn’t work in such a direct and isolated manner.
but no, it’s not an artificial reduction.

or at least, it’s not “my” reduction.

when you try to derive morality from evolutionnary processes, you should be able to justify such a focus on morality.

if the evolutionnary processes you have in mind explains more than just morality, or less than all morality, you don’t get an “evolutionnary morality”, you got something else.
evolutionnary cognition
general human ethology
maybe something like an attempt to develop a “sociobiology”

whatever. you don’t get “an evolutionnary morality”.

which means that, because the genome doesn’t work in such a direct and isolated manner", evolutionnary morality is probably evolutionnary naive.
quite ironically.

980

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

Sure. But we don’t claim to be omnipotent or omniscient. We created evil? Well we’re trying to deal with it. We aren’t justifying it or excusing it by making it part of someone’s grand plan.

[/quote]

Yes, you create/maintain evil. You do differentiate between evil and good, no? Evil wouldn’t exist if you guys would simply refrain from determing what is good. Rape isn’t evil unless you choose to look at it as evil. Therefore, you’re responsible for the evil of rape. See? Told you the objection carries an absurd principle.[/quote]

Is there some reason why you refuse to acknowledge the difference between an omnipotent being and a mortal?

We’re talking about your belief’s here… right?[/quote]

Omnipotence has nothing to do with it. Defining evil is ‘creating’ evil. Without defining, every action is just an action.[/quote]

Really?

So, the actions of an omnipotent being hold the same weight as those of a mortal?

To be fair: I think that this line of argument is futile. It pits logic against a misinterpretation of biblical theology.