Iconoclastic Atheist Turns To Belief In God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
If the agnostic wants to have any voice in the debate of God’s existence (or the rationality of believing he exists), he MUST say something of importance; otherwise, why listen?
[/quote]

How about arguing “you couldn’t possibly know for sure” to a devout Christian that believes he/she knows for sure? Maybe that’s important enough to listen, maybe not. Seems relative.

True, but you’re discarding temporal information. As you said before, “currently unknowable.” It is possible that the point at which humans could know of the existence of “God” exceeds the point at which our race will be extinct. For practical purposes that’s the same as being “unknowable”. Agnostics believe that scenario to be probable.

202

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:

Professor X, you silly melon-head. Maybe you should do your homework before you start taking the test. Marriage is not a religious ceremony. It is a ceremony. Period. You have to get a license from your state to get married, not your church and any magistrate can marry someone.[/quote]

I am truly interested now, where were you married and did you go to “any magistrate” in order to get married and avoid a preacher? I know I would if I opposed religion like you seem to.

203

I’ve seen a lot on here about objective morality, abolute universal rules. There seems to be disagreement as to whether or not atheists have these morals since they have no higher source to recieve them. Still, I am sure that there are some that we can all agree on to absolute moral truths, right? I’m talking totally universal, applicable at all times, at all places to everyone, not subject to the thoughts, feelings or attitudes of individual people or to the conventions of a certain society. No exceptions ever. Now, we can’t just say it’s morally wrong to kill, because we can all think of a situation when it would be okay to kill someone (self-defense) and we can’t say it’s morally wrong to steal (starving family, medical emergency) either. Here are some that I do think satisfy the requirements of not having any exceptions and being universal.

It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.

Ex. - Hitler and the genocide of Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals. Also Milosevic and his henchmen in Bosnia.

It is morally wrong to provide one’s troops with young women captives with the prospect of their being used as sex-slaves.

Ex. - German and Japanese High Commands gave sexually attractive women, especially virgins, to their troops for “comfort”. There are other examples throughout history of this as well.

It is morally wrong to make people cannibalize their friends in family.

Ex. - Not like a plane crash in the Andes, things like Polynesian tribes forcing people to eat their own family members as punishment or to horrify and strike fear into the hearts of enemies.

It is morally wrong to practice human sacrifice, by burning, cutting or otherwise.

Ex. - Biblical Jews fought against tribes who did this, and Aztecs and Incas were big fans of the practice. I believe the Aztecs once had so many alters going they were sacrificing a prisoner a minute for days straight!

It is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs.

Ex. - The Inquisitions burned nonconforming scholars, and other heretics. The Witch Burnings killed a lot of women. And the Romans tortured and killed Christians for a long while, sometimes for sport.

Now, I think that theist, deist, atheist and agnostic could all agree these are objective moral principles. See, you all can agree on something, right?

To-Shin Do

204

[quote]ToShinDo wrote:

Now, I think that theist, deist, atheist and agnostic could all agree these are objective moral principles. See, you all can agree on something, right?

To-Shin Do

[/quote]

That depends. In the mind of a true atheist, I can only assume that there is no base of moral right or wrong to pull from. That would imply that there is absolute good and absolute evil. They object to this idea so how can they justify what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong? In their minds, since there are no cosmic consequences for “wrong actions” or “right actions”, it makes little sense to assume that thay have strong values on anything. That is why I asked the questions above that have yet to be answered straightly.

205

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
Lastly, you’ve again failed to show where I labeled you “absurd.” This is my third attempt, and please remember that I don’t a Christian’s patience!! :slight_smile: Did I use absurdity to prove a point?? You betcha. But I never leveled such an ad hominem attack (except to Prof X, which is a whole other twisted tale!!). [/quote]

You really need to re-read this thread. I never said what you are accusing me of saying. If you can find where I did, feel free to use the quotey thingy and prove me wrong. But I couldn’t find where I did.

206

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:
Is it just me, or does bamit give anyone else the creeps? So bamit believes it because it is such an improbable story. Fascinating. No doubt you believe people are being anally-probed by aliens (why would someone just make that up?). As for Jesus being nailed to the cross, that was not an uncommon thing for the Romans to do. [/quote]

But your not elitist. Nope. Not one little bit.

[quote]Marriage is not a religious ceremony. It is a ceremony. Period. You have to get a license from your state to get married, not your church and any magistrate can marry someone.
[/quote]

That’s only been done in our recent history. Before that marraige was uniquely a religous function - a union ‘ordained by God’.

207

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Don’t leave just yet. I wrote these questions to you posts and posts ago yet you avoided them completely…although you wrote above that you had answered them. Please enlighten me with the answers (which you apparently typed in invisible internet dust) now:

In what do your base your concept of right and wrong? Do you even believe in “right and wrong”? If so, why do you believe in right and wrong? What motivates you to do right at all? Why not simply do wrong all of the time? Where are your boundaries and why do you have them? If no one was to find out, would killing someone else outside of self defense be “wrong” to you? Please explain in detail.[/quote]

You know, I’d thought you’d posted these questions to another atheist…didn’t see that they were intended for me.

I base my understanding of right and wrong on not only my empirical understanding of humankind interaction, (sociobiology)but also upon the wisdom of many millenia of civilization, as passed down in various codes and law. These include, as I mentioned well earlier, the Greco-Roman basis of law upon which much or our current rule of law is built (in case you’d forgotten, too, the Greco-Romans were predominately polytheist or atheist, yet their laws not only pre-dated the Commandments but also looked a whole lot like them!!). Also (another point I’ve made more than once already) the interaction amongst higher mammalian species within their social groups also reflects what humans have been able to codify into law: caring for the young and weak, acts of charity, banishment for “unethical” behavior, etc. All of these codes are remarkably consistent, and have existed since well before Christ purportedly walked the earth. (As an example, check out the social interactions amongst the tribes just recently exposed to civilization with the destruction of the rainforest). They’ve never read a Bible, never heard of Christ, and know nothing about even our Greco-Roman heritage. Yet their “rules” for right and wrong, while rudimentary, are much like ours.

Look, unfortunately I really don’t have the time to go into much greater detail with your questions (I do have at least the shadowy remnants of a life outside of the internet!), other than to tell you that this acquired understanding of right and wrong (as well as the love of my microcosm…my family, close friends, etc.) insists that I behave according to the established norms of right and wrong, both to better my own life but also so as not to unduly interfere with the happiness of others.

So, now I await your answer: do you claim that I and other atheists lack the “foundation” for morality, or are you willing to concede that their are other paths to ethics besides religion??

By the way, check out this link for an interesting read: http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html

You may not agree with it, but the author does a far better job than I in going into great detail about the “alternative” paths to morality.

208

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ToShinDo wrote:

Now, I think that theist, deist, atheist and agnostic could all agree these are objective moral principles. See, you all can agree on something, right?

To-Shin Do

That depends. In the mind of a true atheist, I can only assume that there is no base of moral right or wrong to pull from. That would imply that there is absolute good and absolute evil. They object to this idea so how can they justify what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong? In their minds, since there are no cosmic consequences for “wrong actions” or “right actions”, it makes little sense to assume that thay have strong values on anything. That is why I asked the questions above that have yet to be answered straightly.[/quote]

I agree with ProfX on this one. MM has been signing his little posts with “be your own god”. Either he’s completely full of crap and is arguing for argument’s sake, or he actually believes this and he is his own little god. Because of this, I think that the question of how his moral compass is built is a very pertinent question.

It jut so happens that MM has refused to answer this very important question. It creates quite the dilema for our favorite little elitist.

If he admits what is probably the truth - he got his morals from the same place as everyone else - Judeao-Christian principles that have been around for thousands of years - then he loses a little face. If he admits to what Prof X is arguing, then he is an amoral pig that is fronting as a law abiding citizen. Again he loses face.

209

[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:

Our universe is not the sum culmination of all of our empiracle knowledge and experience. If we lived in a universe that was the sum, the outer bounds would be the size of this solar system, which we still have yet to explore,except by the use of satelite,and our empiracle knowledge still can’t explain a myriad of questions that still plague humanitys’ greatest scientific minds.[/quote]

Sorry, but you misunderstand. I am not claiming that the universe is limited by what we know. The universe simply is, majestic and mysterious and infinite. Yet all we can EVER know is contained withing that universe.

210

[quote]bamit wrote:
Do you think the account of Jesus?s life is a little odd? This is what has convinced me that Christianity is the truth. What human beings would have ever come up with such a story? Man made stories are much more interesting, and not nearly as odd. I mean what man would think to say that our savior died on a cross. Men would not think this up, so I believe that it must have happened. I also believe that Jesus rose form the dead because if he would not have Christianity would have died with him. These men must have seen something that turned them form modern everyday people, to martyred apostles. I do not think that they would have willingly gave there lives as they did if they had not seen something.

[/quote]

We’ll just have to agree to disagree, then. Any number of myths and fables and faiths have withstood the test of the millenia…yet not all of them can be true, as many are contradictory. And I’m equally unimpressed that matyrdom equates to a faith’s veracity; hundreds drank the Kool Aid for Jim Jones, but I don’t see christians forming a new church based upon his beliefs solely due to the strength of that matyrdom.

Peace…

211

[quote]rainjack wrote:

You really need to re-read this thread. I never said what you are accusing me of saying. If you can find where I did, feel free to use the quotey thingy and prove me wrong. But I couldn’t find where I did.
[/quote]

Sorry, no time to go over it yet again. How about I take your word for it and we let it die??

212

Sorry to be tardy to the party, but regarding the Pink Bunny Rabbit, I have to ask: were its “revelations” given over a period of 1,400 years, documented by 40 different authors on three different continents and in three different languages, and do they somehow still manage form an amazingly cogent story? Are there more extant copies of those original writings than of the works of either Shakespeare or Homer? Were over 600 letter-specific events in the PB’s life documented hundreds of years BEFORE his birth (including his death in a manner that wasn’t yet “invented”)? Will he still be worshiped by millions long after other gods of man have been long forgotten, like all those cute furry critters worshiped by the Greeks and Romans, for example? If so, you might have my attention (See? I’m open-minded…). Would this “prove” anything? Admittedly, no, but there does seem to be a lot more “hard” support for the bible (i.e. it more than meets the accepted standards for allowing the historical veracity of a work) than a lot of people are willing to give it. To have faith in the God of the Bible does not mean to abandon all reason, and is certainly not the same as psychotic delusion.

Happy New Year!

213

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
I base my understanding of right and wrong on not only my empirical understanding of humankind interaction, (sociobiology)but also upon the wisdom of many millenia of civilization, as passed down in various codes and law. These include, as I mentioned well earlier, the Greco-Roman basis of law upon which much or our current rule of law is built (in case you’d forgotten, too, the Greco-Romans were predominately polytheist or atheist, yet their laws not only pre-dated the Commandments but also looked a whole lot like them!!).[/quote]

So you base your ideas of right and wrong on polytheist cultures but are immune to laws from monotheist religions? Could you explain why? You don’t think many of those laws were based in religion and ancient moral codes? The Egyptians (polytheists and where the Greeks and Romans adapted many social structures) had greater social orders as well. Again, why did you get stuck on the Greeks and Romans?

I’m sorry, but in many animal “social structures” the weak are also eaten or killed. Why avoid that one and only focus on the “caring”? If this is your basis for your morals and values, what guides your hand to pick and choose? As far as your comments about a lost civilization in a rain forest, are you claiming that they have no concept of a creator or genesis story? Could you please prove this? Banishment for unethical behavior? What animals do you know banished other animals for, let’s say, stealing or killing someone not in the same “clan or pride”?

Along with that, you mentioned “higher species”. If the only thing separating us from a flying squirrel are a few thousand years of evolution, why do you consider yourself a “higher species”? Only in terms of intelligence? Do you hold any concept of a conscience or a soul?

[quote]
Look, ? this acquired understanding of right and wrong insists that I behave according to the established norms of right and wrong, both to better my own life but also so as not to unduly interfere with the happiness of others. [/quote]

The question isn’t really whether you have morals, but why. If you witnessed someone else killing someone or stealing a car, if it was not affecting you or those in your list of friends and family, would you find it wrong? If so, why? Because animals and the Romans did?

[quote]
So, now I await your answer: do you claim that I and other atheists lack the “foundation” for morality, or are you willing to concede that their are other paths to ethics besidesb religion?? [/quote]

Shit, was this the final answer?

214

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:

By the way, check out this link for an interesting read: http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html

You may not agree with it, but the author does a far better job than I in going into great detail about the “alternative” paths to morality.[/quote]

From the site you listed:

This statement initiates that there are actions that are inherently good and actions that are inherently evil. This implies that there are ultimate examples of Good as well as ultimate examples of evil. How can this be if this world is simply a mass of evolution? Both of these concepts would be illusions which means someone believing this would need to be held by the same standards as what you keep raking “believers” over. If that is the case, than this site you posted supports the existence of a greater good and greater evil more than you are even willing to acknowledge.

215

[quote]Professor X wrote:

That depends. In the mind of a true atheist, I can only assume that there is no base of moral right or wrong to pull from. That would imply that there is absolute good and absolute evil. They object to this idea so how can they justify what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong? In their minds, since there are no cosmic consequences for “wrong actions” or “right actions”, it makes little sense to assume that thay have strong values on anything. That is why I asked the questions above that have yet to be answered straightly.[/quote]

Well, you got your answers. Go read them.

Funny how, when I claimed you had exactly these sentiments, you cried like a little bitch that I’d misquoted you, you weren’t talking about me, etc., etc.

Remember this??

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I specifically wrote that to another poster based on what he was writing. It involved his partaking of a religious act but claiming no religious background or desire. You need to learn how to read in context. If anyone is thin skinned around here, it is you. Next time, learn when you are being spoken to and when you are not.[/quote]

Guess my reading comprehension wasn’t so bad after all, since you now seem to be expressing the same doubts about atheists’ “foundation of values” as I called you on before.

Let me ask you a question, Mr. Holier-than-Thou…why do you act in accordance with the good and shun the bad? Is it because you are a kind person, caring of your neighbor? (Like the all the atheists I know…good people who do good things out of a love for their fellow man.) Or do you do “good” solely because your Tooth Fairy On High will smite you if you disobey his Commandments??

How about if, just for a day, God held in abeyance those Commandments? Would you run around and do evil things, free from cosmic retribution?? If so, then you do good only out of the fear of Hell…not very noble, huh?

What…you say you wouldn’t do evil, even if given a pass by God? Then the Commandments are unnecessary, because Man intrinsically knows the difference between good and evil without some stone tablets to explain it to him.

Either way, your God and your Commandments are as necessary to morality as wings on a pig.

216

[quote]Professor X wrote:

This statement initiates that there are actions that are inherently good and actions that are inherently evil. This implies that there are ultimate examples of Good as well as ultimate examples of evil. [/quote]

Ahh…no it doesn’t. It is using a “what if” scenario to detail an internal contradiction regarding faith-based morality.

217

[quote]Professor X wrote:

So you base your ideas of right and wrong on polytheist cultures but are immune to laws from monotheist religions? Could you explain why? You don’t think many of those laws were based in religion and ancient moral codes? The Egyptians (polytheists and where the Greeks and Romans adapted many social structures) had greater social orders as well. Again, why did you get stuck on the Greeks and Romans?[/quote]

I didn’t “get stuck.” My point is that morality is incredibly consistent across civilizations, be they polytheist, atheist, or theist. You Christians don’t have a monopoly on this stuff.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
A)As far as your comments about a lost civilization in a rain forest, are you claiming that they have no concept of a creator or genesis story? Could you please prove this? B)Banishment for unethical behavior? What animals do you know banished other animals for, let’s say, stealing or killing someone not in the same “clan or pride”?[/quote]

A) No, I’m claiming they know nothing about Jesus or the Commandments.
B) I’m talking about banishment from within a particular clan…which mirrors any particular society punishing wrongdoers for breaking the internal laws.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Along with that, you mentioned “higher species”. If the only thing separating us from a flying squirrel are a few thousand years of evolution, why do you consider yourself a “higher species”? Only in terms of intelligence? Do you hold any concept of a conscience or a soul?"?[/quote]

Irrevelent to our discussion.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The question isn’t really whether you have morals, but why. If you witnessed someone else killing someone or stealing a car, if it was not affecting you or those in your list of friends and family, would you find it wrong? If so, why? Because animals and the Romans did?[/quote]

I’m not sure there’s any other better way to reiterate what I’ve already said about my beliefs regarding right and wrong. Would I think it was wrong? Sure. Why? Because of the same empirical and historical knowledge regarding human interaction that I went to great lengths to describe previously.

AND, TO REITERATE: So, now I await your answer: do you claim that I and other atheists lack the “foundation” for morality, or are you willing to concede that their are other paths to ethics besidesb religion??

Still waiting for that answer…

218

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
So, now I await your answer: do you claim that I and other atheists lack the “foundation” for morality, or are you willing to concede that their are other paths to ethics besidesb religion??

Still waiting for that answer…[/quote]

Yes, I do claim that atheists lack any claim to a FOUNDATION of moral right or wrong. You can’t even provide me with a solid reason why you believe in right or wrong. Your justifications ranged from woodland animals to civilizations you have never seen while claiming that when the same unseen (but recorded) knowledge of the past is used by a Christian that it is invalid.

Are there other paths to ethics outside of religion? Yes. However, from what I have read and understand, even those require a belief in “ultimate right” and “ultimate wrong” even if they refuse to call that God or Satan. Even your link that you posted mentioned this. You have yet to show otherwise…and yes, that burden would be on you.

219

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Yes, I do claim that atheists lack any claim to a FOUNDATION of moral right or wrong. You can’t even provide me with a solid reason why you believe in right or wrong. by a Christian that it is invalid. [/quote]

Good, I’m glad that’s been cleared up. Now I await your apology for failing to live up to this belief when I called you on it previously.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Your justifications ranged from woodland animals to civilizations you have never seen while claiming that when the same unseen (but recorded) knowledge of the past is used by a Christian that it is invalid. [/quote]

Untrue. I never said the Christian “knowledge of the past” was invalid. I said that Christians do not have a monopoly on morals or ethics, and that other civilizations (and yes, even some animal societies) have arrived at the same guidelines MILLENIA BEFORE Christians.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Are there other paths to ethics outside of religion? Yes. However, from what I have read and understand, even those require a belief in “ultimate right” and “ultimate wrong” even if they refuse to call that God or Satan. .[/quote]
Then you read and understand incorrectly. There is a huge difference between empirical knowledge gained by observing the cause and effect of actions and results and the revelatory nature of a god purportedly telling his followers “This is Right because I say so.”

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Even your link that you posted mentioned this. You have yet to show otherwise…and yes, that burden would be on you.[/quote]

I can’t do your reading comprehension for you, but here’s an attempt. The quote:

“On the other hand, IF a god’s commandments are based on a knowledge of the inherent goodness of an act, we are faced with the realization that there is a standard of goodness independent of the god and we must admit that he cannot be the source of morality. In our quest for the good, we can bypass the god and go to his source!”

To reiterate, this is a classic “if, then” argument. The author doesn’t claim to hold the view of thy hypothesis…he is using it to demonstrate how the underpinnings of god-based morality is flawed.

You’ve also chosen to ignore the numerous other points regarding the origin of ethics apart from religion, all of which clearly demonstrate exactly the opposite of what you claim to have gleaned from the text.

220

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:

I can’t do your reading comprehension for you, but here’s an attempt. The quote:

“On the other hand, IF a god’s commandments are based on a knowledge of the inherent goodness of an act, we are faced with the realization that there is a standard of goodness independent of the god and we must admit that he cannot be the source of morality. In our quest for the good, we can bypass the god and go to his source!”

To reiterate, this is a classic “if, then” argument. The author doesn’t claim to hold the view of thy hypothesis…he is using it to demonstrate how the underpinnings of god-based morality is flawed.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, but there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. It is an argument made by someone looking for any reason to bypass God. It even goes as far as to ackowledge a source of absolute goodness and absolute evil but refuses to give that “source” of absolute good the disctinction of God. He hasn’t shown that God-based morality is flawed anywhere in that statement.