|
A friend, scholar, pastor of mine wanted me to read over a letter he sent to an Atheist friend of his and he posted it on his blog and I wanted to throw it on here because, well, it makes you think. Yes I write about religion a lot and I am indeed an Atheist. My posts seem narrow minded because I'm usually responding to a narrow minded post. Trust me when I say that I am very open minded. I go to churches now just to hear what religious people have to say. I am a frequent of Churches and Temples, and I still don't see proof of the existence of God in any shape or form.
Now if you were to ask me if I would like there to be a God, and that there was something after death to look forward to, then I would have to say yes. That doesn't mean I want the God of any certain religion...if someone could convince me of reincarnation I would love to follow that. If only there were a religion based on the idea that if we live a just life, one that doesn't affect humanity in a negative way and would allow us to live on after death (in some way, shape or form) then I would happily follow it.
Unfortunately or fortunately (I haven't figured that out yet.) I still believe we have one life, and that every second should be cherished. Some people take this idea and philosophy and use it in negative effects. They use it as an excuse to do horrific things and justify it as not having to answer to a higher being after they die. Just as on the opposite side of the fence people do horrific things in the name of God.
Which one is more just? Neither. I think first priority should be being human. I don't commit crimes against humanity for one reason...I am part of humanity. Every person is part of humanity, as opposed to some people being Christian or Muslim or Hindu. I really don't think it is a hard concept to figure out.
That being said, I post this letter...
Is there a God?
Yes and no.
"There" (the adverb denoting place and location) is no God. For God to be God, in the sense of an eternal, self-existent being responsible for all that we call existence, the one thing he cannot be is "there." God is of necessity invisible. There is a place called Timbuktu, there is planet called Neptune, there is a cup of coffee sitting next to me, but in that sense, there is no God. That would be to place God within the universe as another object. That is what he cannot be. Unless he were to choose to in someone way join creation. (This is what Christians believe concerning the Incarnation of Christ, but that is beyond this discussion).
Can I prove that God exists? I don't think so; at least not in the way I might prove that I have three cats living in my house. I’m confident that God can prove his own existence, but he doesn’t seem to be inclined to do so. At least not at the present moment. Though, without trying to persuade you to believe me, I do believe that God will, in his own time, erase all doubt of his reality from the mind of every intelligent being. But, as C.S. Lewis said, "When the author walks onto the stage, the play is over."
So "there" is no God.
But I believe God is.
Why?
Certainly not because I can necessarily make an ironclad argument for his existence, but because I know that when I try my best to not believe in God, I know I am lying to myself.
Do I want there to be a God? Perhaps. But I can tell you what I want even more than the existence of God, and that is this: the Truth. And when I have experimented with thinking God out of existence, I know I have lied to myself. Is this a persuasive argument? Probably not for you. But it is for me. Perhaps the most persuasive. I know there is a God because I know there is a God. Circular? Yes. But I can’t break out of the circle and remain true to myself. I can’t unknow what I know and be true to myself.
That’s not much of argument for believing in God, but I wanted to say it anyway. (Remember, I’m speaking from my heart .)
On to other things.
An atheist doesn’t believe in God. What doesn’t an atheist believe in? God. Let us be absolutely clear on this point. What is it that an atheist is convinced doesn’t exist? GOD. Hmm? Most atheists I have had conversations with seem to think about God nearly as much as I do. Most people don’t believe in lots of things: Unicorns, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster among them. But they don’t bother to identify themselves as a-bigfootists, etc. God is because God is. Even atheists know what God is. God is utterly unique. A class unto himself. This is the one thing God must be...or we wouldn’t even have a word for it. Unicorns may be a fable, but there are horses and animals with horns. Bigfoot may not be in the woods, but there are large mammals in the woods. Nessie may not be in the loch, but there are strange creatures in the sea. But God is utterly unique -- not a variation on a theme. To insist that one does not believe in God is an absurdity. (Strong words, but yes, I believe that.) By the very use of the word you have acknowledged the reality of this utterly unique being. And so, as G.K Chesterton quipped, "Without God there would be no atheists." I’m reminded of the recent debate at Oxford between Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath and how Dawkins exclaimed during the debate, "My God!" Yes, the crowd laughed.
Here is a question. And, really, a serious one. Why is there something instead of nothing? We are here after all. Why? For a long time the standard atheistic reply was something like, "Well, why not? That’s just the way it is." In itself that seems pretty weak, but then something happened that made that argument no longer tenable. The discovery of the Big Bang. We now know that 13.7 billion years ago something happened that began time, space and matter. Before that there was...well, nothing; nothing in the most literal sense of the word. There was not even a "before" there was just n o t h i n g. And out of nothing...bang...the beginning of time, space, matter. Why?
Here is another question. What evidence would you accept as proof for the existence of God? What would you require of God to be persuaded of his existence? He would have to do, what? Speak to you? (I’ll get to that in a moment). Appear to you? But then of course you could doubt the validity of this experience. Perhaps it’s an hallucination. Or how would you know it’s not an advanced alien with what appears, but only appears, to be divine attributes? How could God prove himself to you? Is there anything you cannot doubt? You know, it’s possible to doubt even your own existence. So is one an atheist simply because it is impossible for one to believe that God is, no matter what evidence is presented? What if God did appear to you and you were convinced that God existed? How would you convince another human of God’s reality? An interesting question to ponder.
Alright, back to bigfoot. Suppose you knew me to be a generally truthful person. And suppose I told you that there was a bigfoot living in the woods behind my house. And suppose that several other generally reliable people told you the same thing. And suppose they said that if you were to go investigate the woods yourself, that although they could not guarantee that you would see bigfoot, they nevertheless stated there was a high probability that you would see bigfoot for yourself...wouldn’t you at least bother to go have a look? In other words, these generally truthful people were not merely asking you to take their word for it, but were asking you to investigate the situation yourself. Wouldn’t you do it?
I would like to tell you about the woods where I think you might possibly find God.
Prayer.
Pray to God and see if anything happens. Ask God if he is real, and if so, to in some fashion let you know. Ask sincerely, even though you will of course ask skeptically. What have you to lose?
You at least know that there are intelligent, sincere people who claim to have met God in the woods of prayer. Perhaps they are mistaken, but why not examine the evidence yourself?
Is it scary to meet bigfoot in the woods? I can only imagine. Is it scary to encounter God in reality? I have found it so (and many other things). The implications are enormous. But when I told you that what I want more than anything is the Truth, I told the truth. Of course I may be an evil alien out to deceive you, who knows? For everything can be doubted. We all make decisions based on faith all day long.
I will not directly try to convince you that God is. Even though I have raised these questions, I think it is beyond my ability to convince anyone of God’s existence. And neither do I really feel it is my job to do so. But I will point out the woods where many people claim to have met God. And some of them were what you would call very reliable people.
Prayer.
I think it’s worth a look.
These are not patronizing words. I respect you. I respect you as a fellow human being, a genuine seeker and as a remarkably intelligent man. I am simply sharing with you my experience with God. And I do so in hope that you might have a similar experience. It’s not really an argument I am offering (though I have made some weak points and raised a few questions). What I am offering is the possibility of an experience. No guarantees, but the possibility of (as unlikely as it may seem!) -- experiencing God.
I wish you all the best.
Your friend
 
|
There is VERY little substance, and no argument being made. And your friend is an idiot..
We can all agree that our world is immensely complex, but how can any religion, or any logical man believe and conclude that a vastly more Complex and less likely being or phenomena, exists to create it.
|
Unfortunately you are missing the point of his letter. This isn't a letter trying to prove god, therefore no argument needs to be made. He is simply writing and trying to convey his mindset. Anyone to take any side of the line could be considered an "idiot". It's naive to say there isn't a god, just as much as it is naive to say there is a god. Simple as that.
|
Define arguments?
There is full of arguments in that letter. Whether or not they seem like good arguments to you is a different thing entirely.
Religious people often use alot of metaphors and this was no different
I honestly don't know what to believe at all anymore. I call myself an agnostic and I leave the question whether or not god exists open
|
I believe he confuses the multiple potential meanings of the word atheist. A = without, and theism = god belief. Without god belief. Not necessarily a denial of the possibility of god. Or to put it another way, absence of belief is not belief in absence of god.
Most atheists, in my experience are soft position atheists who don't deny the possibility of god (though they tend to find the existence of god very unlikely), they just don't actively believe in god. In other words, atheism as it is typically practiced is synonymous with agnosticism.
Yep, a semantics issue, but important to think about in these kinds of discussions, because my feeling is that the audience he is addressing is much smaller than the group that typically identify as atheists.
Other than that, I admire him for being truthful about the fact that he can't prove anything.
|
I would also like to say I am skeptical of his thinking. See, first of all, saying the bigbang automatically implies a maker is kind of iffy to me... I don't see why it implies that at all. I don't see at all why things can't "just happen." I don't think he made a case for his point of view at all, in that regard.
If things require a maker, who makes the maker? If the maker doesn't require a maker, why does anything else require a maker?
The other problem I see is that if we follow his reasoning all the way to the end, and finally conclude there is a God, all of a sudden I think we will be getting into the bible and talking about doing X Y and Z and not doing A B C (in other words, now we are all of a sudden sucked into some Christian sect, and no longer talking philosophically about the existence or nonexistence of God. If there is a God, all of a sudden we all become Christians.
This last point is an assumption on my part, as I assume he is a Christian. He may not be, and in that case I withdraw the above paragraph (and must state my further respect for the integrity of the writer - as the existence of god does not itself prove Christianity in particular is correct - something many Christians seem to overlook.)
|
Well in that case the word atheist is misused because if you don't have god belief that is like saying there is no god obviously
What I dislike about these discussions is that everything becomes about semantics and you can't really argue about it.
It all boils down to either believeing in god or not believeing.
|
Some people need comfort in dealing with the unknown, and some don't. To those that don't need it, all of this sounds like the most absurd thing in the world, but in reality it's just a quality of life thing for the individual. We all have our ways of dealing.
I don't see any other reason for any of it.
|
Just another little part of the discussion...
This letter is exactly as advertised: A letter to an atheist. It's not my thoughts on atheism, but what I wanted to say to an atheist. I have thoughts about atheism I don't always say to an atheist.
For example:
Atheism has a moral quality to it. This is why the Scriptures count unbelief as a sin. As Blaise Pascal said, "The heart has its reasons or which reason knows nothing." This is as true of unbelief as it is of faith.
This is why most atheists are atheists of convenience and not thorough atheists. For example: If you are going to be an atheist you have to throw out any expectation of justice. I agree with Dostoevsky who placed these words in the mouth of the atheistic Ivan Karamazov: "Without God all things are permissible."
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.
|
I think you're looking at it too black/white Skew
I mean, many people become religious when faced with an terminal disease or something similar and you're not really that hardcore and tough when death is around the corner
so those arguments that religious people need faith because they are weak are kind of silly to me because we are all weak when it comes down to it
|
On February 02 2008 03:17 JensOfSweden wrote:
I think you're looking at it too black/white Skew
I mean, many people become religious when faced with an terminal disease or something similar and you're not really that hardcore and tough when death is around the corner
so those arguments that religious people need faith because they are weak are kind of silly to me because we are all weak when it comes down to it
"When faced with a terminal disease" is exactly that: the unknown. They will die, and they come to the realization of it, and it's the most terrifying thing they've ever fathomed, so they turn to god or whatever else.
I doubt you can find me a situation that I can't explain where someone turns to a personal god.
edit: And I'm not sure what the thing about hardcore is all about. Yes, everyone is afraid of death. I am, and I've already admitted I'm going to believe in god before I die for relief (I'll 100% trick myself and block out the logical side).
|
On the issue of morality, I don't see a reason for there to be an absolute foundation.
This is the thing with Western thinkers, they seem to demand that there be some absolute foundation that we can build everything else off of in a logically consistent way. Many atheists (many TL.net folks also) also have this desire (and the Christian writing here certainly has that desire). People want a model that can consistently be applied to everything. I think it is better to be open to the possibility of contradiction, or multiple foundations, or shifting patterns in the foundation, so that nothing we say can ever be absolutely true, but rather contingent on other things..... like infinite rotating mirrors, constantly reflecting different images depending on how we look at it all.
I don't need for "thou shalt not kill" to be inscribed in the foundation of existence. I don't need for two parallel lines to never meet. I don't need absolute morality or an absolute lawgiver (sociologically and philosophically I really find the writer's use of that metaphor to be very interesting - likewise when people refer to this "outside god" as a male.)
|
On February 02 2008 03:34 Skew wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2008 03:17 JensOfSweden wrote:
I think you're looking at it too black/white Skew
I mean, many people become religious when faced with an terminal disease or something similar and you're not really that hardcore and tough when death is around the corner
so those arguments that religious people need faith because they are weak are kind of silly to me because we are all weak when it comes down to it
"When faced with a terminal disease" is exactly that: the unknown. They will die, and they come to the realization of it, and it's the most terrifying thing they've ever fathomed, so they turn to god or whatever else. I doubt you can find me a situation that I can't explain where someone turns to a personal god. edit: And I'm not sure what the thing about hardcore is all about. Yes, everyone is afraid of death. I am, and I've already admitted I'm going to believe in god before I die for relief (I'll 100% trick myself and block out the logical side).
Oh alright then....
yeah death is like something you don't think about really.
The most painful thing is when young people who really don't want to are dying and they just break down knowing nothing they do will prevent it frmo happening
|
United States22883 Posts
By praying "meaningfully", you're essentially willing yourself to believe and at that point you're looking for a meaning. You can find a meaning anywhere if you over-analyze or hope for anything long enough. My question to your friend is - why stop at Christianity? If it's worth our time to "try" his religion and see if it works, why not "try" other religions and see if they work better? Why not try Buddhism, Islam or Scientology?
The people that go in and take personality tests at Scientology centers generally seem to convince themselves that those beliefs are correct. How is his theory for Christianity any different?
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 02 2008 03:49 JensOfSweden wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2008 03:34 Skew wrote:On February 02 2008 03:17 JensOfSweden wrote:
I think you're looking at it too black/white Skew
I mean, many people become religious when faced with an terminal disease or something similar and you're not really that hardcore and tough when death is around the corner
so those arguments that religious people need faith because they are weak are kind of silly to me because we are all weak when it comes down to it
"When faced with a terminal disease" is exactly that: the unknown. They will die, and they come to the realization of it, and it's the most terrifying thing they've ever fathomed, so they turn to god or whatever else. I doubt you can find me a situation that I can't explain where someone turns to a personal god. edit: And I'm not sure what the thing about hardcore is all about. Yes, everyone is afraid of death. I am, and I've already admitted I'm going to believe in god before I die for relief (I'll 100% trick myself and block out the logical side). Oh alright then.... yeah death is like something you don't think about really. The most painful thing is when young people who really don't want to are dying and they just break down knowing nothing they do will prevent it frmo happening
At the same time, many people cope with death and unfortunate circumstances very well. We fear a lack of choice, but often it is comforting when it happens. The human mind is extremely powerful and confusing.
|
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.
It is simply wrong becouse you are harming somebody you produce pain. Do you really need any transcend being to tell you that pain/suffering is bad?
|
As for the letter you can short it:
1)I emotionally feel that God exist.
2)God exist becouse it exist.
3)People that say that they don't emotionally feel that God exist, are lying. I just know it like emotionally.
4)How can you be sure that God does not exist if you didn't try brain washing into believing in him?
"Here is another question. What evidence would you accept as proof for the existence of God? "
1)He could logically explain why he create this mess instead of actually design something better assuming that he care about his creation as Christians claim.
2)He could let me create my own reality.
I could probably go lower then those but I expect the best of God.
"Is there anything you cannot doubt? You know, it’s possible to doubt even your own existence."
Nothing is certain therfore making things up is as valid as science.
btw. even if everybody would feel emotionally about God that would not be prove of his existence.
|
On February 02 2008 09:31 Polis 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. It is simply wrong becouse you are harming somebody you produce pain. Do you really need any transcend being to tell you that pain/suffering is bad?
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.
|
i was actually rather excited to read this since im an atheist but it was rather unimpressive.
|
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.
|
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
