Why I bother....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-10-2014, 04:51 PM
RE: Why I bother....
(14-10-2014 04:39 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(14-10-2014 04:27 PM)Tsukho Wrote:  TheInquisition,

Why is this an issue? Go get a Bible and an applicable concordance and look up the Hebrew yourself.

Or perhaps you might try viewing some Japanese to English commercials on Youtube to understand interpretation is important. Not to even mention all of literature, philosophy and similar human endeavors

"All your base are belong to us."

There is no way to adjudicate between competing claims. One's interpretation is only an opinion, there are tens of thousands of Christian sects alone, each one based on an interpretation.
Because the bible can, and has been used to justify a multitude of atrocities, it renders itself a useless text. How many atrocities has the bible generated due to mis-guided interpretation? This is the hiding place of the charlatan, the tyrant, the suicidal cult, etc.
I'm simply not interested in your interpretation, it has no inherent value in it.
The only way you gain credibility external to the bible is with evidence.
There's that word again.....

Good point, I always find it amusing when people posit that the bible is the foundation of morals, I am like...have you read it?

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
14-10-2014, 04:56 PM
RE: Why I bother....
(14-10-2014 04:31 PM)Tsukho Wrote:  Mathilda,

Read in context. The topic is morals. The question is why we SHOULD love our children.

You said:

(14-10-2014 01:46 PM)Tsukho Wrote:  I can tell you an objective reason why we love our children, but you can't tell me, because you don't have an answer, at least that I've been able to find.

You did not say "why we SHOULD love our children."

So ... I provided an objective explanation as to why we love our children after you claimed that atheists can't. You have resisted from providing an explanation yourself even though you claim to be able to.

(I even provided a definition of objective from google)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 05:00 PM
Newbie
Oh, and I just realized that my status is a newbie. Apologies to whoever it is that called me that earlier.

You were right. I was wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 05:02 PM
RE: Why I bother....
(14-10-2014 05:00 PM)Tsukho Wrote:  Oh, and I just realized that my status is a newbie. Apologies to whoever it is that called me that earlier.

You were right. I was wrong.

Oh that was me Big Grin

It wasn't a slam, it was simply acknowledging your newness. I am glad you are here, fresh perspectives, or in your case, the revival of old debated misinformed perspectives are always good to liven up the board.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 05:32 PM (This post was last modified: 14-10-2014 06:05 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why I bother....
(14-10-2014 04:17 PM)Tsukho Wrote:  I stand corrected. How about this? If atheism is a correct philosophy and there is no God, then by default the most likely scenario is evolution.

No. Evolution stands on it's own. There are mountains of evidence for it, and no evidence of any gods, including yours. Faith and religion are not necessarily opposed. One is not related to the other, of necessity. They each stand on their own, or fall on their own.

(14-10-2014 04:17 PM)Tsukho Wrote:  Assuming evolution to be true and that humans developed a basic moral sense, my point still stands. I'm not obligated to obey my moral sense any more than my olfactory sense, and the universe is ambivalent to both.

So what ? The inference is meaningless. The universe may not care, but human society, (and your children) would care. You are subject to the law, or you pay the consequences. Your faith position is irrelevant to your legal obligations.

(14-10-2014 04:17 PM)Tsukho Wrote:  Agreed. If the baseline of no objective morality is self gratification, then it is rational to ignore empathy.

Wrong. Empathy promotes group survival, and an environment in which to pass on your genes. The purpose of empathy is not self gratification. It promotes cooperation.

Which raises the question : "What is good ?". Is something good because (your) god wills it, or does your god will it because it's good ? Either way, it implies there is a Reality larger than your god, (which remains unexplained), which your god could not have created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

(14-10-2014 04:17 PM)Tsukho Wrote:  Everyone loves bacon. But my point is more along the lines that if God does not exists then these things and a few other imagine define our existence in this universe.

Too bad. Your argument is essentially that YOU NEED a god to feel all warm and fuzzy. Too bad. The universe doesn't owe you anything.
It's also the argument from ignorance fallacy.

(14-10-2014 04:17 PM)Tsukho Wrote:  Where did these come from? Are they inalienable? Who gives me these rights?

They come from ourselves. Read the UN Charter on Human Rights. We agree on them, as they promote harmonious productive satisfying lives. God is not referenced in that document. They arise from being human.

(14-10-2014 04:17 PM)Tsukho Wrote:  This is what I'm talking about. You speak about these things like they are truths of the universe separate from humans and we must obey them, instead of just concepts we humans devised and which we can change with a majority vote.

Oh like religious people VOTING on gay marriage ? They are not "truths of the universe". Human law is law which humans have debated and agreed on.
You never took a Civics class ?

(14-10-2014 04:17 PM)Tsukho Wrote:  Chas, what are you talking about? History is replete with example of what people do when morality is situation based and people start thinking that society would best be served by picking who gets to live.

Oh like the CHRISTIAN nation Germany, before WW II ? God did them a lot of good, didn't she ?

Human brains learn the values they come to call morality, from their cultures. It exists ONLY in human brains. It doesn't exist "out there" somewhere.
Every human brain has a different take on what is moral.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
14-10-2014, 06:02 PM
RE: Why I bother....
(14-10-2014 04:17 PM)Tsukho Wrote:  I said: In universal context, we have no more meaning than a virus and no greater claim to survival.
You said: Except we have consciousness, viruses do not. Viruses can't even be said to be alive.

Yes, we have consciousness and viruses don't, but that's not salient, unless you're saying the universe would prefer that we survive over a lower organism because we're smarter. Select a different organism of your choosing.
No, the universe doesn't give a shit. I didn't say that it did. We care about us more than we care about <your favorite organism>
Quote:Assuming evolution to be true and that humans developed a basic moral sense, my point still stands. I'm not obligated to obey my moral sense any more than my olfactory sense, and the universe is ambivalent to both.
The universe is indifferent to our concerns.
I never said you're obliged to 'obey' it, simply that it demonstrably exists and therefore it is the basis for our various moralities.

Quote:Yes, the point being that although the universe functions in accordance with the observed phenomenon we call the laws of physics, the universe does not depend on the concept of morality to function.
OK.
Quote:I said: If this is so, shouldn't the atheist obey laws and live within society's mores as best helps him, but if he find it's better for him to shed morals, then do that?
You said: That is certainly a rational argument, if you ignore empathy.

Agreed. If the baseline of no objective morality is self gratification, then it is rational to ignore empathy.
But that is not the baseline.
Quote:I said: Here's where I see the atheist contradiction. The Big Bang, evolution and natural selection is all you have,
You said: Nope. We also have art, music, dance, wonder, excitement, love, friendship, and bacon.

Everyone loves bacon. But my point is more along the lines that if God does not exists then these things and a few other imagine define our existence in this universe.
OK.

Quote:I said: but you still take umbrage and skirt the point about morality as if it's objective and universal.
You said: Our shared basic morality is sort of universal and objective, but the rest is subjective and negotiated.

I think you're using the word universal to mean shared and common. But I'm making the correlation that atheists seem to treat morality as if it were a natural phenomenon like gravity, as if it exists objectively in the universe and must be obeyed.
We have a shared, evolved, base morality. This has been demonstrated. It is a natural biological phenomenon like seeing or thinking.

No human concepts exist objectively in the universe, they exist in human minds and artifacts.

Quote:I said, "If you cannot love your children with evolution being more true than a god, then you are warped and an ignorant twit." But you still haven't answered the question as to why.
I didn't say it, I don't know the context. No response.
Quote:On the contrary, it comes from his previous post and directly speaks to the conversation. As an atheist, he espouses both evolution and morality. I'm asking if he can provide a logical, objective, argument that a father should love his children.
Yes, I do have an answer: evolution. Organisms that care for their offspring are more successful in passing on their genes than those that don't. Those genes contain the instructions to care for their offspring.
Quote:I said: When I research aesthetic morality, all I find is reasoning about building society and living in harmony.
You said: And human rights, dignity, respect, ...

Where did these come from? Are they inalienable? Who gives me these rights?

I didn't call them rights. You said all atheists have is reasoning about building society and living in harmony. No, we have lots of things.
Quote:
If a society says human rights are evil, am I bad to try to appropriate them? Are these ideas dreamed up by people trying to hammer out a society for us all to get along? Are they equal for everyone? If I take yours, is that fair?
This is what I'm talking about. You speak about these things like they are truths of the universe separate from humans and we must obey them, instead of just concepts we humans devised and which we can change with a majority vote.
Rights are a human invention and are negotiated within a society.

Quote:I said: If morality is based around the advancement of our society as the greatest good (and no one can tell me why that is),
You said: And no one here has said that, either.

I bring up two reasons for morality that I could understand, if there were no God. This is the first possibility. I often hear or read that morality a social construct to help our society (humanity or species) continue. Perhaps I should use the word species, not society.
No, society is correct.
Quote:I said: then we're going about this the wrong way. Let's euthanize the weak, test for the best genes, and create a hive society. No unwanted children, slackers or old people. Or if some guy is smart enough or strong enough to steal your mate, grab your stuff, and push you outside of the circle, well good for him. It's better that he passes on his DNA than you, anyways.
You said: OK, you just went off the rails. I call straw man extraordinaire on that.

Chas, what are you talking about? History is replete with example of what people do when morality is situation based and people start thinking that society would best be served by picking who gets to live.

I said: On the other hand, if morality is based around building society as a way to help the individual, then the individual's benefit is paramount. Eat, drink and be merry, because tomorrow may never come. If it turns out better for the individual to take advantage of society instead, then that's not only logical, but perhaps even moral.
You said: False dichotomy, straw man.
You don't get 'ought' from 'is'. And your conclusion that belief morality is situation based (whatever that actually means) inevitably leads to chaos is unwarranted.
Your false dichotomy is morals are objective or they are baseless.

Quote:If there are other options, please bring them out in the conversation. This is the second reason I hear for human-based morality. Morals help us get along so we all benefit. However if I can get along fine without you, then I have no need to follow your morals, I can follow mine, which may conflict with yours. Who's moral then?
All morality is human-based, even yours. You might base it on some book or something you've heard.
Morals allow us to function in society. If you opt out, there will be a cost to you.
I also think you are conflating morals with actions. Whatever your morals are, the only information I have comes from your actions, your behavior.

Quote:I said: Who's being warped now? Why not be intellectually honest and say morals are non-binding constructs people adhere to when trying to live in a society. But that's just their opinion.
You said: You again left out empathy.

Look, there are no morals 'out there' waiting to be discovered. They are constructed by each of us. And society's rules are the result of collective negotiation over time.

Quote:Your point is that a man must simply overcome the uncomfortable feelings of empathizing with others when he does something they think is immoral? Or that empathy is a universal truth we all must obey, like gravity?

No, empathy is not a 'truth', it exists in human minds - some more, some less.

Quote:These are the reasons I can think of when I think of human-based morality and also what I find when reading about other people's musings. Do you see others?

The reasons for what? You lost me.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-10-2014, 07:23 PM
RE: Why I bother....
Tsukho,
A couple honest questions - when you think about the actions done by humans over the last say, 3000 years, do you observe what you can label as a set of "absolute truths" or "objective morals" throughout this time frame? In addition, when you read the Christian bible in totality, do you observe a consistent set of these "absolute truths" or "objective morals"?

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2014, 02:16 AM
RE: Why I bother....
Here's the thing:
Yes, evolution is how we, as a species, originally developed altruism, kindness, and "morals." It certainly began as a simple method of ensuring that our genes were passed on as opposed to someone else's. It began as a way to keep our offspring safe and healthy. Organisms that care for their offspring (whether that be feeding them or simply covering a nest better than the next) and fellow species (by reciprocating kindness and/or not murdering for fun) survive and multiply. We can see this in every species that forms bonds and groups themselves together.

What's missing from the conversation in regards to human evolution is the advent of culture and cultural norms. This is the point in our history where our evolved actions become our codified morals. This is what I briefly touched on in my last post, that as humans began living in larger and larger groups, the tribal norms that we developed got extended. It's pretty easy to see from the history of the past ten thousand years or so, that our morals are most certainly not absolute.

Even since the spread of the Bible, our sense of morality has changed (Yes, basically by the majority voting on it. So what?). We have, because of our cultural norms, ideals about Human Rights and how to make a better society for everyone. This includes a change from "an eye for an eye" to almost every State outlawing the death penalty; it's a change from "masters take care of your slaves" to the idea that no one can own a person at all; a change from "women keep silent" to suffrage for all; from "give to Ceasar what is Caesar's" to no taxation without representation.

The idea that we as a society can collectively determine acceptable behaviours is not something to be dismissed merely because it isn't "absolute." There are exceptions to many rules and laws and ideals change over time. The standards that we have in place could very well change in the future. But they will change as society changes. The laws of the land reflect the cultural norms of the people living there. That's what we see in the Old Testament, the New, the ancient laws of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, the laws of colonial America, and the statutes of the UN.

You're focusing on evolution as if it's all about ME ME ME, right here, right now. But it isn't; it's about ensuring your progeny survive. We evolved to be more caring because it helped our offspring. Our culture, likewise, has evolved to leave a better world for our children.

Atheism is the only way to truly be free from sin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Colourcraze's post
15-10-2014, 05:29 AM (This post was last modified: 15-10-2014 07:11 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Why I bother....
Why is natural morality so hard to comprehend for a theist? Anyone with a minimal amount of intelligence and empathy can come up with a code to live by that will be far superior to the ten commandments. The very nature of the ten commandments should be evidence against god and point to a muddled moral code made up by a bunch of bronze-age priests and scribes.
They can't even match the moral purity that is inherent in chimpanzees! There is not a single chimpanzee that was killed for working on the Sabbath by his peers, it takes intelligent screwed up monkeys (humans) to come up with that particular brand of insanity.




Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
15-10-2014, 06:59 AM
RE: Why I bother....
(15-10-2014 05:29 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  There is not a single chimpanzee that was killed for working on the Sabbath by his peers, it takes intelligent screwed up monkeys (humans) to come up with that particular brand of insanity.

Fixed and given the seal of approval Thumbsup

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: