|
On February 02 2008 03:16 suresh0t wrote:
I realize that there are atheists who try to be build a case for transcendent justice apart from God, but I've always found these attempts very unconvincing. Without a transcendent Lawgiver you cannot have a transcendent Law.
Sometimes you can raise this question with an atheist (or a relativist): "What behavior would you condemn?" And when they say, "torturing babies" or whatever, keep pressing the issue with the question, "Why?" Eventually one finds there must be an appeal to a transcendent Lawgiver.
The concept of Justice is one of the fingerprints of God found within Creation.
That argument is completely invalid. All human societies past and present have societal norms and rules that must be followed for society to function. It's no different from other animals that live in groups. If everyone was batshit insane and did whatever they wanted, the species couldn't survive.
|
On February 02 2008 03:16 suresh0t wrote:Sometimes you can raise this question with an atheist (or a relativist): "What behavior would you condemn?" And when they say, "torturing babies" or whatever, keep pressing the issue with the question, "Why?" Eventually one finds there must be an appeal to a transcendent Lawgiver.
Have you tried this? My first reaction to being pressed on such a response would be to refer to survival instinct as a fundamental aspect of decision making. That response heads towards to the idea that, without inherent moral restrictions on our behavior, our species would not thrive because the torturing or killing of babies is a hindrance to their ability to procreate later in life, due to likely psychological complications or their being dead. Societies who are not inclined towards refraining from engaging in such behavior are not as likely to thrive, an unfavorable disposition for any society or species. That means we'd not be alive.
That would be my initial response, at least. Others are sure to have their own valid justifications, or potentially agree with mine. I fail to see how such questioning would undoubtedly force the consideration of, or prove the existence of, the will of a higher being. Your suggestion would be conversely analogous to the suggestion that pressing the issue of how one can believe in a higher power without substantial evidence will be force one to admit that the lack of evidence disproves the existence of such a power. It's a narrow statement with no truth to it because not everybody is going to follow one predictable and flawed path of logic.
|
Wow. I'm seriously impressed. This letter was written logically.
The weakness then is the lack of a conclusion, because you simply can't come to a conclusion if you talk about religion logically.
Anyone disagreeing with me, please point out where I'm wrong. This is how I interpret this article:
1. "Is there a God?" has no meaning due to syntactical reasons. I prefer the question "Does God exist?"
2. I believe that God exists, and my most logical reason for this belief is that I believe it. I recognize that this is a circular argument, and is therefore illogical. I felt like saying it anyways. I have no proof, I don't expect you to believe me.
3. God is special among imaginary (or unprovable, if you will) beings, because everyone I know spends time thinking about him. //I think this says something about our culture, not about a universal truth...
4. If you try to believe in God, you might succeed. That is the only way for you to be sure that God exists, by believing that it is so. If you do not believe it, then you will not believe it. (see #2)
|
hi guys
i'm just here to say that i'm an atheist and this pastor is definitely one of the better theists
and some of the atheists here are alot worse than this guy just from their hellbentness
|
On February 02 2008 14:51 man wrote:
The only thing this made me think about is how dumb this guy is. "I know there is a God because I know there is a God." It must be true, because he's saying it from his heart!! He says he wants the truth, yet this is the extent of his thinking.
How does a person know something is true? You take a lot for granted. I wouldn't be so quick to call the guy dumb. He's not trying to convince you. He's explaining his mindset.
On February 02 2008 15:02 man wrote:
That argument is completely invalid. All human societies past and present have societal norms and rules that must be followed for society to function. It's no different from other animals that live in groups. If everyone was batshit insane and did whatever they wanted, the species couldn't survive.
When you say "if everyone was batshit insane and did whatever they wanted", thats a whole bunch of quite unsupported assumptions you're making there.
So can you answer the question, "why is torturing babies wrong"? Or lets make it less provocative, why is stealing money from a wallet you find in the street (with the owners name and stuff in it) wrong? "Societal rules and norms have been present in all societies" is not an answer. "The species wouldn't survive otherwise" is not only not an answer, its blatantly false. The species obviously would survive even if we condoned torturing babies and stealing money from wallets.
|
On February 02 2008 15:40 Lord.of.Nukes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2008 03:16 suresh0t wrote:Sometimes you can raise this question with an atheist (or a relativist): "What behavior would you condemn?" And when they say, "torturing babies" or whatever, keep pressing the issue with the question, "Why?" Eventually one finds there must be an appeal to a transcendent Lawgiver. Have you tried this? My first reaction to being pressed on such a response would be to refer to survival instinct as a fundamental aspect of decision making. That response heads towards to the idea that, without inherent moral restrictions on our behavior, our species would not thrive because the torturing or killing of babies is a hindrance to their ability to procreate later in life, due to likely psychological complications or their being dead. Societies who are not inclined towards refraining from engaging in such behavior are not as likely to thrive, an unfavorable disposition for any society or species. That means we'd not be alive.
This is one of the biggest confusions in understanding evolutionary theory. A species does not survive, its individuals (and their genes) do. "Doing things for the good of the species" is not a trait that is selected for, organisms don't "look out for the species", etc. In fact, much the opposite. Quite often the greatest competition and threat for the ecological niche you occupy comes from members of your own species, and in order for you and your kin (gene carriers) to survive you have to compete and battle other members of your species sometimes, just as at times (depending on the species) you work with them and co-operate.
So in that case does it become morally OK when the good of the individuals of the species involves bloody competition with other individuals of the species? Is it OK for me to lead a war party to capture all the neighboring tribes women as wives so that I can greatly enhance my reproductive potential? The species might thrive if its individuals aimed at increasing their reproductive potential in such a manner, as chimps and gorillas do. "But if everybody does it, then the species would collapse!" First of all, thats completely untrue; the increase in my reproductive potential might offset the blow to yours. And, of course, the chimp and gorilla species (and many others) have survived just fine even with such "supposedly-detrimental-to-the-species" actions. Since these traits were actually selected for in the individuals, they must (if we are to believe the power of evolution, which is proven) actually increase the propagation of the members of the species and their genes. For example, gorilla males frequently engage in infanticide when taking over a new female harem. Why? Because it brings the females into estrus, the gorilla male doesn't know how long he's going to be at the head of the group so he needs the females to be receptive, and he obviously doesn't give a shit about infants that don't carry his genes and would suck up his resources in protecting. In fact this trait is actively selected for, those who don't carry out infanticide upon taking over a new group are at a severe disadvantage and their genes die out and their offspring are no more. This is seen in quite a few primates. Sure, all the dead infants are "wasting" their reproductive potential, but that has exactly jack shit power in the force of natural selection, since the genes suppressing infanticide doom themselves.
On February 02 2008 15:40 Lord.of.Nukes wrote:
That would be my initial response, at least. Others are sure to have their own valid justifications, or potentially agree with mine. I fail to see how such questioning would undoubtedly force the consideration of, or prove the existence of, the will of a higher being. Your suggestion would be conversely analogous to the suggestion that pressing the issue of how one can believe in a higher power without substantial evidence will be force one to admit that the lack of evidence disproves the existence of such a power. It's a narrow statement with no truth to it because not everybody is going to follow one predictable and flawed path of logic.
You've given a response, but it does nothing to prove that torturing babies (or whatver, XYZ) is morally wrong and is a matter of justice. Which is sorta the point at stake.
|
On February 02 2008 13:19 FieryBalrog wrote:
That isn't any sort of logic at all. Why shouldn't I produce pain in suffering in someone else? "Duh" is not an answer.
Why would you not do it if there were a God? Because you are afraid of him? Same can be said about social structure, you cause pain and you it can back fire at you.
Also I would not feel good about causing pain, and that is absolutely valid point as it is becouse of emotions that are caused by my genes, they could be activated by culture but they were there.
I just want to add that "What is moral" (that I answered in my first post) and "why be moral" are diferent problems.
|
Huh, try me. I'll argue that morality stems from interests, fulfillment thereof, and violation thereof.
Show me how it boils down to an inherent order to the universe.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 02 2008 19:57 FieryBalrog wrote:
The species obviously would survive even if we condoned torturing babies and stealing money from wallets.
So his unsupported idea that civil order keeps us alive is "blatantly false", but your unsupported idea that we would still survive by harming our offspring is true?
|
I think Jibba misinterprets FieryBalrog's argument. I read it as:
It's theoretically possible for human societies to work with different "moral" rules, even ones different from what some consider fundamental. Like killing "innocents." Therefore, moral systems do NOT have a basis in natural selection.
It also seems like FieryBalrog's argument was due to a misinterpretation of man's argument. man postulates that a society will not function if the individuals do not agree on some sort of system (one function of society would be to facilitate reproduction, and this function would also fail). Not that our current system is the only one that will work.
|
I guess you could say my theory of morality has roots in genetics, or in an inherent universal law, but only in a pretty abstract way.
Item: Sentient entities exist.
Justification: I exist, and I feel (definition of sentient). There appear to be others like me.
Item: Sentient entities have interests.
Justification: I am sentient, and I have interests. There appear to be others like me.
Item: Fulfillment of interests is preferable to nonfulfillment of interests or violation of interests.
Justification: Arbitrary. Possibly the weakest point in this theory.
Item: Some interests are incompatible.
Justification: If there is an interest x, then there can be an interest that "x is not fulfilled."
Item: "Importance," "priority," or "precedence" of an interest compared to another incompatible interest is subjective.
Justification: Personal experience, in that I have observed different people assign different values to identical situations without offering objective justification.
Item: "Moral" people act in such a way that the most compatible interests are fulfilled, and among incompatible interests, the most "important" ones are fulfilled.
Justification: Using this as a definition of "moral".
Conclusion: Moral people can disagree on which choice is morally correct.
Right. So, if you ask me "why is it wrong to kill someone?" I would say that it violates his interest to live, and I arbitrarily and subjectively decided that his interest to live is more important than my interest to kill him. I'd come up with a different result if the person didn't have an interest to live, or if my interest to kill him was much stronger (say, backed by an interest to not see him kill other people).
|
On February 02 2008 23:08 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2008 19:57 FieryBalrog wrote:
The species obviously would survive even if we condoned torturing babies and stealing money from wallets.
So his unsupported idea that civil order keeps us alive is "blatantly false", but your unsupported idea that we would still survive by harming our offspring is true?
This is one thing I think is wrong with your post: "us, we, humanity, etc.". Why should I think in those terms at all?
Second of all, civil order is a nebulous concept. Why does torturing babies fall under something prohibited?
Then, why should I care to keep the civil order when I'd rather have others keep it and myself do as I please?
And, since when do specific people torturing specific babies generalize to "we" harming "our" offspring?
Finally, if a bunch of humans off somewhere started harming their offspring, why should I care? What does it matter do with my survival and my family/tribes survival over here?
One of the things I want to say is, species don't survive, individuals do. Thats an important distinction that seems to be lost.
On February 03 2008 01:38 BottleAbuser wrote:
It also seems like FieryBalrog's argument was due to a misinterpretation of man's argument. man postulates that a society will not function if the individuals do not agree on some sort of system (one function of society would be to facilitate reproduction, and this function would also fail). Not that our current system is the only one that will work.
Did you read the post where I talked about how behaviors that harm individuals or that are traditionally deemed immoral might be quite good for facilitating the reproduction of individuals and might be traits selected for by natural selection (which in a sense is all natural selection "cares" about) (I know its long, I'm sorry :p)
I asked: Is it OK for me to lead a war party to capture all the neighboring tribes women as wives so that I can greatly enhance my reproductive potential?
Edit: On re-reading it, I see that you sort of agree with me, haha. But, even if individuals agree on some system (and if the only reason is convenience/personal propagation, that is hardly morality) there is no particular reason I see why torturing babies has to be immoral within that system if we're arguing on purely rational grounds.
Finally, it might suck for you when someone tortures your baby, but on what grounds do you tell him/her "dude, that is morally WRONG" and not just "dude, I'm going to kick your ass because you messed with me". Its an important difference.
|
Well, as described in my previous post, I'd arbitrarily and personally decide that my interest to not see my baby tortured, as well as my baby's interest to not be tortured are more important than that someone's interest to torture my baby.
|
On February 03 2008 01:52 BottleAbuser wrote:
Right. So, if you ask me "why is it wrong to kill someone?" I would say that it violates his interest to live, and I arbitrarily and subjectively decided that his interest to live is more important than my interest to kill him.
But thats not a basis for a moral system at all. I mean sure, it works in the sense that the things you arbitrarily and subjectively decide will generally be in accordance with our culture's system of morality built on religious foundations, simply because you have "bought in" to the system even while denying its foundation (if you are an atheist, I don't know).
That really isn't a strong argument for atheistic morality though. I could arbitrarily and subjectively decide that killing people is OK if they have all that money that I want, and the only way you could stop me would be if you were more powerful than me and could impose your decisions upon me. But then I could do the same to you, and your belief system wouldn't make an iota of sense when you protested that "people shouldn't impose their own arbitrary and subjective belief systems on others simply by dint of being more powerful". All you could say is "damn, you overpowered me, but I'm gonna try to overpower you".
|
On February 03 2008 11:22 FieryBalrog wrote:
But thats not a basis for a moral system at all.
It is what is that sound like definition of morality to me, define it differently, if you define it as set of rules given by invisibole wizard then it is not. But I don't see how rules given by God where only motivation to do as he told is fear is morality, that can be convenient useful system but not moral it would remove altruism.
On February 03 2008 11:22 FieryBalrog wrote: I mean sure, it works in the sense that the things you arbitrarily and subjectively decide will generally be in accordance with our culture's system of morality built on religious foundations, simply because you have "bought in" to the system even while denying its foundation (if you are an atheist, I don't know).
You are borough up in morality system where homosexuality is non moral? Where not being virgin before marriage is consider to be crime that should be punished by death? I don't think so. Maybe read Bible but not only nice bits, you will see that morality of people that lived 2000 years ago is diferent then morality of modern Christians, and we had to get our moral change form something else then Bible.
Morality existed before Christian religion. Many religions were made up (that you don't believe in) so they were made up based on what? Religion (as Christian you agree becouse they were religions before Jesus come on earth, right?) was made up based on something so it can't be basis.
Our moral's are result of genes and culture/religion influence, but genes are basis of it, whithout emotions any morality would not make sense, there would be no reason to do what invisibole wizard tell you if you would have no emotions.
On February 03 2008 11:22 FieryBalrog wrote:That really isn't a strong argument for atheistic morality though. I could arbitrarily and subjectively decide that killing people is OK if they have all that money that I want
You can't arbitrary decide that those people would not loose becouse of it, and that what is based morality on. You can decide to act non moral, but that is diferent.
So what is your basis to decide on what is good in what God said, and what is bad? Do you think that people should be stoned to death for collecting sticks on Sabbath? If no why not? God through that it is a good idea.
|
"My posts seem narrow minded because I'm usually responding to a narrow minded post."
Please. Give me a break. You combat a persons observatory thinking. When you combat observation you combat truth. This means assumptions take place, and also means lies and/or ignorance take place, making everything you say, do or think useless.
Open mindedness is not a good thing; to be open minded, one has to accept anything that comes in. Meaning, you must accept both truth and falacy. Meaning, you must say there both is and is not a God, there both is and isn't a Big Bang, and you both do and don't exist. Such a philosophy as that, makes you not worthy of listening to, save to occasionally give you a chance to revive your mind for once.
Bottom line being, if your open minded, the useful brain falls out.
However, if you are discernment minded, going according to observation, logic, and factors/scenario's.
Now, I am about to state something even accepted by evolutionists, however the application of it was never used, due to open mindedness.
Black Holes are caused by great compression of matter via gravity. They suck in everything including light. Generally they are "formed by two neutron stars colliding/compressing." However, when this is applied to the Big Bang however, one realizes that the Big Bang is damned. The Big Bang includes all of the universe compressed. It cannot explode, it can only implode, and compress into a Black Hole.
Despite the fact, that before this scientific damnation, which is verified by evolutionists without even knowing it, that it is already damned by the fact that there is no observable explanation for the matter to exist, without matter occasionaly spontaneously generating.
As for God, he could both exist and not exist physically.
If there is a God who created a physical universe, he could clearly make a non-physical or spiritual universe to live in.
I don't like the "pastors" arguement. Some people are just blind, and will never believe until they see it in a physical world, instead of theorizing if it is possible for a God to exist, but always theorizing how God cannot exist.
You cannot prove that God does not exist, but you can disprove evolution by theorizing, and you can prove that God exists by theorizing and observing.
For instance, there are billions of people that believe in God, have you ever considered that if you are right, billions of people are maniacs? If Billions are maniacs, then there is no such thing as evolution! We would be better off being "monkeys", and not being maniacs, but animals, never having to be wrong. But just having to exist.
|
United States22883 Posts
You are such an idiot. It's not worth my time to write a real reply to you, but I just had to say that.
|
On February 03 2008 02:56 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2008 11:22 FieryBalrog wrote:
But thats not a basis for a moral system at all. It is what is that sound like definition of morality to me, define it differently, if you define it as set of rules given by invisibole wizard then it is not. But I don't see how rules given by God where only motivation to do as he told is fear is morality, that can be convenient useful system but not moral it would remove altruism.
God isn't an invisible wizard, quit thinking of God in those terms. Moral law is eternal and real, that is the basis for moral philosophy as we attempt to discover that eternal and real law. Without proposing such a law, attempts at creating moral systems degenerate into incoherence, which is what I'm saying.
On February 03 2008 11:22 FieryBalrog wrote:
You are borough up in morality system where homosexuality is non moral? Where not being virgin before marriage is consider to be crime that should be punished by death? I don't think so. Maybe read Bible but not only nice bits, you will see that morality of people that lived 2000 years ago is diferent then morality of modern Christians, and we had to get our moral change form something else then Bible.
I'm not a Christian although I've probably studied the Bible more than you have. The morality of people that lived 2000 years ago was different, and there were rules i disagree with, just as there are rules today I disagree with. Second of all, a lot of the changes through the years were based upon different readings of the Bible, or different interpretations, and this is only one part of the world to boot. Furthermore, the system of morality advocated by Western atheists draws on Western secular tradition, which in turn is based on heavily Christian (and generally Abrahamic) concepts, sometimes present in other cultures, sometimes absent or modified. The primacy of the individual, the inviolability of human rights, etc.
On February 03 2008 02:56 Polis wrote:
Morality existed before Christian religion. Many religions were made up (that you don't believe in) so they were made up based on what? Religion (as Christian you agree becouse they were religions before Jesus come on earth, right?) was made up based on something so it can't be basis.
again I'm not a Christian. And yes morality has always existed in human society as an attempt to discover God's eternal law.
On February 03 2008 02:56 Polis wrote:
Our moral's are result of genes and culture/religion influence, but genes are basis of it, whithout emotions any morality would not make sense, there would be no reason to do what invisibole wizard tell you if you would have no emotions.
So the "invisible wizard" created a law, but did not create any way for humans to experience the truth of that law?
On February 03 2008 02:56 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2008 11:22 FieryBalrog wrote:That really isn't a strong argument for atheistic morality though. I could arbitrarily and subjectively decide that killing people is OK if they have all that money that I want You can't arbitrary decide that those people would not loose becouse of it, and that what is based morality on. You can decide to act non moral, but that is diferent.
Wrong. I can arbitrarily and subjectively decide that even though if I kill people for money they lose their lives, that is moral and just. Or do you not get the concept of "arbitrary and subjective"?
On February 03 2008 11:22 FieryBalrog wrote:
So what is your basis to decide on what is good in what God said, and what is bad? Do you think that people should be stoned to death for collecting sticks on Sabbath? If no why not? God through that it is a good idea.
Since when did "God think thats a good idea"? Its an interpretation of Gods will by a particular culture that was actually rather sophisticated at the time. Do you think today's rules and ideas are perfect either?
|
FieryBalrog wrote:
I can arbitrarily and subjectively decide that even though if I kill people for money they lose their lives, that is moral and just.
Wait, don't attach "and just" to the end. I really think the term "justice" has no real meaning, and it's not fair to attach it onto my idea of morality.
It seems like you think there is some universal or "transcendent" (or whatever term you want to call it), unchanging moral code, of which every moral code used by man is a subset. (You used the words "eternal and real.") I dispute this idea. I believe that one person's actions can be seen as both moral and immoral by different people, and both can be correct.
Also, there is the difficulty of defining this "eternal and real" moral code. Could you describe it, or how to derive it, to me? All I know about it so far is that you allege it exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
