Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
981

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Good qoute by einstein there fletch, but I dont think the religious guys in here are saying that the incentiv for acting moral are because we would be punished by god if we did not act moral. I understand them in this way: Since god is the creator of everything, then moral is he`s creaton and because of this; moral are absolut and are not relative to time and space and if you then dont believe in god then you cant believe in an absolut moral code ipso facto: atheism = moral relativism. This is how I understand the religious sentiment, but I can offcourse be wrong. [/quote]Morality is absolute because it is a reflection of God’s very nature and is therefore as unbending as He is. Our knowledge of morality is a direct revelation of this nature stamped on and in us in the remaining though warped image of God inherited from Adam. Every single human being, except Christ is born this way and spend every waking moment and calorie (yes, I mean that literally) devising ways to convince themselves that absolutely ANYTHING except that is the truth.

Those who trust their eternal lives to the blood and resurrected life of Jesus Christ are born again out of the family of the first Adam and into the family of God. They then wind up believing all kinds of things which quite frankly are understandably preposterous nonsense to the world of unbelievers still dead in the prison of their fallen intellect. I really do know how that sounds, but I assure you that far from fomenting a spirit of haughty condescension, the first hand knowledge of God’s saving grace produces in me a desire to see His name honored and to obey him in declaring His gospel. The results are up to Him.

See, I have no problem recognizing that what I believe IS, to the unbelieving mind, idiotic. It is. I would never attempt with logic and reason to convince them of it’s truth. If human logic actually occupies the exalted status accorded it by the people in this thread for instance then their arguments are unassailable. If everything except God owes it’s existence to Him then He most assuredly is responsible for evil. That is IF human intellect is the highest court of truth. It’s fruitless to argue in their arena against such things. In that arena they (you) are correct. The whole doctrine of the incarnation is a logical disaster. I simply do not exalt human reason to the place of God.

What am I saying then? That my faith is illogical? Not exactly. I would say super and supra logical at the same time. The simple fact is, either everything is explained in the manner I’m describing or nothing is explained at all. People can wrangle forever and nothing is ever settled. Just look around. I simply lay everything I am at the Master’s feet and every last fact of existence makes perfect sense to me even while much of it makes no logical sense whatsoever. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT SEEN” Hebrews 11.

The most concrete and absolute of all the facts of reality, indeed the ones which define and govern all the others, are precisely the ones which lie wholly beyond the grasp of feeble human intellect.
[/quote]

I appreciate the honesty of your response. Unlike some of the Christians in this thread, you fully acknowledge that your beliefs aren’t supported by logic, intellect, or objective scientific facts.

At the same time, I firmly believe that logic, intellect, and objective scientific facts are the best defense we have against choosing to believe something is true simply because we want it to be true. Confirmatory bias is a well documented flaw in human reasoning. It is insidious, to the point that people will believe literally anything without even realizing the influence of this bias on their beliefs. Which is precisely why we see millions of people disagreeing on religious claims, despite being equally fervent, committed, and 100% convinced that their particular claims are correct and everyone else is mistaken.

Admitting your ignorance and being willing to go where the objective facts lead you isn’t easy, which is why relatively few actually do it.

982

it would not even be logic if it was a correct interpretation of biblical theology.

if you theoretically accept one premisse (omnipotence) but refuse the other (free will) in order to contest a conclusion (the compatibility of omnipotence and benevolence), you are actually disputing a reasoning no one made.

which is pretty stupid.

983

A father and mother bring children (wills) into the world. Obviously, those children will take action in the world. Therefore, father and mother define what actions are good and desireable. For example, they instruct that rape is an evil.

Are they responsible for evil? Because they brought wills, beings, into life? Because they define that rape is evil? We blame propagation for evil now? We blame determination of right and wrong for evil?

Atomic scientists produce knowledge. The knowledge is later used used to build atomic weapons. Medical/bio scientists produce new knowledge. Later someone uses it to develop new bio-chem weapons. Scientists are evil?

Omnipotence or not, atheists who use this objection adopt an underlying principle they clearly can’t believe in. Principles which don’t fall away with the removal of the omnipotent from the equation. It’s dumb and dishonest.

984

[quote]kamui wrote:

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. [/quote]

hmmmm…

Okay, I see your point.

But, we’re also not necessarily talking about absolute proof here. We’re talking about plausibility.

To my point, if every behavior that is associated with a moral has a precedent in nature, is it not more plausible that we derived morality from evolutionary tools?

Also;
If morality is a cognitive function, and we agree that cognition is the result of evolution, then is not the root of morality evolution?

Substitute the word morality for the word speech, object permanence, spatial reasoning, etc… it still works.

The way you propose that I must isolate the genetic or epigenetic regulation of morals from all other cognitive tools could be applied to ANY cognitive tool… again, you’re asking for an artificial reduction of genome complexity.

Or, you’re asking for a reduction of genome complexity beyond a useful degree. You could apply the same type of reductionism as an argument against the theory of natural selection… in fact, it has a common correlative: the theory of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity fails as an argument against natural selection in that it assumes an absolute proof where natural selection plods along in logical steps.

985

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[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.[/quote]

And I’ve already said my moral system exists in my head, and make no claims that it independently exists in the factual universe. Remember?

Unlike me, you claim your god exists outside your head.

986

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[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.[/quote]

And I’ve already said my moral system exists in my head, and make no claims that it independently exists in the factual universe. Remember?

Unlike me, you claim your god exists outside your head.[/quote]

So you cling to fairy tales you don’t even believe in?

987

[quote]kamui wrote:

it would not even be logic if it was a correct interpretation of biblical theology.

if you theoretically accept one premisse (omnipotence) but refuse the other (free will) in order to contest a conclusion (the compatibility of omnipotence and benevolence), you are actually disputing a reasoning no one made.

which is pretty stupid. [/quote]

I don’t know about the rejection of free will… I’m not aware of anything in christian theology that injects the power to create good and evil (as Sloth presents it) into free will.

To elaborate on my initial point: I think both sides of the discussion are willfully jumping in and out of the bounds of theology.

988

[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]

Yes, I understand. The problem is that we don’t just choose to term things evil or good just for the hell of it. There’s always a reason behind it.

You still haven’t told us where good/evil comes from, and what your theology is. Scared it will get picked apart?

989

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[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.[/quote]

And I’ve already said my moral system exists in my head, and make no claims that it independently exists in the factual universe. Remember?

Unlike me, you claim your god exists outside your head.[/quote]

So you cling to fairy tales you don’t even believe in? [/quote]

In deference to Chris’s point, I’m going to call them myths going forward.

Myths are stories about events we claim to be true, which didn’t actually happen. The Greeks believed in Zeus as a real personage who visited and impregnated mortals, but we know today that this is only a myth.

Morals aren’t myths. They exist only in the heads of the people that have them. They make no claims about the real world.

My moral system exists in my head, and I acknowledge this. Your belief in god is different, because it asserts that a supernatural being actually exists outside of your head.

990

we are not so sure that the Greeks actually believed so naively in their myths.

you may find this interesting :

991

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Yes, I understand. The problem is that we don’t just choose to term things evil or good just for the hell of it. There’s always a reason behind it.[/quote]

And the reason is because you see the outcomes as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ (though others may not).

Uh, I’m a Catholic. And, have frequently stated as much. There is a thread called Catholic vs Protestant near the top of the 1st page. Yes, I showed up as a Catholic. I may have have said so in this very thread, earlier on, but I’d have to check. Scared it’ll get picked apart? We post our faith, practices, and theology on the web…We’re not exactly an unknown…

And, yes, I’ve explained the existence of good and evil. Repeatedly. Don’t start trolling.

992

[quote]forlife wrote:
Morals aren’t myths. They exist only in the heads of the people that have them. They make no claims about the real world.

[/quote]

Oh, ok. Rape isn’t REALLY evil. Thanks, was wondering how that worked.

993

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[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.[/quote]

And I’ve already said my moral system exists in my head, and make no claims that it independently exists in the factual universe. Remember?

Unlike me, you claim your god exists outside your head.[/quote]

So you cling to fairy tales you don’t even believe in? [/quote]

In deference to Chris’s point, I’m going to call them myths going forward.

Myths are stories about events we claim to be true, which didn’t actually happen. The Greeks believed in Zeus as a real personage who visited and impregnated mortals, but we know today that this is only a myth.

Morals aren’t myths. They exist only in the heads of the people that have them. They make no claims about the real world.

My moral system exists in my head, and I acknowledge this. Your belief in god is different, because it asserts that a supernatural being actually exists outside of your head. [/quote]

Good luck getting him to understand the distinction.

994

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Yes, I understand. The problem is that we don’t just choose to term things evil or good just for the hell of it. There’s always a reason behind it.[/quote]

And the reason is because you see the outcomes as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ (though others may not).

Uh, I’m a Catholic. And, have frequently stated as much. There is a thread called Catholic vs Protestant near the top of the 1st page. Yes, I showed up as a Catholic. I may have have said so in this very thread, earlier on, but I’d have to check. Scared it’ll get picked apart? We post our faith, practices, and theology on the web…We’re not exactly unknow…

And, yes, I’ve explained the existence of good and evil. Repeatedly. Don’t start trolling.[/quote]

Yes, yes, exactly! Of course we see some outcomes as good and others as not, and we sometimes decide our morals by how much something hurts us, or hurts others, or disgusts us. I never claimed it didn’t. What is your point?

Your god also decides what is good and what is bad. How. Can. You. Not. Understand. That. His. Creating. The. Universe. Entails. Him. Creating. All. That. Is. Good. And. All. That. Is. Evil?!?!

Don’t tell me that he gave me free will. Why? Because if he created me, then he also created my quirks, my strengths, my weaknesses - my ability to do good as well as my ability to do bad. He KNEW when creating man that many of them would do some terrible things. Yet he went ahead and did it.

He cannot be absolved from responsibility here. Will you deal with this notion?

995

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Morals aren’t myths. They exist only in the heads of the people that have them. They make no claims about the real world.

[/quote]

Oh, ok. Rape isn’t REALLY evil. Thanks, was wondering how that worked.[/quote]

Is burning/torturing someone eternally evil? Oh no, must not be - because god said it.

996

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
my ability to do good as well as my ability to do bad[/quote]

Why do you want child-bearing to be seen as evil? Maybe that’s why you guys can’t even replace yourselves.

997

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A father and mother bring children (wills) into the world. Obviously, those children will take action in the world. Therefore, father and mother define what actions are good and desireable. For example, they instruct that rape is an evil.[/quote]

Parents didn’t create the world itself.

998

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

Yes, yes, exactly! Of course we see some outcomes as good and others as not, and we sometimes decide our morals by how much something hurts us, or hurts others, or disgusts us. I never claimed it didn’t. What is your point?

[/quote]

That you’ve created evil by defining what actions are good.

999

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A father and mother bring children (wills) into the world. Obviously, those children will take action in the world. Therefore, father and mother define what actions are good and desireable. For example, they instruct that rape is an evil.[/quote]

Parents didn’t create the world itself.[/quote]

The world doesn’t make decisions, good or evil. It’s not a factor.

1000

Is that what this is? Atheistic perpetual depression? A hatred for the existence of life and will? Your objection can only rest on one thing, a hatred for self-aware will. Perhaps that’s why the righteous will always inherit the earth—through demographics alone. Atheists feel compelled to not add evil to world, so they don’t reproduce. Depressing, but interesting.