Believers: What Would You Do?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
102

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
DD, so in the hypothetical example, you would view your loved ones in the same way you view chocolate? Would you value them the same? Would you make sacrifices for them, that you wouldn’t make for chocolate?[/quote]

No, I’m saying in your scenario, their value is the same. Zero, because there is no such thing as value.[/quote]

So you’re saying that you would value your loved ones no more than you would value a Snickers candy bar?[/quote]

No, I’m saying you made it that way in the scenario. To convince someone there is no god is to convince someone there is no value. If you convince me there is no god, you must convince me there is no value. So yes, I would have to think that way, because it was the basis for the hypothetical.[/quote]

I was referring to the scenario.

So you really believe that in a world where there is no god, you would place no greater value on your wife and children than on a Snickers bar? Given the choice of saving your child’s life and eating the Snickers, you would just as soon eat the Snickers?[/quote]

I’m saying it is a necessity of your scenario. If I still believed in the value of things like a life, then I don’t believe there is no god.

Things having no inherent value is part of what you are saying you would convince me of. So if you are saying you are going to convince me things have no value, how could I value my child?[/quote]

For starters, how about the genetic imperative to protect one’s offspring?[/quote]

In your scenario, there is no imperative, there is only a chemical reaction that sometimes results that way. But either scenario has no value and is controlled by the physics of the universe, not me.[/quote]

Be that as it may, would you agree a mother would still be more likely to protect her child’s life than to choose the Snickers bar?
[/quote]

No, I don’t agree. She has no choice.[/quote]

Whether it’s a genetic mandate, or just a genetic influence, don’t you agree that she would be more likely to save her child over choosing the Snickers bar?

103

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If people knew for a fact that there is no objective morality, do you believe they could still benefit from a communal contract to live in a certain way?

[/quote]

Benefit? Yeah. But I’d hate to know what THEIR (not yours, informed by religious humanity) desired benefits were.
[/quote]

So they could define a social morality, and willingly conform to that morality, despite there not being a god or an afterlife?

104

[quote]forlife wrote:

Whether it’s a genetic mandate, or just a genetic influence, don’t you agree that she would be more likely to save her child over choosing the Snickers bar?[/quote]

The same way a person kicks when you tap their knee.

105

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

…Fair enough, but I think it would be different for others. Even if I were an atheist, I would still believe in treating people with respect. Not because a supernatural being told me to do so, but because I value humanity for their own sake.[/quote]

It can easily be argued that the value you place on humanity for their own sake is a direct and indirect result of your (past), and society’s (past and present) intrinsic knowledge and recognition of an omnipotent Creator and Judge.[/quote]

If that were true, atheistic societies would place no value at all on human life. You don’t need to believe in a supernatural being in order to treat others with respect. [/quote]

There’s no such thing as a “pure”, insulated atheist society. Sorry.[/quote]

Then think within the hypothetical scenario, where there is no god and no afterlife.

[/quote]

You don’t get it, do you? You have repeatedly been schooled here on how that is an impossibility (to think within the hypothetical scenario you suggest.

My best answer is to look at societies in history that are as godless as can be and draw your inferences from them.

Another suggestion is to look at animal (godless of course) societies - because a godless animal society of humans is your tacit postulate - and develop some reasonable ideas what that would look like.

Is there rape and murder on the savanna? How about the wild lands of Montana? The Amazon? The steppes of Mongolia? The Arctic?

Even societies that are as godless as can be, and animal societies, demonstrate altruistic and protective behavior, toward their offspring for example. Would you agree that this is the case?

106

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If people knew for a fact that there is no objective morality, do you believe they could still benefit from a communal contract to live in a certain way?

[/quote]

Benefit? Yeah. But I’d hate to know what THEIR (not yours, informed by religious humanity) desired benefits were.
[/quote]

So they could define a social morality, and willingly conform to that morality, despite there not being a god or an afterlife?[/quote]

Sure, your kind of ‘morality.’ That is, whatever is enforceable in that place, in that time. They might throw their handicap infants into pits as part of their moral system, for all I know. When I speak of morality (capital M morality) it’s about good and evil.

107

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Whether it’s a genetic mandate, or just a genetic influence, don’t you agree that she would be more likely to save her child over choosing the Snickers bar?[/quote]

The same way a person kicks when you tap their knee.[/quote]

So you agree that it’s more likely she would protect her child. It’s not random, disordered behavior. It is, in fact, behavior that is consistent with what you attribute to a supernatural being.

108

[quote]forlife wrote:

Whether it’s a genetic mandate, or just a genetic influence, don’t you agree that she would be more likely to save her child over choosing the Snickers bar?[/quote]

Is she starving?

110

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If people knew for a fact that there is no objective morality, do you believe they could still benefit from a communal contract to live in a certain way?

[/quote]

Benefit? Yeah. But I’d hate to know what THEIR (not yours, informed by religious humanity) desired benefits were.
[/quote]

So they could define a social morality, and willingly conform to that morality, despite there not being a god or an afterlife?[/quote]

Sure, your kind of ‘morality.’ That is, whatever is enforceable as that place, in that time. They might throw their handicap infants into pits as part of their moral system, for all I know. When I speak of morality (capital M morality) it’s about good and evil.[/quote]

We’ve agreed, then, that it’s possible for societies to establish a moral code, and hold one another accountable to that moral code, despite there not being a god or an afterlife.

The next question is about how closely that moral code, driven by genetic and social imperatives, would reflect the moral code you ascribe to the supernatural.

Would you agree that most if not all of the mandates you ascribe to the supernatural would actually be in the general interest of that society?

111

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Whether it’s a genetic mandate, or just a genetic influence, don’t you agree that she would be more likely to save her child over choosing the Snickers bar?[/quote]

Is she starving?[/quote]

No, just a little snack.

113

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Whether it’s a genetic mandate, or just a genetic influence, don’t you agree that she would be more likely to save her child over choosing the Snickers bar?[/quote]

The same way a person kicks when you tap their knee.[/quote]

So you agree that it’s more likely she would protect her child. It’s not random, disordered behavior. It is, in fact, behavior that is consistent with what you attribute to a supernatural being.
[/quote]

More likely, yeah, but not absolute. And in your scenario, you have already removed the value of one option over the other. So whatever the result, you can’t claim it as bad or good.

114

[quote]forlife wrote:
We’ve agreed, then, that it’s possible for societies to establish a moral code…[/quote]

No we haven’t. I don’t believe your definition is morality. And since morality is defined by mere human opinion in your system, I can’t be wrong. At best they can develop laws which may or may not outrage us (affected by religious humanity), which can obviously change.

]

115

[quote]forlife wrote:

Would you agree that most if not all of the mandates you ascribe to the supernatural would actually be in the general interest of that society? [/quote]

interest is a supernatural concept, so no, that is not possible. If there is no god, there can’t be a benefit to society because there is no such thing as benefit.

116

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Even …animal societies, demonstrate altruistic and protective behavior, toward their offspring for example. Would you agree that this is the case?

[/quote]

You mean like the male lions on that savanna I mentioned? The ones that eat their own young? Habitually?
[/quote]

I was talking in the aggregate, that animals tend to protect their young as an instinctive genetic imperative.

Furthermore, I would argue that those “altruistic” instincts are directly correlated with genetic complexity and advancement.

117

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, if there was no god or afterlife, why would you still not seek to harm people?[/quote]

'Cause I don’t like to hurt people on purpose without cause.[/quote]

Why would you not want to hurt people on purpose without cause, even if there was no god or afterlife?[/quote]

Why would I want to do that?

118

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Even …animal societies, demonstrate altruistic and protective behavior, toward their offspring for example. Would you agree that this is the case?

[/quote]

You mean like the male lions on that savanna I mentioned? The ones that eat their own young? Habitually?
[/quote]

I was talking in the aggregate, that animals tend to protect their young as an instinctive genetic imperative.

Furthermore, I would argue that those “altruistic” instincts are directly correlated with genetic complexity and advancement.[/quote]

And humanity does have a religious nature. There’s your instinct seperating us from the animals.

The only way civilization did get to this modern era is through a religious humanity and history. It would seem history has already answered your questions, as an atheistic humanity doesn’t seem to have been able to get even get off the ground. Again, I refer to Pat’s thread.

119

meh

120

[quote]forlife wrote:

I was talking in the aggregate, that animals tend to protect their young as an instinctive genetic imperative.

Furthermore, I would argue that those “altruistic” instincts are directly correlated with genetic complexity and advancement.[/quote]

And humanity does have a religious nature. There’s your instinct seperating us from the animals.

The only way civilization did get to this modern era is through a religious humanity and history. It would seem history has already answered your questions, as an atheistic humanity doesn’t seem to have been able to get even get off the ground. Again, I refer to Pat’s thread. If you want to take a Darwinian view, evolution has given you the answer, after all humanity has a religious nature.