DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Chino on February 23, 2012, 03:31:04 PM
-
I'm not sure if any of you heard, but yesterday in New Britain CT, there was a a shooting at a hospital not far from my school. One of the people shot was my uncle's brother in law. Well he and his wife are jehova's witnesses. The guy who was shot is in severe critical condition, and if he doesn't get surgery within 2 days they say he's going to die. The surgeons say that he needs a blood transfusion before they can operate because he will most definitely bleed out. Apparently jehova's witnesses do not allow themselves to undergo blood transfusions. I don't understand what is going on in these people's heads. The wife would rather her husband die in agony than going through with the procedure, and the husband has no problem letting himself die and leaving behind his wife and kids... What the fuck.
-
Meh, the guy is an adult with his own beliefs and is capable of making his own decisions.
-
It's very hard to see their point of view when it comes to living but what can you do. It's something we as people will wrestle with all the time.
-
I agree, this is a sad example of a poor approach to understanding scripture
-
I agree, this is a sad example of a poor approach to understanding scripture
-
It's dumb, but as you said:
the husband has no problem letting himself die
Although his reasoning is moronic, it's really the same as the debate over the legality of suicide, withholding excessive treatments in certain medical situations, euthanasia, etc.
-J
-
I don't care what adults do with their lives. It's when JWs let their kids die because of it, then it's an issue.
rumborak
-
So can we say religion beliefs block our mental side? I guess we can. That example is the bad side of religion traditions, there are good ones but in my eyes, this kind of thing can cover all good things.
-
I agree with most of you that he is an adult capable of making his own decissions but if the guy has a kid maybe he should consider that letting himself die will affect the kid a lot. To be honest it is a very selfish decission.
-
Well this thread is rather insulting.
Good thing Jehovah's Witnesses make the list of "Religions that are "okay" to insult" on this board.
-
Haven't noticed any outright insulting of the religion, unless you count bosk's and yeshua's criticisms. Just expressing disagreement.
-J
-
I'm sorry, Chino. This is really sad, and I don't like hearing about ANYONE suffering.
But the facts are that the doctors sound like hacks. The facts are that doctors have alternatives...and Witnesses are open to alternate methods...just not blood transfusions.
I could go down a HUGE laundry list of alternatives. I personally know of someone who went through a liver transplant (an *extremely* bloody surgery) with NO BLOOD TRANSFUSION.
There were many doctors who refused to do the procedure because he wouldn't accept a blood transfusion. But it's mostly doctors who are living in the dark ages with old school mentalities.
There are volume expanders, blood substitutes, cell savors...etc etc etc.
Non-blood hospitals are starting to pop up all over the country because it is, quite honestly, the wave of the future. Quicker recovery times, no risk of rejection. New research is coming out every day that gives us more and more alternatives that do not require blood during surgery.
Trust me, I'm sure your BIL will find a better doctor who looks forwards instead of backwards. And I'm sure that he is *NOT* just rolling over and dying (in spite of the way a few of you have made it sound). This guy is fighting for his life to find ANY method that doesn't violate his conscience. And I would guess that any of you would do the same.
-
Jammindude, I see why blood wouldn't be necessary in a planned surgery but in this case the guy was shot and has probably lost lots of blood to this point. During a surgery blood will be lost and in a normal situation it would be hard for someone to lose enough blood to die but if a guy has already been losing blood and now needs to be cut open to get fixed then it is a very different story. I'm no medical expert so I may be completely wrong here.
-
Haven't noticed any outright insulting of the religion, unless you count bosk's and yeshua's criticisms. Just expressing disagreement.
-J
The OP is pretty insulting.
-
What they've discovered recently is that the body can function on far less blood that was previously thought...the problem is that when it gets to certain point, there's not enough to keep circulating.
The answer was pretty simple, volume expanders. Fluids can almost always buy you some extra time while you treat with iron to raise red blood cell count. Add to that, cell savers (wherein the blood lost is salvaged, cleaned and then recirculated back into the patient) has made blood transfusions almost obsolete.
San Antonio (I believe....it was definitely Texas) opened up the USA's first 100% BLOODLESS hospital a few years back, and more are starting to crop up.
Both Bridgeport and Hartford have fullblown bloodless surgery centers in their hospitals...I'm sure he was most likely rushed to one of those if they were relatively close.
And I take no offence to the OP. I feel his pain, and I'm sure he's very frustrated right now. He doesn't need the rest of you piling on his already difficult circumstance.
-
I take no offense either. But as mentioned, there are bloodless surgery options available. And more often than not, those are the safer ones. It's not a matter of giving up, it's fighting for your life in every other possible way.
-
Haven't noticed any outright insulting of the religion, unless you count bosk's and yeshua's criticisms. Just expressing disagreement.
-J
The OP is pretty insulting.
How was it insulting?
-
I'm with Adami on this. These people have their beliefs and they're willing to die for them. More power to them. :tup I personally think they're misguided, but I think that about most religious people. And while I'm not sure I'd call it insulting, the Christians here looking down on their beliefs aren't looking too good themselves in my point of view.
-
my apologies if my post was considered offensive. I have learned a number of things from the JW and have respect for them regarding their passion for their beliefs.
the interpretation of the "eating of blood" as including transfusions, though, is a poor interpretation IMO.
the fact that they are willing to die for this belief is extremely commendable
-
Haven't noticed any outright insulting of the religion, unless you count bosk's and yeshua's criticisms. Just expressing disagreement.
-J
The OP is pretty insulting.
Then you are easily insulted.
-Chino I'm going to Bridgeport Saturday hoping I don't get shot. I feel for you man, hopefully he'll pull through regardless of religion.
-
And while I'm not sure I'd call it insulting, the Christians here looking down on their beliefs aren't looking too good themselves in my point of view.
??? I haven't seen anyone in this thread "looking down on their beliefs." But as Yesh said, and I quoted, it is indeed sad that, due to his mistaken interpretation of scripture, he is likely going to leave behind a family that, I would guess, would want/need him around. I legitimately feel sad for him and his family.
-
I found it a tad condescending. For one thing I don't recognize your authority to deem his beliefs mistaken. That also applies to whether or not a person's demise is considered sad or joyful. He is, after all, probably going to die in what they likely consider a state of grace and go off to a better place. Just because you don't believe that doesn't mean that they might not be happy for him, or perhaps complacent with the will of God.
Or maybe they'll be devastated, who knows? The point is, we don't.
Regardless, I'm not too troubled. I don't think y'all were trying to be hostile or insensitive about it. It just struck me as a bit arrogant.
-
I see no problem, plus that's none of my business.
-
I don't believe this story has much to do with flaws in religious beliefs as much as the story has to do with the flaws of people in general.
-
Here's food for thought. Really...in the broad scheme of things...how different is it than dying for your country?
In either case...isn't it simply dying for something *you believe in*?
-
100% completely different.
-
I agree with jammindude on this one. Both are dying for what you believe. In one case you believe in the need of protecting your country in the other one you believe in God's teaching. One might argue that a religious belief is not the same as believing in your country but in the end both are things you believe in and you might consider dying for.
-
I disagree because in the case of "dying for your country" you were doing something (well, before you died) that made an actual tangible difference.
-
I disagree because in the case of "dying for your country" you were doing something (well, before you died) that made an actual tangible difference.
You believe you did. Do you really think the US made any difference invading Iraq or Afghanistan? Do you think every soldier that goes to war makes a difference and dies for a fair cause? I certainly don't and I know there are other people that don't believe that either.
-
I don't care what adults do with their lives. It's when JWs let their kids die because of it, then it's an issue.
rumborak
-
I agree with jammindude on this one. Both are dying for what you believe. In one case you believe in the need of protecting your country in the other one you believe in God's teaching. One might argue that a religious belief is not the same as believing in your country but in the end both are things you believe in and you might consider dying for.
No. When you die for your country (maybe not today, but in WWII), It's to keep other people safe and out of harms way. Any person injured in a war dies because they are not able to be saved, I'm sure they'd prevent their death if they could. Letting yourself die in a hospital because of something that's not even tangible (as opposed to a country) is no where near the same thing. My uncle's brother in law isn't dying for the god he believes in, he's dying because of what he believes god wants him to believe in, the god will not benefit at all from him dying. Dying for your country is sacrificing your life in order to preserve the lives of others, it's an act of heroism and being part of a greater good. What does letting yourself die in the hospital, when it's easily preventable, do for anyone?
-
I agree with jammindude on this one. Both are dying for what you believe. In one case you believe in the need of protecting your country in the other one you believe in God's teaching. One might argue that a religious belief is not the same as believing in your country but in the end both are things you believe in and you might consider dying for.
No. When you die for your country (maybe not today, but in WWII), It's to keep other people safe and out of harms way. Any person injured in a war dies because they are not able to be saved, I'm sure they'd prevent their death if they could. Letting yourself die in a hospital because of something that's not even tangible (as opposed to a country) is no where near the same thing. My uncle's brother in law isn't dying for the god he believes in, he's dying because of what he believes god wants him to believe in, the god will not benefit at all from him dying. Dying for your country is sacrificing your life in order to preserve the lives of others, it's an act of heroism and being part of a greater good. What does letting yourself die in the hospital, when it's easily preventable, do for anyone?
From his point of view it means he will go to heaven as opposed to staying longer in this world but then not being able to ascend. I think it's a selfish decision but it's his to make.
And as far as going to war, you could also say that you don't go to war for what you believe but what your country wants you to believe. If your government tells you that going to war will save peoples lives and you believe that that's up to you but on the other hand there are other people that don't believe in that and hence don't want to go to war.
-
I disagree because in the case of "dying for your country" you were doing something (well, before you died) that made an actual tangible difference.
You believe you did. Do you really think the US made any difference invading Iraq or Afghanistan? Do you think every soldier that goes to war makes a difference and dies for a fair cause? I certainly don't and I know there are other people that don't believe that either.
Well wether it's Iraq, Afghanistan or Germany in WWII, any soldier that died in a war made an infinitely bigger difference on what he was dying for than a religious person dying for personal beliefs when they didn't "have to".
-
And as far as going to war, you could also say that you don't go to war for what you believe but what your country wants you to believe. If your government tells you that going to war will save peoples lives and you believe that that's up to you but on the other hand there are other people that don't believe in that and hence don't want to go to war.
Wether you believe that the war is the right things doesn't change the fact that you do make a difference, even if it is tiny.
-
I for one actually find it refreshing to see people actually stand up for their faith for a change. Sure I don't agree with it, but if you're going to believe in any particular religion then you should truly believe. Especially in the protestant and Catholic churches the number of "believers" is ridiculous.
-
I don't even know why we're discussing this. There's a massive difference between dying for your country and dying because you're abstaining from medical help. Just because both have a "reason" doesn't mean they're equal.
rumborak
-
I don't even know why we're discussing this. There's a massive difference between dying for your country and dying because you're abstaining from medical help. Just because both have a "reason" doesn't mean they're equal.
rumborak
I'm with you, rumborak. The comparison holds no water.
-
I don't even know why we're discussing this. There's a massive difference between dying for your country and dying because you're abstaining from medical help. Just because both have a "reason" doesn't mean they're equal.
rumborak
I'm with you, rumborak. The comparison holds no water.
It's like comparing rainbows and cargo ships just because they are both long.
-
(https://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/toysrus_07/Spongebob__Imagination_by_kssael.png)
-
:rollin
-
If he is a JW, and this is one of their tenants, he would be a hypocrite to forsake it for personal gain.
I mean, I don't agree with his beliefs, but I don't agree with a lot of beliefs. But they are HIS beliefs and he is living (and possibly dying) with them, which is what he should do if they are to have any validity.
-
Wow....go to sleep for 6 hours, and suddenly I can't keep up..
First a clarification:
@Nekov... No. The Witnesses do not believe they are going to heaven. We believe that people are going to live forever right here on the earth in paradise. Someday. But...speaking for myself (and I know I'm not alone)...I don't do what I do for the reward. That is, it is NOT the primary motivator of any witness that I know. To do something *just* to simply get a reward is NOT a reason for anything.
It's a matter of what is right and what is wrong. God's name has been smeared. My heavenly father has been slandered. My God, who let *his firstborn son die* to save my life, has been challenged. In scripture (the first few chapters of Job, and other places as well) Satan challenges that God's servants don't *really* love him, and that anything they do for him, they only do to get a reward. He implies that if he makes life hard for us...takes away our livelihood, our health, our family....we'll crack and turn our backs on him. He claims that we will betray our principles and break God's laws for the sake of our own lives or the lives of our families.
So the question becomes...will you break God's law to save your own life? Now...I know that many of you may disagree about whether or not the blood issue is God's law or not...but I did not come to this decision lightly. No religion told me I had to do anything. *I* made a personal decision after careful research. God's Word teaches that blood is sacred. By the blood of Christ I was saved. That carries very deep significance for me personally. I am not going to violate what is holy just to save my own skin.
You are free to agree or disagree. I only point these things out to clarify. Because people are drawing some conclusions about what Witnesses believe that are off the mark. Repeating these misunderstandings just end up spreading misinformation.
As far as dying for your country. I did not mean to insult anyone. I have the utmost respect for any man who dies for something he believes in so much. I respect it...but I don't understand it. You could never defend killing another human being...for any reason...using the teachings of Christ. To the best of my ability, I live my life by his example. He lived a life of self sacrifice, and died...not only to save anyone who would follow him...but to *set an example* for us to follow. There is nothing that anyone can do to me that God cannot undo in the future. My life is in his hands.
It's actually kind of ironic that people mention WWII. Because in that war...my brothers were being persecuted and even KILLED...just because they wouldn't go out and kill one another. German JW's died because they wouldn't kill American JW's...and vice versa.
People put so much stock in *their* country....or *their* homeland...or even *their* race. These are all things that serve to divide, NOT UNITE people.
I would never kill anyone for any reason whatsoever....nor do anyone any harm in any way unless doing so was the only way to protect myself and mine. I am willing to die for God's principles of right and wrong. I respect all life, including my own, and would never do anything to needlessly put my life at risk.
Love of God...love of neighbor. Above all else, these two things drive everything I do and believe in. Whether that be dying over the blood issue (love of God) or refusing to go to war (love of neighbor).
-
If he is a JW, and this is one of their tenants, he would be a hypocrite to forsake it for personal gain.
I mean, I don't agree with his beliefs, but I don't agree with a lot of beliefs. But they are HIS beliefs and he is living (and possibly dying) with them, which is what he should do if they are to have any validity.
That's called sacrifice.
-
Also. I've never known any Witness...ever...to "abstain from medical help". That just isn't true at all. I would never "abstain from medical help"... Refusing *ONE* form of treatment, for which there ARE alternatives...is NOT "abstaining from medical help"... Even refusing treatment from a doctor who won't consider alternatives is not "abstaining from medical help"... It just means you are refusing a doctor who won't treat you...to look for a doctor that WILL treat you.
I promise you that every possible option is being pursued with vigor....not just by him, but by his family and friends as well.
-
Also. I've never known any Witness...ever...to "abstain from medical help". That just isn't true at all. I would never "abstain from medical help"... Refusing *ONE* form of treatment, for which there ARE alternatives...is NOT "abstaining from medical help"... Even refusing treatment from a doctor who won't consider alternatives is not "abstaining from medical help"... It just means you are refusing a doctor who won't treat you...to look for a doctor that WILL treat you.
I promise you that every possible option is being pursued with vigor....not just by him, but by his family and friends as well.
I can understand that. Shame how some doctors don't care at all about your health, but thats another story. Glad, you came and cleared things up.
It's a matter of what is right and what is wrong. God's name has been smeared. My heavenly father has been slandered. My God, who let *his firstborn son die* to save my life, has been challenged. In scripture (the first few chapters of Job, and other places as well) Satan challenges that God's servants don't *really* love him, and that anything they do for him, they only do to get a reward. He implies that if he makes life hard for us...takes away our livelihood, our health, our family....we'll crack and turn our backs on him. He claims that we will betray our principles and break God's laws for the sake of our own lives or the lives of our families.
So the question becomes...will you break God's law to save your own life? Now...I know that many of you may disagree about whether or not the blood issue is God's law or not...but I did not come to this decision lightly. No religion told me I had to do anything. *I* made a personal decision after careful research. God's Word teaches that blood is sacred. By the blood of Christ I was saved. That carries very deep significance for me personally. I am not going to violate what is holy just to save my own skin.
You are free to agree or disagree. I only point these things out to clarify. Because people are drawing some conclusions about what Witnesses believe that are off the mark. Repeating these misunderstandings just end up spreading misinformation.
As far as dying for your country. I did not mean to insult anyone. I have the utmost respect for any man who dies for something he believes in so much. I respect it...but I don't understand it. You could never defend killing another human being...for any reason...using the teachings of Christ. To the best of my ability, I live my life by his example. He lived a life of self sacrifice, and died...not only to save anyone who would follow him...but to *set an example* for us to follow. There is nothing that anyone can do to me that God cannot undo in the future. My life is in his hands.
It's actually kind of ironic that people mention WWII. Because in that war...my brothers were being persecuted and even KILLED...just because they wouldn't go out and kill one another. German JW's died because they wouldn't kill American JW's...and vice versa.
People put so much stock in *their* country....or *their* homeland...or even *their* race. These are all things that serve to divide, NOT UNITE people.
I would never kill anyone for any reason whatsoever....nor do anyone any harm in any way unless doing so was the only way to protect myself and mine. I am willing to die for God's principles of right and wrong. I respect all life, including my own, and would never do anything to needlessly put my life at risk.
Love of God...love of neighbor. Above all else, these two things drive everything I do and believe in. Whether that be dying over the blood issue (love of God) or refusing to go to war (love of neighbor).
This I 100% agree with. To me, all that matters is Love. Love of the creator, Love of your neighbor, Love for life. I like what you said about the Devil testing our love and faith for God. I truly believe that is what is happening now, people lost faith after the Vietnam War, Because blood was spilled in the land of the people who first received the light. If you really look and observe all the religions around there deal with spiritual enlightening. Its sad that people don't see this, but all you can do is pray for these people that they will be accepted or live on.
-
The Witnesses do not believe they are going to heaven. We believe that people are going to live forever right here on the earth in paradise.
Oh, well, that explains a lot.
-
Really, hef?? Was that necessary? If you want to take issue...I'd be happy to trade some PM's with you. That just felt like a potshot to me.
But if that was not your intent, I apologize for the accusation. Just seemed a bit snarky.
-
Really, hef?? Was that necessary? If you want to take issue...I'd be happy to trade some PM's with you. That just felt like a potshot to me.
But if that was not your intent, I apologize for the accusation. Just seemed a bit snarky.
Wasn't snarky at all. No potshots here. I was serious, that explains a lot about your point-of-view. That is useful knowledge.
BTW, we apparently don't agree on much theologically, but I'm glad you're here.
-
Really, hef?? Was that necessary? If you want to take issue...I'd be happy to trade some PM's with you. That just felt like a potshot to me.
But if that was not your intent, I apologize for the accusation. Just seemed a bit snarky.
Wasn't snarky at all. No potshots here. I was serious, that explains a lot about your point-of-view. That is useful knowledge.
BTW, we apparently don't agree on much theologically, but I'm glad you're here.
Ok...I misunderstood, and I apologize.
-
You can prove you died protecting your family or your country. How do you prove you died because that's what God wanted? Ridiculous
-
You can prove you died protecting your family or your country. How do you prove you died because that's what God wanted? Ridiculous
I object to the description that I would die because that's what God wanted.
God does not want me to die...and I have no desire to die. God wants me to be loyal and obedient to him above all others....even in the face of death. And the life that Jesus lived is proof of that.
-
Also...in the case of dying for your country....
Think of all the people in every country that ever existed throughout history. They might be able to prove that they *did* die for their country...but can they prove they died for a worthy cause? German soldiers in WWII died for their country. But were they right to do so?
I can prove, at the very least that I stand loyal for the cause of love....in any case.
-
I object to the description that I would die because that's what God wanted.
God does not want me to die...and I have no desire to die. God wants me to be loyal and obedient to him above all others....even in the face of death.
This is something that bugs me about Christianity, I can't wrap my head around why a Father would want his children (us) to die for him (because of loyalty) and why this is suppose to be noble. Or why a God would demand loyalty in the first place.
-
You can prove you died protecting your family or your country. How do you prove you died because that's what God wanted? Ridiculous
I object to the description that I would die because that's what God wanted.
God does not want me to die...and I have no desire to die. God wants me to be loyal and obedient to him above all others....even in the face of death. And the life that Jesus lived is proof of that.
Alright then replace "wanted" by "expected". The argument still stands.
-
Try to look at it this way.
Now again, your mileage may vary...but I raised this point in talking with someone about this exact subject.
He was objecting to the fact that in WWII, JW's were kept in concentration camps and were often executed...but they were the ONLY group that was given a choice. Sign a piece of paper renouncing your faith, and you're free to go. Period. Almost no-one signed the paper, and the overwhelming majority chose to stay in the camps.
Now, I had a co-worker start to tell me that the piece of paper was meaningless, and that he would've signed just to escape. In his opinion, it wouldn't have changed what he believed.
I countered by asking him if he was close to his father. Turns out his father was his hero...the most important person in his life. So then I asked him, "What if that piece of paper was a detailed PUBLIC SLANDER of your father as a liar and a cheat?"
He got the point, and agreed that he would never sign such a paper...even if it meant his life.
You might feel differently even than HE did...but *TO ME*, that's what loyalty to God means to me. If I'm disloyal, then I prove that Satan the Devil was correct in his assertion. Do you honestly mean to tell me that NONE of you expect a certain amount of loyalty from your children? How would you feel if you found out your child was killed because he was defending your honor? Obviously, you would never WISH such a thing to happen...but wouldn't it be totally different than if he sold you out and threw you under the bus to save his own skin?
Sorry...no one is going to blackmail me into betraying God's principles. And I feel there is no better example for my children than a good example of being true to the principles of right and wrong...and not being intimidated by those who feel otherwise.
-
I'm pretty sure the JWs in the concentration camps were there because of their active resistance (though non violent) against hitler. I don't think it really had much to do with simply BEING a JW.
But it does make me respect you guys more than the other christian groups who sat around and yawned at the time.
-
I'm pretty sure the JWs in the concentration camps were there because of their active resistance (though non violent) against hitler. I don't think it really had much to do with simply BEING a JW.
But it does make me respect you guys more than the other christian groups who sat around and yawned at the time.
It's almost semantics. JW's only count those who are "active"... Bear that in mind when you see their numbers. It's not like in Catholicism where you're baptized as a baby and they still count you, even if you've never been to church. JW's only count *active preachers*...you couldn't actively preach in WWII Germany, and not be (at the very least) a wanted man.
The same was true in cold war-era Russia as well. In that case...sometimes entire families were shipped to Siberia for refusing to deny God.
-
Try to look at it this way.
Now again, your mileage may vary...but I raised this point in talking with someone about this exact subject.
He was objecting to the fact that in WWII, JW's were kept in concentration camps and were often executed...but they were the ONLY group that was given a choice. Sign a piece of paper renouncing your faith, and you're free to go. Period. Almost no-one signed the paper, and the overwhelming majority chose to stay in the camps.
Now, I had a co-worker start to tell me that the piece of paper was meaningless, and that he would've signed just to escape. In his opinion, it wouldn't have changed what he believed.
I countered by asking him if he was close to his father. Turns out his father was his hero...the most important person in his life. So then I asked him, "What if that piece of paper was a detailed PUBLIC SLANDER of your father as a liar and a cheat?"
He got the point, and agreed that he would never sign such a paper...even if it meant his life.
You might feel differently even than HE did...but *TO ME*, that's what loyalty to God means to me. If I'm disloyal, then I prove that Satan the Devil was correct in his assertion. Do you honestly mean to tell me that NONE of you expect a certain amount of loyalty from your children? How would you feel if you found out your child was killed because he was defending your honor? Obviously, you would never WISH such a thing to happen...but wouldn't it be totally different than if he sold you out and threw you under the bus to save his own skin?
Sorry...no one is going to blackmail me into betraying God's principles. And I feel there is no better example for my children than a good example of being true to the principles of right and wrong...and not being intimidated by those who feel otherwise.
I've always found it hard to believe that God would actually prefer you to throw away his most precious gift in such a manner. Does signing a piece of paper constitute *actually* renouncing your beliefs? Would you really cease to be a JW if somebody made you write "I renounce my religion" at gunpoint?
If it were slanderous claims about me, I would prefer my child sign the damn scrap of paper, which is meaningless in the grand scheme, and go on living. He should know that if I'm ostracized or whatever because of it, it's a price I'm gladly willing to pay in exchange for his life.
The whole laying down your life for refusing to superficially decry a principle is considered a noble cliche, but I'm not entirely sure why.
-J
-
I'm probably getting off track here...but I honestly don't view myself as belonging to "a religion". I know, I know, I know...we're just talking semantics here...but that is honestly the way I feel.
I don't belong to "a religion whose title is 'Jehovah's Witnesses'"... It is *who I am*. My life is centralized (to the best of my imperfect ability) on bearing witness about the creator of the universe (whose name is Jehovah) who is the father of Jesus Christ, whose example I try my darndest to imitate. I *am* one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
So you see...it has nothing to do with "a group" or "a religion"... I would think it would be cowardly to betray ones principles of right and wrong. If you allow someone else to blackmail you into betraying the basic principles of right and wrong...don't you fall under THEIR control? Havn't you just succumbed to what boils down to emotional terrorism?
Better yet, if a prisoner of war is captured...what would you expect of him? What is he considered to be if he betrays his principles to save his life? What is he if he dies because he refused to betray those principles? By your reasoning...he's a hero if he betrays his country.
-
So you see...it has nothing to do with "a group" or "a religion"... I would think it would be cowardly to betray ones principles of right and wrong. If you allow someone else to blackmail you into betraying the basic principles of right and wrong...don't you fall under THEIR control? Havn't you just succumbed to what boils down to emotional terrorism?
I'm saying that you're not "betraying" anything by writing something on a piece of paper under duress, and that it isn't worth wasting your life over. Think of all the good things you could do with the remainder of the life you would throw away! That alone should be enough to at least make you think twice about such a situation, I would think.
Better yet, if a prisoner of war is captured...what would you expect of him? What is he considered to be if he betrays his principles to save his life? What is he if he dies because he refused to betray those principles? By your reasoning...he's a hero if he betrays his country.
Well, I never said anybody was a "hero" either way. As for this particular scenario, you'll have to be more specific. If a person gives up sensitive state information which he is privy to, and which could put other lives in danger, then that's obviously different from writing "I don't believe in God" on a paper to appease some snickering Nazis, and then (presumably) not being executed, and then going on to continue believing in God and doing his work. But it isn't such a simple analogy.
-J
-
Try to look at it this way.
Now again, your mileage may vary...but I raised this point in talking with someone about this exact subject.
He was objecting to the fact that in WWII, JW's were kept in concentration camps and were often executed...but they were the ONLY group that was given a choice. Sign a piece of paper renouncing your faith, and you're free to go. Period. Almost no-one signed the paper, and the overwhelming majority chose to stay in the camps.
Now, I had a co-worker start to tell me that the piece of paper was meaningless, and that he would've signed just to escape. In his opinion, it wouldn't have changed what he believed.
I countered by asking him if he was close to his father. Turns out his father was his hero...the most important person in his life. So then I asked him, "What if that piece of paper was a detailed PUBLIC SLANDER of your father as a liar and a cheat?"
He got the point, and agreed that he would never sign such a paper...even if it meant his life.
You might feel differently even than HE did...but *TO ME*, that's what loyalty to God means to me. If I'm disloyal, then I prove that Satan the Devil was correct in his assertion. Do you honestly mean to tell me that NONE of you expect a certain amount of loyalty from your children? How would you feel if you found out your child was killed because he was defending your honor? Obviously, you would never WISH such a thing to happen...but wouldn't it be totally different than if he sold you out and threw you under the bus to save his own skin?
Sorry...no one is going to blackmail me into betraying God's principles. And I feel there is no better example for my children than a good example of being true to the principles of right and wrong...and not being intimidated by those who feel otherwise.
How can you possibly compare signing "I renounce my religion" to a detailed public slander of your father? Those are 2 completely different things.
-
How can you say they aren't comparable?
-
Well everything is comparable.. You know what I meant.
-
I'm not sure I do. That's why I asked.
A commitment is a commitment. And a person's faith should be their foundational commitment. If you aren't willing to stand up for your faith, and take the consequences that come with that, then you don't really have any faith. I disagree with some of jammindude's theology, but I agree with him wholeheartedly on this particular topic.
-
Surely a God that would expect you to do that for him is not all loving. Also, if I ever get to be a father, I'd prefer a public slander of myself to the death of my child. And I'm sure my father sees this the same way.
-
Surely a God that would expect you to do that for him is not all loving. Also, if I ever get to be a father, I'd prefer a public slander of myself to the death of my child. And I'm sure my father sees this the same way.
yes, especially if that father is an immortal being, why would he care about earthly vices such as honour, guilt, status..etc.
-
Surely a God that would expect you to do that for him is not all loving. Also, if I ever get to be a father, I'd prefer a public slander of myself to the death of my child. And I'm sure my father sees this the same way.
The Christian God doesn't see it as the "death" of His child.
-
Surely a God that would expect you to do that for him is not all loving. Also, if I ever get to be a father, I'd prefer a public slander of myself to the death of my child. And I'm sure my father sees this the same way.
The Christian God doesn't see it as the "death" of His child.
This is key. Jesus was raised from the dead.
And I could not disagree more with the statement that honor is an "earthly vice"...honor is a commandment from God. Not a formalistic "honor"...going through the motions of honor is not truly honor. But a deep sense of respect. The Hebrew word for honor came from a word meaning "heaviness"...and the Greek word (ti-me') translated "honor" carries the meaning of "esteem", "value", "preciousness"...and the verb (ti-ma'o) can also mean "set a price on"...and the adjective (ti'mi-os) can mean "dear or valuable" or "precious"...
Honor is spoken of many times in the Scriptures and is a quality that Jesus had towards his father...which is why he was willing to die for what is right. He also trusted his father that he would be raised from the dead, which he was.
Pain and suffering is never something that God wishes upon us...but *anything* that others do to us, *HE CAN UNDO*...provided we are loyal.
I *did* say that you may not feel the same way...but the co-worker that I spoke to immediately understood what I was talking about. So I know that this is not isolated to just "religious people"...
-
Surely a God that would expect you to do that for him is not all loving.
I don't think it has anything to do with what God would expect of me. It has to do with what I would expect of myself for my God.
-
I'm not sure I do. That's why I asked.
A commitment is a commitment. And a person's faith should be their foundational commitment. If you aren't willing to stand up for your faith, and take the consequences that come with that, then you don't really have any faith. I disagree with some of jammindude's theology, but I agree with him wholeheartedly on this particular topic.
I completely agree. Which is why I'd wager about 75% or more of Christians in this country really don't have any faith at all, but that's for a different topic.
-
Surely a God that would expect you to do that for him is not all loving. Also, if I ever get to be a father, I'd prefer a public slander of myself to the death of my child. And I'm sure my father sees this the same way.
The Christian God doesn't see it as the "death" of His child.
This is key. Jesus was raised from the dead.
And I could not disagree more with the statement that honor is an "earthly vice"...honor is a commandment from God. Not a formalistic "honor"...going through the motions of honor is not truly honor. But a deep sense of respect. The Hebrew word for honor came from a word meaning "heaviness"...and the Greek word (ti-me') translated "honor" carries the meaning of "esteem", "value", "preciousness"...and the verb (ti-ma'o) can also mean "set a price on"...and the adjective (ti'mi-os) can mean "dear or valuable" or "precious"...
Honor is spoken of many times in the Scriptures and is a quality that Jesus had towards his father...which is why he was willing to die for what is right. He also trusted his father that he would be raised from the dead, which he was.
Pain and suffering is never something that God wishes upon us...but *anything* that others do to us, *HE CAN UNDO*...provided we are loyal.
I *did* say that you may not feel the same way...but the co-worker that I spoke to immediately understood what I was talking about. So I know that this is not isolated to just "religious people"...
I agree, why would God help if you don't have faith in him.
-
Surely a God that would expect you to do that for him is not all loving. Also, if I ever get to be a father, I'd prefer a public slander of myself to the death of my child. And I'm sure my father sees this the same way.
The Christian God doesn't see it as the "death" of His child.
This is key. Jesus was raised from the dead.
And I could not disagree more with the statement that honor is an "earthly vice"...honor is a commandment from God. Not a formalistic "honor"...going through the motions of honor is not truly honor. But a deep sense of respect. The Hebrew word for honor came from a word meaning "heaviness"...and the Greek word (ti-me') translated "honor" carries the meaning of "esteem", "value", "preciousness"...and the verb (ti-ma'o) can also mean "set a price on"...and the adjective (ti'mi-os) can mean "dear or valuable" or "precious"...
Honor is spoken of many times in the Scriptures and is a quality that Jesus had towards his father...which is why he was willing to die for what is right. He also trusted his father that he would be raised from the dead, which he was.
Pain and suffering is never something that God wishes upon us...but *anything* that others do to us, *HE CAN UNDO*...provided we are loyal.
I *did* say that you may not feel the same way...but the co-worker that I spoke to immediately understood what I was talking about. So I know that this is not isolated to just "religious people"...
I agree, why would God help if you don't have faith in him.
Because we are all made in his image.... By your logic, more than half the world is fucked from the start since they are raised to have different beliefs from birth. I'm sure God would be smart enough to understand that people question or brush off his existence because of the brain he gave them.
-
Surely a God that would expect you to do that for him is not all loving. Also, if I ever get to be a father, I'd prefer a public slander of myself to the death of my child. And I'm sure my father sees this the same way.
The Christian God doesn't see it as the "death" of His child.
This is key. Jesus was raised from the dead.
And I could not disagree more with the statement that honor is an "earthly vice"...honor is a commandment from God. Not a formalistic "honor"...going through the motions of honor is not truly honor. But a deep sense of respect. The Hebrew word for honor came from a word meaning "heaviness"...and the Greek word (ti-me') translated "honor" carries the meaning of "esteem", "value", "preciousness"...and the verb (ti-ma'o) can also mean "set a price on"...and the adjective (ti'mi-os) can mean "dear or valuable" or "precious"...
Honor is spoken of many times in the Scriptures and is a quality that Jesus had towards his father...which is why he was willing to die for what is right. He also trusted his father that he would be raised from the dead, which he was.
Pain and suffering is never something that God wishes upon us...but *anything* that others do to us, *HE CAN UNDO*...provided we are loyal.
I *did* say that you may not feel the same way...but the co-worker that I spoke to immediately understood what I was talking about. So I know that this is not isolated to just "religious people"...
I agree, why would God help if you don't have faith in him.
because he is our father. a parent loves a child unconditionally.
-
Meh, the guy is an adult with his own beliefs and is capable of making his own decisions.
This.
-
Surely a God that would expect you to do that for him is not all loving. Also, if I ever get to be a father, I'd prefer a public slander of myself to the death of my child. And I'm sure my father sees this the same way.
The Christian God doesn't see it as the "death" of His child.
This is key. Jesus was raised from the dead.
And I could not disagree more with the statement that honor is an "earthly vice"...honor is a commandment from God. Not a formalistic "honor"...going through the motions of honor is not truly honor. But a deep sense of respect. The Hebrew word for honor came from a word meaning "heaviness"...and the Greek word (ti-me') translated "honor" carries the meaning of "esteem", "value", "preciousness"...and the verb (ti-ma'o) can also mean "set a price on"...and the adjective (ti'mi-os) can mean "dear or valuable" or "precious"...
Honor is spoken of many times in the Scriptures and is a quality that Jesus had towards his father...which is why he was willing to die for what is right. He also trusted his father that he would be raised from the dead, which he was.
Pain and suffering is never something that God wishes upon us...but *anything* that others do to us, *HE CAN UNDO*...provided we are loyal.
I *did* say that you may not feel the same way...but the co-worker that I spoke to immediately understood what I was talking about. So I know that this is not isolated to just "religious people"...
I agree, why would God help if you don't have faith in him.
because he is our father. a parent loves a child unconditionally.
For ten years I attended catholic schools, one thing that was drilled into our heads, over and over again, was that no sin to was unforgivable. That's true only if the person was truly sorry and begged for forgiveness. What I took from that was, a believer could rape, murder, and dump the bodies of 50 women, as long as he was truly sorry, god would forgive him. Let's take me as an example. I am a 100% non believer, but I live the life that my catholic schools said god wanted me to live. I help others, I donate to charity, I volunteer for various events, I treat others with respect, basically everything but the having faith part. Now, I can't ask for forgiveness because I don't believe in god. If I ever needed saving, and god does in fact exist, I can't believe that I would be ignored because of this one flaw. A flaw that is very minor when compared to the things I was taught could be forgiven, and a flaw that is in a sense due to god himself. He gave me a brain that believes what it reasons to be the most logical. If anything, it's partly his fault that I believe what I do.
-
without intending any offense against catholic schools, I can't imagine that being the best place (especially based on your description) for learning about the God of forgiveness in the Bible. I would simply urge you to go to the direct source and I trust it provides a clearer picture of forgiveness and will help in your pursuit of finding Him.
-
I am a 100% non believer, but I live the life that my catholic schools said god wanted me to live. I help others, I donate to charity, I volunteer for various events, I treat others with respect, basically everything but the having faith part.
Why choose to continue living this way?
Do you hold that there exist absolute moral truths? (ie: rape is objectively wrong, etc)
-
I am a 100% non believer, but I live the life that my catholic schools said god wanted me to live. I help others, I donate to charity, I volunteer for various events, I treat others with respect, basically everything but the having faith part.
Why choose to continue living this way?
Do you hold that there exist absolute moral truths? (ie: rape is objectively wrong, etc)
I have a feeling this will go very badly.
-
Ya, me too
-
I am a 100% non believer, but I live the life that my catholic schools said god wanted me to live. I help others, I donate to charity, I volunteer for various events, I treat others with respect, basically everything but the having faith part.
Why choose to continue living this way?
Do you hold that there exist absolute moral truths? (ie: rape is objectively wrong, etc)
Because we are all humans and all have emotions. We all have a finite time to experience life, why make it suck for other people?Do whatever is needed to make it equally enjoyable for all. I care about others because I myself like to be cared about.
I don't believe in absolute moral truths. The word absolute indicates that moral truths must exist as an eternal truth somewhere. Seeing as I don't believe in more than one form of reality, I can't believe morals are absolute.
-
I am a 100% non believer, but I live the life that my catholic schools said god wanted me to live. I help others, I donate to charity, I volunteer for various events, I treat others with respect, basically everything but the having faith part.
Why choose to continue living this way?
Who knows, maybe he was tired of being associated with people who think religious belief is the only way to achieve a good life.
rumborak
-
I am a 100% non believer, but I live the life that my catholic schools said god wanted me to live. I help others, I donate to charity, I volunteer for various events, I treat others with respect, basically everything but the having faith part.
Why choose to continue living this way?
Who knows, maybe he was tired of being associated with people who think religious belief is the only way to achieve a good life.
rumborak
I'm not saying that atheists can't live as morally as theists. They can act just as moral or even more so than some theists. It's simply that a satisfying philosophical reason to live morally cannot be given under such a worldview empty of moral truths.
Nevertheless, I was merely asking out of curiosity. I don't intend to follow this topic any further and risk moderator ire.
-
I just don't see why someone needs a 'satisfying philosophical reason' to act in what they believe to be a moral way.
-
I'm not saying that atheists can't live as morally as theists. They can be act just as moral or even more so than some theists. It's simply that a satisfying philosophical reason to live morally cannot be given under such a worldview empty of moral truths.
Speak for yourself. I find more religious people live a morally infantile and decrepit life than agnostics/atheists I have met. In fact, if one believes in the Kohlberg classification of moral development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development), most religiously motivated morals are based on the lowest two levels, 1 and 2.
rumborak
-
I'm not saying that atheists can't live as morally as theists. They can be act just as moral or even more so than some theists. It's simply that a satisfying philosophical reason to live morally cannot be given under such a worldview empty of moral truths.
Speak for yourself. I find more religious people live a morally infantile and decrepit life than agnostics/atheists I have met. In fact, if one believes in the Kohlberg classification of moral development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development), most religiously motivated morals are based on the lowest two levels, 1 and 2.
rumborak
So what, is this the old "well atheists act more morally than theists because we do good things without the selfish mentality of doing it merely to get to heaven"?
Besides, color me apathetic to assigning a particular moral ranking on this worldview or that. The problem here isn't what persons can act more morally than others; it's why should we act morally given either worldview.
-
I'm not saying that atheists can't live as morally as theists. They can be act just as moral or even more so than some theists. It's simply that a satisfying philosophical reason to live morally cannot be given under such a worldview empty of moral truths.
Speak for yourself. I find more religious people live a morally infantile and decrepit life than agnostics/atheists I have met. In fact, if one believes in the Kohlberg classification of moral development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development), most religiously motivated morals are based on the lowest two levels, 1 and 2.
rumborak
That can be true. It depends on what your definition of religious is too. I know plenty of people that use religion as an excuse to be asses. But, the folks I know that live by their religious morals are the most giving and fantastic people.
-
I'm not saying that atheists can't live as morally as theists. They can be act just as moral or even more so than some theists. It's simply that a satisfying philosophical reason to live morally cannot be given under such a worldview empty of moral truths.
Speak for yourself. I find more religious people live a morally infantile and decrepit life than agnostics/atheists I have met. In fact, if one believes in the Kohlberg classification of moral development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development), most religiously motivated morals are based on the lowest two levels, 1 and 2.
rumborak
So what, is this the old "well atheists act more morally than theists because we do good things without the selfish mentality of doing it merely to get to heaven"?
Buddy, I wasn't the one accusing other people of not having a moral foundation worth leading one's life by. If you're gonna start dishing it out like that, you might have to live with the stark truth that many of "your kind" lead morally decrepit lives. If it comes to morals, in my humble opinion what counts is walking the walk, not talking the talk. You can have the best moral book ever (maybe even with pictures!), but if you're gonna beg for money at a subway station, and when getting some handed to you you give the person back a flyer that says he will go to hell lest he repent (that actually happened to me in Boston), clearly the book isn't as good as you make it out to be.
So, I'd rather stick to my "invented" morals, because if I turn out to be an ass, at least I'm forced to take full responsibility for it, I can't just roll it off to some "higher authority". (like many do with their nasty stance to homosexuality)
rumborak
-
You're missing the real issue here.
The issue is not: Which persons act the most morally?
The issue is not: Does Christian hypocrisy towards morality invalidate it?
The issue is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?
The issue is not: Can we recognize moral duties without believing in God?
The issue is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without referring to God?
Rather the issue is: If God does not exist, do objective moral values and duties exist?
-
Sure they do. As much as you're obliged to carry out the trash. It's a contract between people. They exist objectively every time two people interact with each other, just like any other contract in this world.
Because, and that might blow your mind, the natural state of a human being is to not have a concept of a God. And believe it or not, those cultures are still moral as you and I.
Jeez.
rumborak
-
You're missing the real issue here.
The issue is not: Which persons act the most morally?
The issue is not: Does Christian hypocrisy towards morality invalidate it?
The issue is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?
The issue is not: Can we recognize moral duties without believing in God?
The issue is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without referring to God?
Rather the issue is: If God does not exist, do objective moral values and duties exist?
What is your purpose in this line of questioning?
-
Sure they do. As much as you're obliged to carry out the trash. It's a contract between people. They exist objectively every time two people interact with each other, just like any other contract in this world.
Because, and that might blow your mind, the natural state of a human being is to not have a concept of a God. And believe it or not, those cultures are still moral as you and I.
Jeez.
rumborak
This is mere Atheistic Moral Platonism, that objective moral values exist without any sort of foundation.
There are at least three distinct problems with Moral Platonism, though.
1.) It is unintelligible.
What does it man to say, for example, that the moral value "justice" just exists? It's understandable to say that some person is just, but it's astonishing to posit that in the absence of any people, justice itself exists. Moral values are properties of persons and its problematic to comprehend how justice can exist merely as an abstraction.
2.) It provides no basis for moral duties.
For the sake of the argument, let's suppose moral values simply exist. How does that result in any moral obligations for me? Why would I have a moral duty to, for example, be charitable? What or who lays such an obligation upon me? In this worldview, too, moral vices like hatred, lethargy, selfishness, greed, etc, presumably also exist on their own as abstractions. So why align ourselves with one set of these abstractly existing entities and not others?
3.) It's cosmically improbable that an blind evolutionary process would discharge exactly the sort of creatures who correspond to the abstractly existing realm of moral values?
It's almost as if the moral realm knew we were coming. It's fantastically more probable to posit that both the natural realm and the moral realm are under the supremacy of a God who provided us both the moral law and the laws of nature than to believe that these two independent realms just so happened to complement each other so fully.
-
Sure they do. As much as you're obliged to carry out the trash. It's a contract between people. They exist objectively every time two people interact with each other, just like any other contract in this world.
Because, and that might blow your mind, the natural state of a human being is to not have a concept of a God. And believe it or not, those cultures are still moral as you and I.
Jeez.
rumborak
This is mere Atheistic Moral Platonism, that objective moral values exist without any sort of foundation.
There are at least three distinct problems with Moral Platonism, though.
1.) It is unintelligible.
What does it man to say, for example, that the moral value "justice" just exists? It's understandable to say that some person is just, but it's astonishing to posit that in the absence of any people, justice itself exists. Moral values are properties of persons and its problematic to comprehend how justice can exist merely as an abstraction.
2.) It provides no basis for moral duties.
For the sake of the argument, let's suppose moral values simply exist. How does that result in any moral obligations for me? Why would I have a moral duty to, for example, be charitable? What or who lays such an obligation upon me? In this worldview, too, moral vices like hatred, lethargy, selfishness, greed, etc, presumably also exist on their own as abstractions. So why align ourselves with one set of these abstractly existing entities and not others?
3.) It's cosmically improbable that an blind evolutionary process would discharge exactly the sort of creatures who correspond to the abstractly existing realm of moral values?
It's almost as if the moral realm knew we were coming. It's fantastically more probable to posit that both the natural realm and the moral realm are under the supremacy of a God who provided us both the moral law and the laws of nature than to believe that these two independent realms just so happened to complement each other so fully.
Aristotle would strongly disagree.
-
Not only that, number 3 also shows a utter lack of understanding evolution and its implications for morals.
Omega, believe what you want. I can say I don't need the training wheels provided by some supposed higher being to justify being a moral person. I can "stand upright" on my bike on my own.
It always strikes me that the people so desperately defending "objective morals" are somehow so insecure in their own moral founding that they need to convince themselves.
rumborak
-
Sure they do. As much as you're obliged to carry out the trash. It's a contract between people. They exist objectively every time two people interact with each other, just like any other contract in this world.
Because, and that might blow your mind, the natural state of a human being is to not have a concept of a God. And believe it or not, those cultures are still moral as you and I.
Jeez.
rumborak
This is mere Atheistic Moral Platonism, that objective moral values exist without any sort of foundation.
There are at least three distinct problems with Moral Platonism, though.
1.) It is unintelligible.
What does it man to say, for example, that the moral value "justice" just exists? It's understandable to say that some person is just, but it's astonishing to posit that in the absence of any people, justice itself exists. Moral values are properties of persons and its problematic to comprehend how justice can exist merely as an abstraction.
2.) It provides no basis for moral duties.
For the sake of the argument, let's suppose moral values simply exist. How does that result in any moral obligations for me? Why would I have a moral duty to, for example, be charitable? What or who lays such an obligation upon me? In this worldview, too, moral vices like hatred, lethargy, selfishness, greed, etc, presumably also exist on their own as abstractions. So why align ourselves with one set of these abstractly existing entities and not others?
3.) It's cosmically improbable that an blind evolutionary process would discharge exactly the sort of creatures who correspond to the abstractly existing realm of moral values?
It's almost as if the moral realm knew we were coming. It's fantastically more probable to posit that both the natural realm and the moral realm are under the supremacy of a God who provided us both the moral law and the laws of nature than to believe that these two independent realms just so happened to complement each other so fully.
Aristotle would strongly disagree.
Disagree with Moral Platonism?
Yes.
But please, elaborate
-
Not only that, number 3 also shows a utter lack of understanding evolution and its implications for morals.
Rumborak, please, I'll ask you to further elaborate on this.
Omega, believe what you want. I can say I don't need the training wheels provided by some supposed higher being to justify being a moral person. It always strikes me that the people so desperately defending "objective morals" are somehow so insecure in their own moral founding that they need to convince themselves.
rumborak
I'm not sure where to even begin addressing this.
-
Maybe you want to begin at explaining why you are so desperately trying to convince us that our moral foundation is inferior to yours?
riumborak
-
Maybe you want to begin at explaining why you are so desperately trying to convince us that our moral foundation is inferior to yours?
riumborak
Atheism has no moral foundation.
And please, I don't mean to pry, but I'd appreciate a full reply.
-
Atheism has no moral foundation.
Amazing. Despite all that, we're perfectly moral beings.
If it looks like a rose, and it smells like a rose, it is a rose.
And please, I don't mean to pry, but I'd appreciate a full reply.
I would appreciate a full rsply what your problem is with atheist morals. Who are you trying to convince? Us, or rather yourself?
rumborak
-
Atheism has no moral foundation.
This is true, because atheism has nothing to do with moral views period.
To then extrapolate from there that a lack of existence of a "God" or "objective" morality means that there'd be no reason for anyone to ever do anything for anyone else is just faulty logic and shows a lack of understanding of how societies work. But this has been shown pretty clearly in the last 2 threads that you also dragged into some aimless argument over morals.
-
Atheism has no moral foundation.
Amazing. Despite all that, we're perfectly moral beings.
If it looks like a rose, and it smells like a rose, it is a rose.
You keep misunderstanding the argument (either willfully or out of sincere ignorance). Again, the argument is not that atheists can't act morally without belief in God; atheists are perfectly capable of committing morally good acts in the absence of beliefs in a God or in the absence of recognition of its philosophical foundations (or lack thereof). The argument is that there is no good reason to act morally in the absence of existence of transcendent, anchored objective moral values.
I've already provided three logical reasons as to why Moral Platonism is unfeasible. Please don't bring this up again unless you plan on providing reasonable refutations of the reasons it is unfeasible an then providing arguments for why it should be feasible.
In my experience, it is usually at this point that the atheist recants that morality is objective and asserts that morality is, rather, subjective.
-
Atheism has no moral foundation.
This is true, because atheism has nothing to do with moral views period.
To then extrapolate from there that a lack of existence of a "God" or "objective" morality means that there'd be no reason for anyone to ever do anything for anyone else is just faulty logic and shows a lack of understanding of how societies work. But this has been shown pretty clearly in the last 2 threads that you also dragged into some aimless argument over morals.
Deja vu, but - to make clear yet again - you assert that morals are subjective, yes?
And, please, my arguments were not aimless. I'm going to cry now.
-
Omega you seem to have quite a dillema here
1. You do not believe atheists have any REASON to act morally
2. Atheists are acting morally.
3. You don't believe their reasons.
4. Atheists still acting morally.
So why do you think they act morally? And don't say you don't know, or else you wouldn't shoot down every argument, you clearly have an idea.
-
Just look up the last, closed thread on morality for a sneak peek on what the answer is going to be.
-
Just look up the last, closed thread on morality for a sneak peek on what the answer is going to be.
Hence my original response of "I have a feeling this will end badly"
-
I missed the word "objectively" being introduced that early. You were on the mark.
-
Omega you seem to have quite a dillema here
1. You do not believe atheists have any REASON to act morally
2. Atheists are acting morally.
3. You don't believe their reasons.
4. Atheists still acting morally.
So why do you think they act morally? And don't say you don't know, or else you wouldn't shoot down every argument, you clearly have an idea.
This is a false dilemma, born out of a misunderstanding of the argument. I frankly don't know where or how to begin to address this post.
Point is that in atheism, moral values are merely subjective, arbitrary, illusory and therefore meaningless. Nothing is obligatory and nothing is prohibited. Sure, actions such as murder or theft or charity may be either convenient or inconvenient to society and to other peoples, but under this worldview, that doesn't mean that they are objectively wrong or good. There would be nothing morally prohibiting me, for example, from stealing someones' wallet if I knew I could get away with it except perhaps inconvenience if I was caught. Yet inconvenience wouldn't equal objectively immoral.
Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when somebody says 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction. All deeper meaning is illusory. - Michael Ruse, Evolutionary Naturalist, Atheist.
Just look up the last, closed thread on morality for a sneak peek on what the answer is going to be.
Yes, by all means, everybody, look up that thread. It was closed for illegitimate reasons.
-
I missed the word "objectively" being introduced that early. You were on the mark.
Please, if have nothing intelligible to add...
-
I was merely making an observation.
-
Point is that in atheism, moral values are merely subjective, arbitrary, illusory and therefore meaningless. Nothing is obligatory and nothing is prohibited. Sure, actions such as murder or theft or charity may be either convenient or inconvenient to society and to other peoples, but under this worldview, that doesn't mean that they are objectively wrong or good.
"The atheist view that morals are subjective can't be right because that would mean morals aren't objective."
-
I know I'm being an idiot for continuing on this horrible, pointless and somewhat insulting discussion, but...
Omega, if you somehow found out 100% (just for the sake of argument) that there is no god or objective morality or anything....would you continue to be moral at all? I expect a half page response about how you aren't going to respond, but I'd REALLY appreciate a yes or no before you begin to rant. Thanks.
-
Point is that in atheism, moral values are merely subjective, arbitrary, illusory and therefore meaningless. Nothing is obligatory and nothing is prohibited. Sure, actions such as murder or theft or charity may be either convenient or inconvenient to society and to other peoples, but under this worldview, that doesn't mean that they are objectively wrong or good.
"The atheist view that morals are subjective can't be right because that would mean morals aren't objective."
That is not at all the point of the statement. I'm merely describing the atheistic worldview. Why atheists are disagreeing with me for describing their moral landscape is frustrating.
The point of that statement is
1.) Atheists do not live consistently with their worldview
2.) If all morals are subjective, no action is absolutely moral or immoral. What is right to you may be wrong to me. What is wrong to you may be right to me. "Rape may be wrong to you, but that is just your subjective opinion, man."
-
Two is right, one isn't. Government law doesn't equate to a proclamation of objective morality. I'm not atheist.
-
I know I'm being an idiot for continuing on this horrible, pointless and somewhat insulting discussion, but...
Omega, if you somehow found out 100% (just for the sake of argument) that there is no god or objective morality or anything....would you continue to be moral at all? I expect a half page response about how you aren't going to respond, but I'd REALLY appreciate a yes or no before you begin to rant. Thanks.
Largely, no.
To elaborate, I'd act immorally whenever I was convinced that I could get away with it. Why not make my finite, meaningless life one of maximum prudent hedonism? Why not manipulate the fact that most people, deluded with thought of moral grandeur, and utilize morality as a tool to further my interests? I'd play nice and according to society's illusory moral code whenever it would act in my self-interest. But the point is that I would act morally when it conveniences me, immorally when it conveniences me.
-
Is it such a disconcerting thought for "absolutists" that there can be a stable moral network simply based on reciprocity?
This whole discussion has a striking similarity with the discussion of gold-standard vs. floating currencies. There too you have people essentially arguing that there can not be a stable network of interlocking currencies that keep each other in check, but that the only "true" currency standard is the supposed eternal gold standard, even though it is equally as arbitrary.
rumborak
-
Ok, that summed up everything for me.
You lack an internal moral compass. You are not a moral person on your own, and you can't understand how other people can just be decent human beings without fear of punishment. In this case, you're just not going to get it man, it's cool though. Just accept that it's happening and move on. Nothing we say, under any circumstance will convince you of anything.
-
To elaborate, I'd act immorally whenever I was convinced that I could get away with it. Why not make my finite, meaningless life one of maximum prudent hedonism? Why not manipulate the fact that most people, deluded with thought of moral grandeur, and utilize morality as a tool to further my interests? I'd play nice and according to society's illusory moral code whenever it would act in my self-interest. But the point is that I would act morally when it conveniences me, immorally when it conveniences me.
I can only conclude that you have almost no human interaction.
What you describe is called "being an asshole". In the real world, assholes are shunned and punished. Your "amoral scheme" would work for a short time, and then you're screwed.
Ah, the internet, where one has to explain human interaction.
-
Two is right, one isn't. Government law doesn't equate to a proclamation of objective morality. I'm not atheist.
That's not the contradiction.
The contradiction is this:
(As you agree with my second bullet) Atheists assert subjective morality and then go on to condemn other acts as moral or immoral.
For Example:
Person: "Rape is right to me, man."
Atheist: "No. You are absolutely wrong. Rape is wrong."
Person: "Pushing my views down someone else's throat is right to me."
Atheist: "No. You are absolutely wrong. You can believe anything you want just don't push your views upon me, because pushing your views upon me would be objectively immoral."
So, you see, in moral subjectivism, no action can be objectively condemned as moral or immoral. You might with the might-makes-right argument and respond: "But wait, man, morals are selected by the majority of a society." Apply that to Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, etc. Just because a majority of people assert a moral value doesn't mean that that value is objectively right or wrong.
-
You lack an internal moral compass. You are not a moral person on your own, and you can't understand how other people can just be decent human beings without fear of punishment. In this case, you're just not going to get it man, it's cool though. Just accept that it's happening and move on. Nothing we say, under any circumstance will convince you of anything.
Please, I was speaking hypothetically in the shoes of an atheist-me.
Of course I have an internal conscience. We can all intuitively recognize what actions are morally good and what are morally abhorrent. I would still have a conscience as an atheist-me, I'd just have no good reason to follow it other than self-interest.
-
You lack an internal moral compass. You are not a moral person on your own, and you can't understand how other people can just be decent human beings without fear of punishment. In this case, you're just not going to get it man, it's cool though. Just accept that it's happening and move on. Nothing we say, under any circumstance will convince you of anything.
Please, I was speaking hypothetically in the shoes of an atheist-me.
Of course I have an internal conscience. We can all intuitively recognize what actions are morally good and what are morally abhorrent. I would still have a conscience as an atheist-me, I'd just have no good reason to follow it other than self-interest.
You clearly don't dude. Sorry. But it's ok, you'd probably make a great business man.
-
To elaborate, I'd act immorally whenever I was convinced that I could get away with it. Why not make my finite, meaningless life one of maximum prudent hedonism? Why not manipulate the fact that most people, deluded with thought of moral grandeur, and utilize morality as a tool to further my interests? I'd play nice and according to society's illusory moral code whenever it would act in my self-interest. But the point is that I would act morally when it conveniences me, immorally when it conveniences me.
I can only conclude that you have almost no human interaction.
What you describe is called "being an asshole". In the real world, assholes are shunned and punished. Your "amoral scheme" would work for a short time, and then you're screwed.
Ah, the internet, where one has to explain human interaction.
As I sated to Adami, I was merely speaking in the shoes of an atheist-me. And don't take my word for it, but I actually do have plenty of human interaction (although how this is relevant to the topic is beyond me).
And also, under that hypothetical atheist-me, of course I would be an asshole. Yet I would do everything in my power to maintain the illusion of a moral and caring human being for my self-interest. I'd go to any lengths in that hypothetical atheist-me scenario to ensure that my true self is never revealed.
Regardless, calling my hypothetical atheist-me an "asshole" (while I would wholeheartedly agree with) does nothing to lessen the point I've been trying to make. Nothing that resembles an effective argument can be found in this heap of text.
-
You clearly don't dude. Sorry. But it's ok, you'd probably make a great business man.
I hope that is a facetious remark (which if it is, is quite amusing).
If it's not though...
Let's not even pretend to know my conscience.
-
Well you guys enjoy this endless debate, not sure why it's allowed to continue despite clearly not going anywhere, ever.'
I learned what I need to know, and now it all makes sense, so I'm out. Have fun Rumby, you have my sympathies.
-
Two is right, one isn't. Government law doesn't equate to a proclamation of objective morality. I'm not atheist.
That's not the contradiction.
The contradiction is this:
(As you agree with my second bullet) Atheists assert subjective morality and then go on to condemn other acts as moral or immoral.
For Example:
Person: "Rape is right to me, man."
Atheist: "No. You are absolutely wrong. Rape is wrong."
Person: "Pushing my views down someone else's throat is right to me."
Atheist: "No. You are absolutely wrong. You can believe anything you want just don't push your views upon me, because pushing your views upon me would be objectively immoral."
So, you see, in moral subjectivism, no action can be objectively condemned as moral or immoral. You might with the might-makes-right argument and respond: "But wait, man, morals are selected by the majority of a society." Apply that to Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, etc. Just because a majority of people assert a moral value doesn't mean that that value is objectively right or wrong.
So basically you're complaining that people don't say "in my opinion" before saying they think something is terrible, which should be implied anyway when you've already established that they view morals as objective. What is this, general music?
The entire basis of your argument hinges on some elusive strawman that has no idea what the words subjective and objective even mean.
-
time to move this thread back to a discussion of a topic rather than each other
-
Well you guys enjoy this endless debate, not sure why it's allowed to continue despite clearly not going anywhere, ever.'
I learned what I need to know, and now it all makes sense, so I'm out. Have fun Rumby, you have my sympathies.
Nah, I'm just glancing over posts at this point. It's like explaining colors to a blind man. Either you see it, or you don't. I guess not much in-between.
rumborak
-
So basically you're complaining that people don't say "in my opinion" before saying they think something is terrible, which should be implied anyway when you've already established that they view morals as objective. What is this, general music?
The entire basis of your argument hinges on some elusive strawman that has no idea what the words subjective and objective even mean.
This will likely be my last post on the matter (wouldn't want to get banned, now, would I), but I've made my point fairly clear. It is insulting to be repeatedly misrepresented or misunderstood with such consistency. And let's not pull out the dictionary on "subjective" and "objective" again, shan't we?
-
Anyway,
I say that I respect people who are willing to sacrifice for their beliefs. Expecting big things of others is usually what we see in people with strong faiths, but when you can really "walk the walk" as they say, that's real commitment.
Sure, I don't agree with JW's in a religious way, but I respect the ones who are willing to sacrifice for what they believe is right. (provided no one else gets hurt.....I threw this in before anyone brought up suicide bombers)
-
It's always a trade off really. To exhibit the passion necessary to do many of those things, one needs to have a certain amount of blinders on. Kinda like that saying "monomania is the secret to success" (probably the main reason why I'll never be famous)
rumborak
-
It's always a trade off really. To exhibit the passion necessary to do many of those things, one needs to have a certain amount of blinders on. Kinda like that saying "monomania is the secret to success" (probably the main reason why I'll never be famous)
rumborak
When I concerned myself with moral therapeutic deism I felt I needed blinders. When I concerned myself with Christ, I began to feel free. The difference for me was that the former encouraged rule following, and the other encouraged love and fostered that great desire to pursue the God I believe in freely, without fear of failure. I'm still learning this now. Basically, as a kid, I was taught that being a Christian was just following rules, and then you get to heaven to be with your dead family and friends.
I'm learning that it is more than that, though I still have a massive tendency to slide back in to moralistic rule following, though I'm extremely bad at it.
-
Frankly, I honestly think it's because Christian morality, I.e. the NT type one of love, is much closer to human nature anyway. And I would argue that that was also the reason for Christianity's rise. Any theology that is in line with basic human nature will fare better than one that goes against it.
rumborak
-
Frankly, I honestly think it's because Christian morality, I.e. the NT type one of love, is much closer to human nature anyway. And I would argue that that was also the reason for Christianity's rise. Any theology that is in line with basic human nature will fare better than one that goes against it.
rumborak
That's very interesting, because the Christian Bible would say that human nature is the polar opposite of what you have just described.
-
Well, that's part of the trick though. Christian theology first convinces you you are sinful piece of sh*t, and the leads you (through Christ) to being a normal human being. With the end result that you are essentially just a plain person who lives normally, but the trick is that you think Christian theology led you there.
Christianity could never have become a mass religion if its desired code of conduct massively deviated from normal human behavior.
rumborak
-
sorry, rumby, I am not following.
the standard of Christianity at its core is completely opposed to our natural human tendencies and behavior.
the beatitudes of the sermon on the mount are the polar opposite of what human nature follows, for one example.
though "Christianity" may be popular in a generic sense (ie. enjoying the fruits of its benefits), the call of complete surrender in order to receive those benefits is hardly popular and rarely truly practiced
-
Well, that's part of the trick though. Christian theology first convinces you you are sinful piece of sh*t, and the leads you (through Christ) to being a normal human being. With the end result that you are essentially just a plain person who lives normally, but the trick is that you think Christian theology led you there.
Christianity could never have become a mass religion if its desired code of conduct massively deviated from normal human behavior.
rumborak
I've never...EVER...thought of myself as a "sinful piece of sh*t"... nor have I ever heard that teaching.
What is actually taught: I am a masterpiece that was damaged through no fault of my own....God loves me so much that he was willing to spare no expense (not even the life of his son) to restore the masterpiece. But I must submit to his direction in order to be "rescued" from my current state.
-
That's exactly what rumbo said only in milder wording.
-
This will likely be my last post on the matter
Good. Just drop it, because this clearly a conversation that ONLY YOU want to have.
You admitted yourself that you have a moral conscience, a sense of right and wrong. You have answered your question, because so do atheists. Now, ENOUGH.
-
Well, that's part of the trick though. Christian theology first convinces you you are sinful piece of sh*t, and the leads you (through Christ) to being a normal human being. With the end result that you are essentially just a plain person who lives normally, but the trick is that you think Christian theology led you there.
Christianity could never have become a mass religion if its desired code of conduct massively deviated from normal human behavior.
rumborak
This is probably an entirely different thread, but I'm not seeing the trick. Basic human instinct is to preserve self and to act on selfish desires. Jesus' teachings would have one move beyond that.
-
. Basic human instinct is to preserve self and to act on selfish desires. Jesus' teachings would have one move beyond that
What makes you say that? There is no good reason to assume this (except by reading the Bible) in non-Christian societies and even animal societies there is (at least) equal empathy / not acting purely out of self interest compared to the average Christian society.
-
I've never...EVER...thought of myself as a "sinful piece of sh*t"... nor have I ever heard that teaching.
What is actually taught: I am a masterpiece that was damaged through no fault of my own....God loves me so much that he was willing to spare no expense (not even the life of his son) to restore the masterpiece. But I must submit to his direction in order to be "rescued" from my current state.
That's exactly what rumbo said only in milder wording.
Yup, indeed. Jammin, the teaching sets out with you, as an otherwise innocent infant, having an inborn guilt that in the eyes of God makes you unworthy to have an afterlife. Sounds pretty bleak to me.
From there on you are led to essentially being a normal person, i.e. the same life you - in reality - would have led with or without Christ anyway (since non-Christian cultures around the world do so). But the trick is that you don't think that way; you think without Christ you never would have ended up in having that normal life. Look at Omega and how stuck he is thinking that without Christ he and others would rape and pillage through the streets. There is no reason to believe even in the slightest that that would happen, but Christianity was once again successful in making a person think so.
I'm not saying this accounts for every Christian out there, but I think a HUGE percentage nonetheless.
rumborak
-
There's plenty of moral decisions that Christians make that others can't. Loving God is called the most important commandment. You completely submit to his will for your life. That's not what society considers 'normal'. You're probably thinking of lukewarm Christians that try to appease everyone. But try constructing a model Christian based on biblical commands. That's not going to give you a normal person.
-
Loving God is called the most important commandment. You completely submit to his will for your life. That's not what society considers 'normal'.
Loving God, no offense, makes almost no difference to anything in terms of leading your life in society. You're not giving presents to God, you don't help him to get over the street. I mean, you can't even tell whether someone loves God or not, by anything. Otherwise people wouldn't accuse Obama of being a fricking Muslim.
And of course dude, it's a religion, of course you have to submit its deity. That fact really doesn't mean much.
But, I agree with your following statement:
You're probably thinking of lukewarm Christians that try to appease everyone.
Indeed, I'm mostly thinking of the "mass Christian", the one whose life isn't overly dominated by his belief. The one who goes to church every Sunday and probably prays at night, but other than that he/she is just a normally functioning member of society. I would argue that those Christians are the majority, and the reason for Christianity's popularity. A religion that doesn't allow for this kind of "milquetoast" approach to it would never have become the state religion of the Roman Empire.
rumborak
-
Loving God is called the most important commandment. You completely submit to his will for your life. That's not what society considers 'normal'.
Loving God, no offense, makes almost no difference to anything in terms of leading your life in society. You're not giving presents to God, you don't help him to get over the street.
It makes a huge difference. Example: without God I would be totally content living a career-driven life. The more houses the better. With God I pretty much don't even give myself the option of being rich, even if I have a high income. I'm a college kid so I haven't had much opportunity to give financially, but that's the plan.
And what's this about not giving presents to God? What do you think tithing is? What do you think the phrase 'to God be the glory' is all about?
You're probably thinking of lukewarm Christians that try to appease everyone.
Indeed, I'm mostly thinking of the "mass Christian", the one whose life isn't overly dominated by his belief. The one who goes to church every Sunday and probably prays at night, but other than that he/she is just a normally functioning member of society. I would argue that those Christians are the majority, and the reason for Christianity's popularity. A religion that doesn't allow for this kind of "milquetoast" approach to it would never have become the state religion of the Roman Empire.
rumborak
I'm sensing a bait, but I'm not taking it because the formation and growth of Christianity are irrelevant to our discussion.
-
It makes a huge difference. Example: without God I would be totally content living a career-driven life. The more houses the better. With God I pretty much don't even give myself the option of being rich, even if I have a high income. I'm a college kid so I haven't had much opportunity to give financially, but that's the plan.
H, you've been on this forum long enough to not bring this, sorry, lame-ass argument.
a) Cultures around the world that don't have your God aren't these crazy-driven people only looking out for their career
b) There are many devout Christians who *do* only look out for their career.
You are the way you are because very likely, that's your natural disposition. You're just not that career-driven to begin with. You might personally think it's because of your love of God, but the statistics strongly speak against that. And frankly, personal anecdotal evidence almost never holds up.
rumborak
-
It makes a huge difference. Example: without God I would be totally content living a career-driven life. The more houses the better. With God I pretty much don't even give myself the option of being rich, even if I have a high income. I'm a college kid so I haven't had much opportunity to give financially, but that's the plan.
H, you've been on this forum long enough to not bring this, sorry, lame-ass argument.
a) Cultures around the world that don't have your God aren't these crazy-driven people only looking out for their career
b) There are many devout Christians who *do* only look out for their career.
Right, because when I used 'I' as the subject of my example, I was clearly making a broad generalization that could be applied to everyone.
You are the way you are because very likely, that's your natural disposition. You're just not that career-driven to begin with. You might personally think it's because of your love of God, but the statistics strongly speak against that. And frankly, personal anecdotal evidence almost never holds up.
You don't know me - how are you supposed to know what my natural disposition is? When I was in high school, all I could think about is the hope of one day being on top, that nerds win in the end. So I took a buttload of hard classes and tried to go to the best university I could. My first declared major was chemical engineering because petroleum engineering is the job with the highest starting salary, given just a BS. I stuck with that for a while. Now my disposition's different.
-
People never grow up? Your story is the same story that a lot of people have, all of whom had that "experience" without God's help. I have quite different goals from when I went to highschool. Shouldn't I be stuck in whatever I wanted in high-school, given that I don't believe in God?
You gave your personal experience as an example, for the obvious intent of later generalizing from it (why else would you bring it as a counter-argument to my post that talks about general effects?). If your sole point is "what you say might be true for other, but I am different", fair enough, but I think that's backtracking on your part.
The fact that people live their lives according to their natural disposition has been well-researched and documented. For example, despite people claiming that their marriage made them a happier person, research found that after an initial jump in happiness, people quickly return to their natural state of content or discontent. Same thing really.
rumborak
-
Indeed, I'm mostly thinking of the "mass Christian", the one whose life isn't overly dominated by his belief. The one who goes to church every Sunday and probably prays at night, but other than that he/she is just a normally functioning member of society. I would argue that those Christians are the majority, and the reason for Christianity's popularity. A religion that doesn't allow for this kind of "milquetoast" approach to it would never have become the state religion of the Roman Empire.
rumborak
And by Jesus own definition...they aren't *really* Christians.
It's not for me to judge on an individual basis. But Jesus did say that there would be many people who *claimed* to be following him...but wouldn't be following his example and "doing the will of the father. Jesus also said that the mass of humanity would be on the road to destruction, and only a very few would *even find* (much less take the effort to walk) the cramped and narrow road to life.
Human nature is about self service.
Christianity is about self sacrifice.
I can stand in a garage yelling "VROOM VROOM"...that doesn't make me a car.
-
Human nature is about self service.
:facepalm:
The entire point of this discussion is that it's not just about self service.
-
If human nature was strictly about self service, then it would have died out long before Jesus ever came.
-
If human nature was strictly about self service, then it would have died out long before Jesus ever came.
One could argue that that it is in the self's best interest to preserve his species or tribe.
-
If human nature was strictly about self service, then it would have died out long before Jesus ever came.
One could argue that that it is in the self's best interest to preserve his species or tribe.
We are interested in the survival of the species. Which makes us by and large team players. If you want to relate that all back to self interest, then we're just dealing with semantics here.
-
And by Jesus own definition...they aren't *really* Christians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Human nature is about self service.
I take it you don't read much about evolutionary biology? The last 10 years of research in that field has shown beyond doubt that humans (and other animals) are inherently social.
People don't call others "selfish assholes" because they are Christians. They do so because they are inherently repulsed by that way of living.
rumborak
-
all I could think about is the hope of one day being on top, that nerds win in the end
The secret is to steal the Darth Vader mask, put it on, and follow her over to the "Moon Walk" room. Whatever you do, DO NOT TAKE OFF THE DARTH VADER MASK! Even if she asks you to.
-
If human nature was strictly about self service, then it would have died out long before Jesus ever came.
And yet societies have imploded throughout history. But now, more so than ever before, we're looking at a *world* society. And as long as human society ignores God's direction, it will implode en masse just like every other society has throughout history.
And while it is true that human nature is not 100% pure self service, it fails to live up to God's standard..."For hardly will anyone die for a righteous [man]; indeed, for the good [man], perhaps, someone even dares to die. But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5: 7, 8)
-
If human nature was strictly about self service, then it would have died out long before Jesus ever came.
One could argue that that it is in the self's best interest to preserve his species or tribe.
We are interested in the survival of the species. Which makes us by and large team players. If you want to relate that all back to self interest, then we're just dealing with semantics here.
We are interested in the survival of the species inasmuch as we are the benefactors. This, to me, is not semantics, though I can see what you're getting at. There are far nobler things than just survival of the fittest, and man neglects these things with great frequency.
-
People never grow up? Your story is the same story that a lot of people have, all of whom had that "experience" without God's help. I have quite different goals from when I went to highschool. Shouldn't I be stuck in whatever I wanted in high-school, given that I don't believe in God?
You gave your personal experience as an example, for the obvious intent of later generalizing from it (why else would you bring it as a counter-argument to my post that talks about general effects?). If your sole point is "what you say might be true for other, but I am different", fair enough, but I think that's backtracking on your part.
The fact that people live their lives according to their natural disposition has been well-researched and documented. For example, despite people claiming that their marriage made them a happier person, research found that after an initial jump in happiness, people quickly return to their natural state of content or discontent. Same thing really.
rumborak
What I'm saying is this: God, like any other thing, can influence lives. It was by sheer luck that I discovered prog rock, but it's completely shaped my view of music. I am a different person because of it. Maybe mentally, I'm the same, but as you'll agree we are more than our mental state.
-
Man has no interest in survival of the fittest, that just happens beyond our desires or control.
And to be fair, one could argue that a good amount of christians are interested in eternal reward. How many christians would still be devoted to god if there was no reward and no eternal life?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I believe that the difference, is that "no true scotsman" deals with people who set *their own* parameters. That is NOT the argument I'm making.
-
What I'm saying is this: God, like any other thing, can influence lives. It was by sheer luck that I discovered prog rock, but it's completely shaped my view of music. I am a different person because of it. Maybe mentally, I'm the same, but as you'll agree we are more than our mental state.
I am not saying your God has made no impact at all in your life, obviously he has, just like prog rock. I am arguing against the proposition that a deity can be considered the main cause for a person's morality. That is simply plain wrong, and the statistics and demographics speak very loudly to that effect.
rumborak
-
The human conscience's moral disposition is in alignment with Christianity. Therefore Christianity is wrong
-
Don't know why my post turned out weird.... but anyway...
You see, *by definition*...."A Scotsman" is born of Scottish heritage. "true Scotsman" becomes a subjective term based on the opinions of the person relating the opinion.
*By definition* a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. A person cannot make a practice of hating his fellow man and be a Christian...because it would be like saying, "I'm a vegetarian that's open to new ideas....like eating meat." You can't chow down on a Prime Rib and call yourself a vegetarian.
-
The human conscience's moral disposition is in alignment with Christianity. Therefore Christianity is wrong
Maaaaan, H, wtf. Nobody is saying that.
Christianity isn't wrong. Christianity just isn't the cause.
EDIT: Correct me if I'm wrong also, but scripture never makes that claim to begin with, does it? The 10 commandments are commandments. It never says you wouldn't do it in the first place without those commandments.
rumborak
-
Man has no interest in survival of the fittest, that just happens beyond our desires or control.
And to be fair, one could argue that a good amount of christians are interested in eternal reward. How many christians would still be devoted to god if there was no reward and no eternal life?
Absolutely, and that is a fair statement. And Paul would say that Christians are most to be pitied if there is no eternal reward. But, Paul would also say that the reward is not some place in the sky on a cloud, but it is to be with God. A Christian in the true sense is not motivated by the carrot on the string, but by the God who has loved him and bought him. This is the principle I operate on.
Also, it is a Christian's (in the truest and most biblical sense) desire for others to know this God, because this God is limitless in his giving to his children. Christianity, when misunderstood, becomes totally ineffective and without Christ when the Christian's salvation is where his journey ends. Christianity is also not about rule making and depriving others of their desires. It is about maximizing those desires in their fullest sense.
-
And yet societies have imploded throughout history. But now, more so than ever before, we're looking at a *world* society. And as long as human society ignores God's direction, it will implode en masse just like every other society has throughout history.
And you think this couldn't happen with a Christian nation? if so, do you have any other evidence for this than just the bible and your faith?
-
Germany in the 1930s was definitely a Christian nation. The Roman Empire was a Christian nation at the end. Need more?
rumborak
-
And yet societies have imploded throughout history. But now, more so than ever before, we're looking at a *world* society. And as long as human society ignores God's direction, it will implode en masse just like every other society has throughout history.
And you think this couldn't happen with a Christian nation? if so, do you have any other evidence for this than just the bible and your faith?
Rum will probably try to pull the "no true scotsman" card again...but really...by Biblical definitions (which is where the term was invented in the first place) there's *never* been a Christian nation.
-
Oh boy. :lol
I've heard that argument before, regarding Communism. All the ones that failed were never really Communist in the first place. Makes it easy to keep clinging to your ideal, I guess, by simply rejecting the counter-examples.
rumborak
-
The purity argument just isn't going to go anywhere.
It leads to the inevitable human idea that if everyone believed exactly what they did, that everything would be fine.
And that's just never the case.
-
Not only that, but if it requires an unachievable amount of purity to have any noticeable effect, what does that say about its supposed divine design? "Folks, here's my religion. In case you wondered, you can't win. I designed humanity to never achieve the purity it would need. ttyl."
rumborak
-
Since we're talking about this in the context of religious beliefs, God helps you to do this. Even though failure happens with great consistency, God knows what we are dealing with. There's a lot of room for grace. Not just for "good" or "true" Christians, but for the ones who do lack understanding, yet are humble in their dealings with their fellow man.
So, to sum it up, if one would follow Christ, one ought to know his frame, and in knowing his frame, understanding that everyone else struggling and failing at it just as he is.
-
This will likely be my last post on the matter
Good. Just drop it, because this clearly a conversation that ONLY YOU want to have.
You admitted yourself that you have a moral conscience, a sense of right and wrong. You have answered your question, because so do atheists. Now, ENOUGH.
Wow. Just wow.
-
This will likely be my last post on the matter
Good. Just drop it, because this clearly a conversation that ONLY YOU want to have.
You admitted yourself that you have a moral conscience, a sense of right and wrong. You have answered your question, because so do atheists. Now, ENOUGH.
Wow. Just wow.
Dude, what are you so angry about?
-
If human nature was strictly about self service, then it would have died out long before Jesus ever came.
Human nature is self service. That service is keeping yourself alive. Maybe not so much in today's world, but in the world as it was thousands of years ago. Keeping yourself alive wouldn't be possible by keeping yourself in isolation. One would have to service others, and in turn be serviced by others that they once showed service to. It is very possible that this tactic was the key to individual survival. By trading off things in life with others, people were doing themselves the ultimate self service; the ability to keep on living. Groups of many individuals practicing this would all get what they were really after, their survival. It wasn't until survival became relatively easy that emotions and the concept of morallity came into play.
People never grow up? Your story is the same story that a lot of people have, all of whom had that "experience" without God's help. I have quite different goals from when I went to highschool. Shouldn't I be stuck in whatever I wanted in high-school, given that I don't believe in God?
You gave your personal experience as an example, for the obvious intent of later generalizing from it (why else would you bring it as a counter-argument to my post that talks about general effects?). If your sole point is "what you say might be true for other, but I am different", fair enough, but I think that's backtracking on your part.
The fact that people live their lives according to their natural disposition has been well-researched and documented. For example, despite people claiming that their marriage made them a happier person, research found that after an initial jump in happiness, people quickly return to their natural state of content or discontent. Same thing really.
rumborak
What I'm saying is this: God, like any other thing, can influence lives. It was by sheer luck that I discovered prog rock, but it's completely shaped my view of music. I am a different person because of it. Maybe mentally, I'm the same, but as you'll agree we are more than our mental state.
My problem with this, outside of the "we can't understand god's plan" argument, is that whose lives he influences seems to make no sense. Some of the most religious people I know, the ones who can practically recite the bible, are the most miserable. They have shit jobs, homes that are falling apart, and are stuck working 60+ hours a week. Why doesn't god throw them a bone? Meanwhile, you have the assholes in charge of the banks that can go about financially raping people.
There are many things that occur in people's live that they attribute to god blessing them, things that required years of dedication and hard work. A woman I work wih was a raging alcoholic and decided to go to rehab for it. She was in rehab 3 times, and failed each time. The fourth time, she said she found god through scripture (she claimed she was agnostic until them), and because of this was given the power to overcome her addiction. To me, this is just a placebo affect. Research has shown that placebo anti-depressants have yielded better results than the real drugs. People have the power within them to do great things, and it makes me sad that they can't give themselves the credit for creating something positive in their life.
When I fell off the balcony, I had dozens of people saying things like "someone up there loves you" and "god must have some purpose for you here". I can't give a god the credit for my survival. Had I fallen off a cliff and not found for 2 days, I'd certainly be dead. I have to attribute it the thousands of people in history that have made it possible to call for help and get it within minutes. I have to attribute it to the 20+ doctors I had that spent years of their lives learning how to save people. I attribute it to the engineers and biochemists that were able to build machines that were able to detect blood clots in my lungs and blood stream. I attribute it to modern medicine that prevented me from suffering a stroke. Based on some things said in this thread, god would have chose not to save me anyway since I don't believe in him.
All in all, I owe my survival to thousands of individual humans throughout human history,not a diety. This brings me back to full circle to the first part of my post. All of the people that were responsible for saving my life were, to some degree, servicing themselves. Sure they served me, but without the paycheck at the end of the week that keeps them alive, I highly doubt they would have been there.
-
Atheists still believe in law and punishment, just not supernatural law and punishment. And that's still irrelevant to believing in morals. For example: I don't rape women because I know it's wrong and a sick, heinous act, not because I'm afraid of going to prison.
-
Atheists still believe in law and punishment, just not supernatural law and punishment. And that's still irrelevant to believing in morals. For example: I don't rape women because I know it's wrong and a sick, heinous act, not because I'm afraid of going to prison.
Totally. All people have a general sense of morality. But where does that sense of morality come from, and does it matter to you where it comes from?
-
Atheists still believe in law and punishment, just not supernatural law and punishment. And that's still irrelevant to believing in morals. For example: I don't rape women because I know it's wrong and a sick, heinous act, not because I'm afraid of going to prison.
Totally. All people have a general sense of morality. But where does that sense of morality come from, and does it matter to you where it comes from?
I'm glad you're asking, because I have a feeling you will actually listen answers.
Atheist (or just non objective) morality comes from evolution in a sense. We want to survive, so killing is wrong. We want to dominate, so killing becomes ok in specific instances, provided it doesn't interfere with the first rule. We don't want things stolen from us, so stealing is wrong. We sometimes need what we can't have, so it's ok to steal provided it doesn't violate the first rule. etc etc.
-
Atheists still believe in law and punishment, just not supernatural law and punishment. And that's still irrelevant to believing in morals. For example: I don't rape women because I know it's wrong and a sick, heinous act, not because I'm afraid of going to prison.
But many people don't do certain things only because it's against the law and/or opposed by society. For example, if I could go invisible, I would chill out all day in the changing room of Victoria's secret. The only reason I don't do this in the real world is because I don't need a heel to the nuts or an ass kicking by some boyfriend waiting outside the store. I think similar examples, and other acts people call moral, are all kept in check by the restraints society as a whole puts on us. If people were given the power to not be seen by other members of society, we'd be amazed at all the crazy shit people would do.
-
Atheists still believe in law and punishment, just not supernatural law and punishment. And that's still irrelevant to believing in morals. For example: I don't rape women because I know it's wrong and a sick, heinous act, not because I'm afraid of going to prison.
But many people don't do certain things only because it's against the law and/or opposed by society. For example, if I could go invisible, I would chill out all day in the changing room of Victoria's secret. The only reason I don't do this in the real world is because I don't need a heel to the nuts or an ass kicking by some boyfriend waiting outside the store. I think similar examples, and other acts people call moral, are all kept in check by the restraints society as a whole puts on us. If people were given the power to not be seen by other members of society, we'd be amazed at all the crazy shit people would do.
Sure. But what does any of that have to do with what you believe?
-
Atheists still believe in law and punishment, just not supernatural law and punishment. And that's still irrelevant to believing in morals. For example: I don't rape women because I know it's wrong and a sick, heinous act, not because I'm afraid of going to prison.
But many people don't do certain things only because it's against the law and/or opposed by society. For example, if I could go invisible, I would chill out all day in the changing room of Victoria's secret. The only reason I don't do this in the real world is because I don't need a heel to the nuts or an ass kicking by some boyfriend waiting outside the store. I think similar examples, and other acts people call moral, are all kept in check by the restraints society as a whole puts on us. If people were given the power to not be seen by other members of society, we'd be amazed at all the crazy shit people would do.
Exactly.
And if I was knew or was convinced I could get away with killing somebody and stealing their money, why shouldn't I, if it would ultimately be in my self-interest for wealth or pleasure, knowing or being convinced I would avoid inconvienient treatment under law or social repercussions?
-
The human conscience's moral disposition is in alignment with Christianity. Therefore Christianity is wrong
Maaaaan, H, wtf. Nobody is saying that.
Christianity isn't wrong. Christianity just isn't the cause.
I'm assuming you know what the genetic fallacy is, so I'm not going to bothering elaborating other than saying: "genetic fallacy"
-
Atheists still believe in law and punishment, just not supernatural law and punishment. And that's still irrelevant to believing in morals. For example: I don't rape women because I know it's wrong and a sick, heinous act, not because I'm afraid of going to prison.
But many people don't do certain things only because it's against the law and/or opposed by society. For example, if I could go invisible, I would chill out all day in the changing room of Victoria's secret. The only reason I don't do this in the real world is because I don't need a heel to the nuts or an ass kicking by some boyfriend waiting outside the store. I think similar examples, and other acts people call moral, are all kept in check by the restraints society as a whole puts on us. If people were given the power to not be seen by other members of society, we'd be amazed at all the crazy shit people would do.
Exactly.
And if I was knew or was convinced I could get away with killing somebody and stealing their money, why shouldn't I, if it would ultimately be in my self-interest for wealth or pleasure, knowing or being convinced I would avoid inconvienient treatment under law or social repercussions?
Jesus christ dude, it's called a conscience.
-
How are we BACK on the morality argument? God damn.
(https://www.replikultes.net/medias/uploads/films/mallrats/mallrats_23_escalator.jpg)
Kid = You guys
Escalator = Morality Argument
Jason Lee = Me
-
How are we BACK on the morality argument? God damn.
Uh
You guys started discussing it again. What, am I not allowed to partake in the discussion anymore?
-
Jesus christ dude, it's called a conscience.
And why follow our conscience when it goes against self-interest or serves for inconvenience?
-
Because it's built into me?
Does it really kill you to not see your favorite religion as the cause of everything good?
rumborak
-
How are we BACK on the morality argument? God damn.
(https://www.replikultes.net/medias/uploads/films/mallrats/mallrats_23_escalator.jpg)
Kid = You guys
Escalator = Morality Argument
Jason Lee = Me
You could say we're going up the downstair
-
Because it's built into me?
Not sure if you're serious. You should follow your conscience and an illusory, meaningless, fabricated moral code even when they go against self-interest and even when it would inconvenience you because its "built into you"?
Talk about lacking philosophical and logical foundations...
Does it really kill you to not see your favorite religion as the cause of everything good?
rumborak
Not at all. Most of us theists don't even see "religion" as the source of our moral landscape.
This particular comment is a waste of cyberspace.
-
Because it's built into me?
Does it really kill you to not see your favorite religion as the cause of everything good?
rumborak
From a psychodynamic or general psychological point of view, it's not so much built into us as it is a normal part of development. Children don't generally have a conscience until they further develop. However, some of us never develop that. Freud called it the superego. I'd venture to say most politicians/businessmen and so forth never really developed one. It seems "the end" here never developed one either, which is why he can't possibly conceive of one.
-
Please stop making baseless, worthless assumptions about my conscience. It's just silly.
You are missing the main point while it festers under you nose. Or maybe you just farted. No way to know for sure.
-
I am having an extremely difficult time following what we're arguing about. Are people saying "We have a conscience, and should therefore follow it"? I'm very confused.
-
I'm very confused.
You and me both brotha.
-
Please stop making baseless, worthless assumptions about my conscience. It's just silly.
Like it or not, there is very little other conclusions left at this point. Let's summarize:
a) Atheists are godlessly moral, through whatever mechanism
b) You claim yourself that without God you would be an immoral person
I can see no other conclusion than that you are missing something we possess. Either innate or developed, you need "external" help for something we don't.
rumborak
-
I am having an extremely difficult time following what we're arguing about. Are people saying "We have a conscience, and should therefore follow it"? I'm very confused.
Yes.
Yet no satisfying answer can be provided as to "why" we should.
-
Atheists don't love God. Atheists are immoral in that respect.
-
So basically you're complaining that people don't say "in my opinion" before saying they think something is terrible, which should be implied anyway when you've already established that they view morals as objective. What is this, general music?
The entire basis of your argument hinges on some elusive strawman that has no idea what the words subjective and objective even mean.
This will likely be my last post on the matter (wouldn't want to get banned, now, would I), but I've made my point fairly clear. It is insulting to be repeatedly misrepresented or misunderstood with such consistency. And let's not pull out the dictionary on "subjective" and "objective" again, shan't we?
Since apparently this wasn't your last post on the matter (is it ever when people say this?), I didn't misunderstand your argument at all. The entire foundation of this supposed "contradiction" you've set up is some strawman that says morals are subjective while claiming theirs are objectively right. Anyone who thinks morals are subjective obviously doesn't think their beliefs are objectively right, and you're just complaining about semantics. This is your argument:
"ICP is rad."
"No they're not, they're terrible."
"But musical taste is subjective."
"Yeah. And ICP is terrible."
"See; you're trying to say your opinion is fact!"
-
nvmd
-
I am having an extremely difficult time following what we're arguing about. Are people saying "We have a conscience, and should therefore follow it"? I'm very confused.
Yes.
Yet no satisfying answer can be provided as to "why" we should.
Why do I follow my conscience? Because it makes me happy to do so. The simple fact is if I were to kill someone for money or whatever, I would feel really, really bad. Sure I may be in a better position in life, but I wouldn't be happy and that's much more important to me. I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this.
-
a) Atheists are godlessly moral, through whatever mechanism
Through an illusory and meaningless, subjective moral code that no one is objectively obligated to recognize or follow.
b) You claim yourself that without God you would be an immoral person
I've spent the last 2 or 3 pages vehemently denying that. I claim that without belief in God, you may very well be a great moral agent, yet the problem is that by denying any transcendent and objective anchor to morality, you are lost in a sea of socio-cultural, biological moral relativism. An atheist can be just as moral or even more so than a theist, yet the atheists' reasons for adhering to a moral code are either illusory and meaningless or completely absent.
I can see no other conclusion than that you are missing something we possess. Either innate or developed, you need "external" help for something we don't.
rumborak
You can assert that moral values simply exist as abstract entities (indeed you already have done so in a few pages back). Yet this leads to Moral Platonism, for which I have already provided three reasons for why it is both unintelligible and unfeasible.
-
a) Atheists are godlessly moral, through whatever mechanism
Through an illusory and meaningless, subjective moral code that no one is objectively obligated to recognize or follow.
Dude, seriously:
You have some problem. I have no idea what it is, but dude, you have a problem. Maybe you desperately need the ego-boost these assertions give you, maybe you are unsure about your own faith. Whatever it is, I don't know, but I also don't really care at this point.
rumborak
-
I'm out on this thread. It's become a cluster. I just want a real conversation on belief and the influence it has on people and their thought processes and this has deteriorated rapidly into silliness.
-
a) Atheists are godlessly moral, through whatever mechanism
Through an illusory and meaningless, subjective moral code that no one is objectively obligated to recognize or follow.
Dude, seriously:
You have some problem. I have no idea what it is, but dude, you have a problem.
rumborak
He's correct though. You're saying atheists are godlessly moral. There's two major problems with that.
1) Although atheists will agree on their unbelief in a god, they're not in agreement elsewhere. One atheist might think it's important to protect animals from harm, and another's a butcher that finds nothing wrong with it. They can't both be moral - that's contradictory.
2) You're defining the term "moral" so that it fits in the statement "Atheists are moral". But if you believe morality is subjective, you could literally say anything is "moral" and be correct about it. So it's really no conclusion at all.
-
I am having an extremely difficult time following what we're arguing about. Are people saying "We have a conscience, and should therefore follow it"? I'm very confused.
Yes.
Yet no satisfying answer can be provided as to "why" we should.
Why do I follow my conscience? Because it makes me happy to do so. The simple fact is if I were to kill someone for money or whatever, I would feel really, really bad. Sure I may be in a better position in life, but I wouldn't be happy and that's much more important to me. I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this.
Yet under this worldview, the reason you would feel bad would be meaningless. You would only feel guilt (or really, really bad) simply because your socio-cultural upbringing has convinced you that guilt should be felt when a murder is committed.
Besides, what is happy to you may be happy to someone else. If the goal of life is to be happy and what makes one happy is entirely subjective, then who are you to condemn the loon who claim that he derives happiness from rape and murder?
-
How about:
I do nice things for people because making others happy makes me happy. It probably makes me happy due to some combination of evolution and epigenetics.
-
a) Atheists are godlessly moral, through whatever mechanism
Through an illusory and meaningless, subjective moral code that no one is objectively obligated to recognize or follow.
Dude, seriously:
You have some problem. I have no idea what it is, but dude, you have a problem. Maybe you desperately need the ego-boost these assertions give you, maybe you are unsure about your own faith. Whatever it is, I don't know, but I also don't really care at this point.
rumborak
Rumborak, always enjoying your wit and general logical contributions, I'm rather disappointed that you are avoiding this most ancient and important philosophical issue with such gutless resorts to deflecting and unrelated personal forays.
-
I rape orphans because it makes me all tingly inside. I love it. Therefore raping orphans is OK.
-
1) Although atheists will agree on their unbelief in a god, they're not in agreement elsewhere. One atheist might think it's important to protect animals from harm, and another's a butcher that finds nothing wrong with it. They can't both be moral - that's contradictory.
What's the difference to you guys? There's Christians who view it as moral to stand at other people's funerals and yell "God hates fags".
2) You're defining the term "moral" so that it fits in the statement "Atheists are moral". But if you believe morality is subjective, you could literally say anything is "moral" and be correct about it. So it's really no conclusion at all.
It's a contract, like any other contract. Outside of the community that agreed on it, it bears no meaning. With your argument no contract between two companies would ever be worth the paper it is written on. And yet, omg, the companies keep each other in check (through internal checks and outside agencies that enforce it) to abide by the contract.
In the moral world, these things are called peer pressure and trials in court (once again through peers who enforce the agreed-upon morals).
rumborak
-
1) Although atheists will agree on their unbelief in a god, they're not in agreement elsewhere. One atheist might think it's important to protect animals from harm, and another's a butcher that finds nothing wrong with it. They can't both be moral - that's contradictory.
What's the difference to you guys? There's Christians who view it as moral to stand at other people's funerals and yell "God hates fags".
If you got the impression that I think that "Christians are moral" then you are mistaken. I'm saying that "Christianity is morality" basically. Separating the ideal from the individual.
-
a) Atheists are godlessly moral, through whatever mechanism
Through an illusory and meaningless, subjective moral code that no one is objectively obligated to recognize or follow.
More illusory than a diety that has given no concrete proof of its existence in any form other than a few eyewitness accounts of people roughly 20,000 years after modern man originated, and 2 million years after the homo genus emerged?
-
Yet under this worldview, the reason you would feel bad would be meaningless. You would only feel guilt (or really, really bad) simply because your socio-cultural upbringing has convinced you that guilt should be felt when a murder is committed.
Well, upbringing and biological instincts. But either way, so what? I can't help how I feel or what makes me happy/sad - no one can. In the end all of our feelings are meaningless.
Besides, what is happy to you may be happy to someone else. If the goal of life is to be happy and what makes one happy is entirely subjective, then who are you to condemn the loon who claim that he derives happiness from rape and murder?
Jesus, this has been covered a million times. I can condemn murder the same I can say that Awake is a terrible album - by acknowledging it's just my opinion. The reason the guy who gets off on killing people should be locked up has nothing to do with what's 'moral' and everything to do with keeping our society running smoothly.
-
Why is keeping our society running smoothly important?
-
More illusory than a diety that has given no concrete proof of its existence in any form other than a few eyewitness accounts of people roughly 20,000 years after modern man originated, and 2 million years after the homo genus emerged?
I truly hope you don't think that amounted to anything that even resembles an intelligible argument against the existence of God.
-
Why is keeping our society running smoothly important?
Because people want life to be easy and to not die when they're 30...
-
Who cares what people want?
-
People?
-
And there's where we get into a circle.
-
H, this is absurd. You're trying to ascribe some objective cosmic truth to human society when there's no reason to believe one exists.
-
Jesus, this has been covered a million times. I can condemn murder the same I can say that Awake is a terrible album - by acknowledging it's just my opinion. The reason the guy who gets off on killing people should be locked up has nothing to do with what's 'moral' and everything to do with keeping our society running smoothly.
As H has pointed out, you are quite basically saying that keeping society running smoothly is a morally "good" goal.
Yet why would keeping society running smoothly be characterized as a moral improvement over not keeping it running smoothly rather than as a mere descriptional difference?
-
H, this is absurd. You're trying to ascribe some objective cosmic truth to human society when there's no reason to believe one exists.
You can't think of one good reason?
-
Besides, all sorts of actions could and should be taken if our ultimate goal is to make society run as smoothly as possible. For example, genocides to decrease overpopulation would be warranted, as would eugenics and forcible genetic modifications, etc.
-
Criminals should be killed. No rehabilitation
-
Besides, all sorts of actions could and should be taken if our ultimate goal is to make society run as smoothly as possible. For example, genocides to decrease overpopulation would be warranted, as would eugenics and forcible genetic modifications, etc.
Don't forget creating a master race.
-
Wow, that puzzles me. Putting religion out of anyone's life is just... wow. Any religion that could cause the death of another just puzzles me.
-
And there's where we get into a circle.
No it's not.
"You agree to not kill anyone else and everyone else will agree to not kill you. If you break this agreement, we will imprison/kill you."
There's your reason. It's a lot easier for humans to live in a group than alone. It's even easier to live in a group if everyone abides by an agreed upon set of rules. Even if there were no such thing as "objective morality," there's still a completely pragmatic reason to follow those rules.
-
I have no idea what more you guys want. You're looking for universal objective truths, and I don't believe they exist. I don't see what more can be said.
-
Yet why would keeping society running smoothly be characterized as a moral improvement over not keeping it running smoothly rather than as a mere descriptional difference?
Because ........... you might have to live in it?
People like stuff as having food every day, not being afraid of dying, all that stuff. Only a smooth society with provide that.
And no, genocide can mean you are the one being killed, so people clearly don't want that danger looming over their head.
This actually needs to be explained? I can see how a Bible might be of value to you.
rumborak
-
I have no idea what more you guys want. You're looking for universal objective truths, and I don't believe they exist. I don't see what more can be said.
You could thank Plato for that one. It's his fault that this entire argument arose in the first place.
-
"You agree to not kill anyone else and everyone else will agree to not kill you. If you break this agreement, we will imprison/kill you."
There's your reason. It's a lot easier for humans to live in a group than alone. It's even easier to live in a group if everyone abides by an agreed upon set of rules. Even if there were no such thing as "objective morality," there's still a completely pragmatic reason to follow those rules.
See, it would be more accurate to say "If you break this argreement and you are caught, we will imprison / kill you."
So anything is permissible unless you are actually caught.
Besides, the "agreement" that would be agreed upon would nevertheless be entirely subjective and arbitrary.
-
once again this thread is approaching the line.
am I missing something, or is there irony in the fact that we are each calling the other wrong in a discussion that there is no absolutes?
-
Sorry guys...
-
Please clarify, what line is being neared?
What am I (or are we) doing wrong or against the rules?
-
the line of criticizing the person rather than the argument
-
the line of criticizing the person rather than the argument
I'm not sure I'm seeing this.
-
Yet why would keeping society running smoothly be characterized as a moral improvement over not keeping it running smoothly rather than as a mere descriptional difference?
Because ........... you might have to live in it?
People like stuff as having food every day, not being afraid of dying, all that stuff. Only a smooth society with provide that.
And no, genocide can mean you are the one being killed, so people clearly don't want that danger looming over their head.
This actually needs to be explained? I can see how a Bible might be of value to you.
rumborak
Having food every day, not dying or "all that stuff" do not serve as reasons for why such a society would be a moral improvement over the other. Inconveniences to the people living in such a society? Sure. Moral improvements in a worldview void of moral truths? No.
Addressing the Bible comment would only be a waste of my time.
-
Having food every day, not dying or "all that stuff" do not serve as reasons for why such a society would be a moral improvement over the other.
Not to you? I think we get it.
To me it does.
What you completely ignore in your rant against our worldview is, we atheists live in a happy, stable and moral world. You personally seem to live in that world constantly at the edge of moral decay, where only your Bible is keeping you from falling off that edge.
It strikes me as weird that you're trying to argue your world is superior to ours.
rumborak
-
"You agree to not kill anyone else and everyone else will agree to not kill you. If you break this agreement, we will imprison/kill you."
There's your reason. It's a lot easier for humans to live in a group than alone. It's even easier to live in a group if everyone abides by an agreed upon set of rules. Even if there were no such thing as "objective morality," there's still a completely pragmatic reason to follow those rules.
See, it would be more accurate to say "If you break this argreement and you are caught, we will imprison / kill you."
So anything is permissible unless you are actually caught.
Besides, the "agreement" that would be agreed upon would nevertheless be entirely subjective and arbitrary.
Yes, no duh. The thing is, you can't magically know no one will ever catch you. Someone else could just as well say to you "what if you could kill someone. no one else would know, and God would be all 'I'm alright with this'?" There's no point in arguing about things that will never happen.
And, yes, the agreement is subjective. That's the entire point of this conversation; that society would or wouldn't delve into chaos if there were no such thing as "objective morals." I'm arguing that morality is subjective, of course my example of how subjective morality "works" is based on something that's subjective. You complain that atheists apparently "contradict" themselves by claiming it's all subjective while supposedly claiming their morals are objectively superior, but then twice now in this thread your issue with an argument for subjective morality has been "but that's subjective." What else would it be?
-
Having food every day, not dying or "all that stuff" do not serve as reasons for why such a society would be a moral improvement over the other.
Not to you? I think we get it.
To me it does.
What you completely ignore in your rant against our worldview is, we atheists live in a happy, stable and moral world. You personally seem to live in that world constantly at the edge of moral decay, where only your Bible is keeping you from falling off that edge.
It strikes me as weird that you're trying to argue your world is superior to ours.
rumborak
I do not claim to derive my moral landscape from the Bible. If I were so inclined to, I guess I'd have to beat homosexuals and debt evaders to death. I don't. And atheists living happy has nothing to bear with the issue here.
See I am merely asserting that it is quite clear that morals are objective. Child molestation, for example, is objectively wrong. I'm sure you'd agree with me saying that the Inquisition, the Crusades and bishops molesting children were and are all objectively wrong actions. If you assert moral subjectivism, then you have no grounds to claim that any of these actions are truly wrong. Everyone here desperately seeks to assert that the existence of objective moral values, yet in a vain attempt to deny the existence of a God you either
1.) Posit that objective morals simply exist with no foundation (Moral Platonism)
or
2.) Posit that morals are completely subjective and then go on to either make claims on how a certain action (say slavery) is objectively wrong or live according to an objective set of moral values and duties that they themselves intuitively recognize yet deny them in order to cling to atheism.
-
Omega, im not tareting or baiting, I think a response to these questions might help me better understand where youve been coming from. I'm curious as to how you categorize humans beings and their origin. Do you believe that god created us as well as everything else in nature as separate entities? Do you believe in the 6 day reation? Did everything in nature first take its course, and then have humans thrown into the mix by god? Or, do you believe humans are just as much a species as everything else in nature that underwent the exact same processes, which could have been by god's guiding hand from the beginning?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I look at human being's decisions and actions, I can't help but think they are to a large degree embedded in our instincts. They seems really complicated, but that's because our brains can think about their thoughts to an insane degree. Throughout nature, you see social structure and certain behaviors that are distinct to each species. However, one common trend throughout the animal kingdom is the grouping of like species, and survival in numbers. Even in carrying intelligence levels, we see the same pattern repeated time and time again. African cats, elephants, primates, whales, turtles, alligators, wild dogs, birds, the list could go on and on. It's not hard to imagine that something as smart as a whale or an elephant could reason that if it attacked a like member, it would be retaliatted against. But birds probably wouldn't even care to notice. I look out my window every morning and see dozens of robins. If one day one of them decided to peck another one to death, I'd be willing to bet the rest of the robins would just keep gathering worms. What drives this consitent, non hostile, adventageous behavior? It certainly cant be absolute moral, they're birds. What this says to me, based on what we see throughout nature, things that we may consider to be moral actions or society driven agreements, may actually just be highly evolved instinctive behaviors. In nature you occasionally see back lash or unexpected behaviors, and we see this in humans as well.
-
Child molestation, for example, is objectively wrong.
Is it objective, really? Was Joseph a child molester when he had intercourse with the (most likely) 12-13 year old Mary?
Moral standards change. I would argue that 50% of the stuff you view these days as permissible would have been decried as cause for death sentence by people 500 years ago.
rumborak
-
Child molestation, for example, is objectively wrong.
Is it objective, really? Was Joseph a child molester when he had intercourse with (most likely) 12-13 year old Mary?
rumborak
This is the same type of reasoning when someone says: "Well not all murder is unjustified. Like imagine if you had to kill someone in self-defense!" That's not really a pre-meditated, malicious taking of a human life - murder - then, is it? It's an unfortunate killing to save or protect yourself.
Let us not remember the time context in which Mary and Joseph existed. In their time, marriage at such a young age was rather commonplace. And all details indicate that Mary consented.
How discussing the age of consent and legally recognized marriage of a civilization that existed 2000 years ago is relevant to the topic we are discussing eludes me, though.
Yet I also note that you didn't disagree that the Crusades, etc, were objectively morally wrong acts.
-
How discussing XYZ is relevant to the topic we are discussing eludes me, though.
(https://amarudontv.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/broken-record-765056.jpg)
You are talking about a supposedly objective moral standard of yours, I'm pointing out it is not. Marriage age is a societal standard agreed upon. Everything under it is child molestation, and thus dependent on the arbitrary line of what constitutes a child.
rumborak
-
Omega, im not tareting or baiting, I think a response to these questions might help me better understand where youve been coming from. I'm curious as to how you categorize humans beings and their origin. Do you believe that god created us as well as everything else in nature as separate entities? Do you believe in the 6 day reation? Did everything in nature first take its course, and then have humans thrown into the mix by god? Or, do you believe humans are just as much a species as everything else in nature that underwent the exact same processes, which could have been by god's guiding hand from the beginning?
I'm not sure what you mean by "Do you believe that god created us as well as everything else in nature as separate entities?"
or
"6 day reation?"
Yet I agree with this: "Humans are just as much a species as everything else in nature that underwent the exact same processes, which could have been by god's guiding hand from the beginning."
When I look at human being's decisions and actions, I can't help but think they are to a large degree embedded in our instincts. They seems really complicated, but that's because our brains can think about their thoughts to an insane degree. Throughout nature, you see social structure and certain behaviors that are distinct to each species. However, one common trend throughout the animal kingdom is the grouping of like species, and survival in numbers. Even in carrying intelligence levels, we see the same pattern repeated time and time again. African cats, elephants, primates, whales, turtles, alligators, wild dogs, birds, the list could go on and on. It's not hard to imagine that something as smart as a whale or an elephant could reason that if it attacked a like member, it would be retaliatted against. But birds probably wouldn't even care to notice. I look out my window every morning and see dozens of robins. If one day one of them decided to peck another one to death, I'd be willing to bet the rest of the robins would just keep gathering worms. What drives this consitent, non hostile, adventageous behavior? It certainly cant be absolute moral, they're birds. What this says to me, based on what we see throughout nature, things that we may consider to be moral actions or society driven agreements, may actually just be highly evolved instinctive behaviors. In nature you occasionally see back lash or unexpected behaviors, and we see this in humans as well.
Are an animal's actions ever considered to have a moral dimension? When a lion kills a zebra, is the lion "murdering" a zebra? When a cat kills an animal for mere pleasure, is the cat sadistic? When a male shark forcefully impregnates a female shark, is the male shark raping the female shark?
In every sense of the word, moral relativism leads to the same "morality" of animals: there is no objectively wrong or right actions, actions lose all moral dimension, there would be no morally discnerable difference between rape and love, and the only reason not to kill members of society would be merely out of inconvenience, not some illusory sense of right and wrong. A life of self-interest would be the only rational path.
-
How discussing XYZ is relevant to the topic we are discussing eludes me, though.
(https://amarudontv.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/broken-record-765056.jpg)
You are talking about a supposedly objective moral standard of yours, I'm pointing out it is not. Marriage age is a societal standard agreed upon. Everything under it is child molestation, and thus dependent on the arbitrary line of what constitutes a child.
rumborak
:lol at the image. There's that characteristic wit I like.
Discussing XYZ that are completely irrelevant to the topic
(https://amarudontv.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/broken-record-765056.jpg)
:|
But say the marriage age is 16 in the society I live in and I, with consent, marry and impregnate a 15 year old (not something I would ever do). Does that mean that I am an immoral person? If there is a law that states that discriminating against Jews is permissible and I refuse to, does that make me an immoral agent?
Political laws have no obligation to uphold any moral truths.
-
once again this thread is approaching the line.
am I missing something, or is there irony in the fact that we are each calling the other wrong in a discussion that there is no absolutes?
Yesh, you know I love you like a sister, and I'm not questioning your mod abilities.....but isn't there a point where constantly telling us to get the convo back on track (I think this is the 3rd time for this argument, at least) is futile? I say grab your dick, and smack us in the face with it.
-
:lol
I will consider your advice next time
-
I don't see what any of this bullshit that Omega is rambling on about has anything to do with the thread topic.
Drop it, or start your own thread about that. Anyone else that wants to discuss this crap with him, do it in that thread.
I mean it.
-
To be fair we did have a thread on morality that got closed pretty quickly.
-
This is an interesting experiment regarding the discussion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wason_selection_task
Evolutionary psychologists have gathered experimental evidence that people find the Wason task much easier if it is placed in the context of a social rule that the experimental subject is asked to police, suggesting that humans solve the social-rule problem with a specialized mental module that evolved to catch cheaters in a social environment.
Got there from here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
which has the following interesting statement by Michael Shermer about the moral commonalities between humans and other social animal:
According to Shermer, the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:
attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group.[6]
rumborak
-
To be fair we did have a thread on morality that got closed pretty quickly.
Not really a reason to drag other topics off-topic. :p
-
This is an interesting experiment regarding the discussion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wason_selection_task
Evolutionary psychologists have gathered experimental evidence that people find the Wason task much easier if it is placed in the context of a social rule that the experimental subject is asked to police, suggesting that humans solve the social-rule problem with a specialized mental module that evolved to catch cheaters in a social environment.
Can you explain this more? I am curious about it. I looked up what the Wason was and got...
You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Wason_selection_task_cards.png)
Is the answer to turn the #8 card over?
-
You need to turn over the 8 and Brown cards.
-
You need to turn over the 8 and Brown cards.
This, yeah. I'm assuming many people will say it involves turning the red card.
Can you explain this more? I am curious about it. I looked up what the Wason was and got...
Well, I think the overall trick about this experiment is that in this setting, most people get it wrong. However, when reformulating the same problem in a social setting (and I guess specifically one that involves cheating on others), most people get it right. Which indicates that people have a special "module" in their brain for dealing with this stuff in social contexts, suggesting that that module is a "morality module" used for keeping scrutiny over other community members.
I haven't read the paper itself, but considering the experiment is referred to as a classic one, I take it the evidence must be very compelling.
rumborak
-
Could you also turn over the red card and the 3 card?
-
Well, you obviously could, but I think the key question is "which cards *must* you turn?".
rumborak
-
Ah I see the flaw there. The statement "If a card is red, then it's opposite face is even" is not necessarily true. Gotcha.
-
Yeah, I think it's about the difference between the logical if and the if we use in everyday language. I think most people will interpret this as more of an if and only if situation and thus will (also incorrectly if it were and "if and only if") turn the 3, 8 and the red card. 3 to check that the back is not red, 8 to check that the back is red and the red card to check that the back has an even number.
-
A few days too late (or a few threads too late) but
(https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120302.gif)
-
:rollin