Ex-Atheist.com [Archive I]

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Puam
moral uh? Well, you were talking a lot about manipulating this and that.... suuuuuuure.
Or what about the so-called loss of compassion? That's moral too.

Anyway, this is way too serieus for this thread, ... Kant got it all figured out centuries ago...

My manipulation of people, and loss of compassion for them, didn't come until years after my embrace of atheism. Also, I am only speaking for myself, not other atheists, when I give my autobiographical account. Frankly, I don't consider ridiculing people for their beliefs as moral either, but hey, that's what this thread is all about. Without God, morality is merely contrasting but equal opinion.

Yes, this type of discussion is indeed too 'serieus' for this thread. I shall let you have your fun in peace. It's such a drag when an opponent is capable of defending his point of view. Sucks the fun right out of the game! Of course, if any of you are up to seeing just how well I can defend my position, just start the thread and let me know.

A.S.A. Jones

Puam

June 19, 2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Hired Gun
My manipulation of people, and loss of compassion for them, didn't come until years after my embrace of atheism.

So it wasn't because of atheism? Oh, I completely misunderstood you then. So, it can happen again, possibly even because you are a christian?

Also, I am only speaking for myself, not other atheists, when I give my autobiographical account.

That's ok with me. I'm not the judge of your personal feelings or convictions. I do have my problems with it; but I think you got that already.
But if you are only being autobiographical, then why the various 'tips' for debating atheists and skeptics? You are not getting away with calling it "witnessing".

Frankly, I don't consider ridiculing people for their beliefs as moral either, but hey, that's what this thread is all about. Without God, morality is merely contrasting but equal opinion.

"merely", "but", ... I'd say that without Gawd, we'd loose a lot of humour...

Yes, this type of discussion is indeed too 'serieus' for this thread. I shall let you have your fun in peace. It's such a drag when an opponent is capable of defending his point of view. Sucks the fun right out of the game! Of course, if any of you are up to seeing just how well I can defend my position, just start the thread and let me know.

I guess you meant "incapable" and I guess you mistook my remark of offtopicness as a weakness to debate it. Oh well, have it your way, since it's only an autobiography...

Keatslover

June 19, 2003, 11:11 AM

Well, at least this one isn't a bible literalist and I have to admit that it's not only reason that makes up the human mind. But what this person has over-looked is that the human mind in it's artistic subjective form goes both ways. If the human mind can spot these puzzles of illusion, then it can create them as well. Granted, if he can go through the bible and come up with some meaning to tie into it and back it up, he'll have one helluava English paper. Perhaps the Bible does have an underlying meaning but that doesn't mean it has to be super-natural. After all, the puzzles he uses as examples are all man made. Don't sell short the human ability to create puzzles as well as figure them out.

keyser_soze

June 19, 2003, 11:44 AM

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Puam
So it wasn't because of atheism? Oh, I completely misunderstood you then. So, it can happen again, possibly even because you are a christian?

It was because of atheism that I reached a logical conclusion that allowed me to lose my compassion for other people. I realize that not everyone who holds an atheistic belief will follow that belief to its logical end, and/or act upon that conclusion if it is eventually reached.

The only way I can logicallysee me losing my compassion for people again is if I lose my faith. I don't deny the possibility that I may lose my compassion for others through an illogical or hypocritical avenue. However, I intend to be neither.

That's ok with me. I'm not the judge of your personal feelings or convictions. I do have my problems with it; but I think you got that already.

Well, I vaguely got that impression, yes.

But if you are only being autobiographical, then why the various 'tips' for debating atheists and skeptics? You are not getting away with calling it "witnessing".

The comments that you addressed were located in my autobiography, "From Skepticism To Worship". My goal to teach Christians how to logically defend their faith has nothing to do with my autobiography. I never confuse debate with witnessing and I even make the statement in "Your Best Witness",

"What is the best way to witness to an atheist? Live your Christianity, don't debate it."

When I enter debate, it is not to witness to my opponent, but to systematically destroy his arguments against my faith.

I guess you meant "incapable" and I guess you mistook my remark of offtopicness as a weakness to debate it. Oh well, have it your way, since it's only an autobiography... :p :p

No, I meant exactly what I said and I also acknowledged the fact that our current conversation is off topic and I have, therefore, presented you with an opportunity to continue our little discussion elsewhere. I have complete confidence in your ability to grind me into the ground. Surely, you would not pass up the chance to showcase your superior intellect?

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by keyser_soze
Why start a thread, just join any one of a few dozen that are already in progress. Be warned however, that you better be on the ball. I would suggest moral foundations forum, since you seem to not be grasping how a moral system can exist independantly of a sky daddy. Just participate.

I've just got done arguing about morality with Vorkosigan and stevencarr here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=105278#post105278

Thanks for the warning. I'd really hate to go into such a thread unprepared. :D

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Keatslover
Well, at least this one isn't a bible literalist and I have to admit that it's not only reason that makes up the human mind. But what this person has over-looked is that the human mind in it's artistic subjective form goes both ways. If the human mind can spot these puzzles of illusion, then it can create them as well. Granted, if he can go through the bible and come up with some meaning to tie into it and back it up, he'll have one helluava English paper. Perhaps the Bible does have an underlying meaning but that doesn't mean it has to be super-natural. After all, the puzzles he uses as examples are all man made. Don't sell short the human ability to create puzzles as well as figure them out.

When a puzzle is purposefully created, it involves intention of design. While I can see one very intelligent individual sitting down and coming up with a design and then going on to manufacture the pieces of the puzzle, I can't see a dozen individuals, working independently of each other, managing to come up with puzzle pieces that fit to form a design of which they weren't even aware.

A.S.A. Jones

keyser_soze

June 19, 2003, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Hired Gun
I've just got done arguing about morality with Vorkosigan and stevencarr here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=105278#post105278

Thanks for the warning. I'd really hate to go into such a thread unprepared. :D

A.S.A. Jones

Did you really feel that you had won that argument? Because it appeared you did, and honestly, I cannot figure out how you reached that conclusion.:confused:

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by keyser_soze
Did you really feel that you had won that argument? Because it appeared you did, and honestly, I cannot figure out how you reached that conclusion.:confused:

Any time my opponent admits that the only way to live successfully as an atheist is to be willfully or blissfully ignorant of atheism's logical ramifications, then yes, I consider myself victorious.

A.S.A. Jones

braces_for_impact

June 19, 2003, 02:25 PM

QoS, congratulations on another hillarious edition!

Hired Gun, I was brousing around your sight, and the problem I perceive is that your story doesn't strike me as sincere. I am willing to admit that the former atheist you describe yourself as is possible in terms of your behavior, thought processes, etc. What really "sets my alarm bells ringing" is that the atheist that you claimed to have been seems to be the exact same as the 'stereotypical' atheist that is in the mindset of many Christians.

Many of these same Christians I have met, both personally and on the net, claim to have behaved exactly as you do when they were 'atheists', especially when they're testifying. Although I do not know you, I find this suspiscious. It smacks of a conversion technique to me. If as your website claims, you are out to eradicate arguments against your faith, then what does this testimony you have offered really accomplish?

I will admit I have only browsed your webpage and have not gone through it in depth, and some of your statements I do agree with. The character you described as your former self seems rather two dimensional, however.

One thing is for sure, you have the arrogance of a "rabid atheist" and a "fundie" down pat.

I do encourage you to try to participate in the threads here, or start your own. I would enjoy speaking to you in the Moral Principles forum.

P.S.

Yes, this type of discussion is indeed too 'serieus' for this thread. I shall let you have your fun in peace. It's such a drag when an opponent is capable of defending his point of view. Sucks the fun right out of the game! Of course, if any of you are up to seeing just how well I can defend my position, just start the thread and let me know

Thanks for showing us how you live you Christianity and do not debate it.

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by braces_for_impact
QoS, congratulations on another hillarious edition!

Hired Gun, I was brousing around your sight, and the problem I perceive is that your story doesn't strike me as sincere. I am willing to admit that the former atheist you describe yourself as is possible in terms of your behavior, thought processes, etc. What really "sets my alarm bells ringing" is that the atheist that you claimed to have been seems to be the exact same as the 'stereotypical' atheist that is in the mindset of many Christians.

Is there no truth behind stereotypes? Do stereotypes just generate themselves, despite truth to the contrary, or are stereotypes formed based on observeable truths?

You know, Dan Barker and Farrell Till seem to have been 'stereotypical' fundies that are in the mindset of many atheists. I'll bet that you don't consider them to be lying about their past. But it is so much easier to call a person a liar than to deal with that person's truth. Dan Barker and Farrell Till? Why they never were Christians to begin with! A.S.A. Jones, C.S. Lewis, and Lee Strobel? Why they never were atheists to begin with! There. Let's just call every person who ever experiences a change in philosophy a liar so that we don't have to try and see the truth that caused the change.

I now attend a church with several members who knew me as an atheist for over ten years. What do you want? References? Want my parent's phone number? Believe what you wish; that's what you will do anyway.

Many of these same Christians I have met, both personally and on the net, claim to have behaved exactly as you do when they were 'atheists', especially when they're testifying. Although I do not know you, I find this suspiscious. It smacks of a conversion technique to me. If as your website claims, you are out to eradicate arguments against your faith, then what does this testimony you have offered really accomplish?

My testimony has absolutely nothing to do with apologetics. I included my testimony to encourage those whom I once discouraged and to show them that some seeds are not watered in vain. I'm not interested in conversion through some self-indulgent, sentimental personal testimony. I'm interested in conversion through truth.

I will admit I have only browsed your webpage and have not gone through it in depth, and some of your statements I do agree with. The character you described as your former self seems rather two dimensional, however.

It seems two dimensional because that's exactly what I was. Check out the rest. It rocks. Really.

One thing is for sure, you have the arrogance of a "rabid atheist" and a "fundie" down pat.

You think I'm bad now, you should have seen me before. :) Don't hate me just because I'm confident.

I do encourage you to try to participate in the threads here, or start your own. I would enjoy speaking to you in the Moral Principles forum.

P.S.

Thanks for showing us how you live you Christianity and do not debate it.

To clarify: Witness = live your Christianity, don't debate it.
Debate = Destroy your opponent's argument.

To see what the Bible has to say about debate, check out my essay titled, "Contending Earnestly for the Faith; Logic, Debate and Apologetics, http://www.ex-atheist.com

I can't show you how I live my Christianity through words on the Internet. But I sure can show you how I debate it.

A.S.A. Jones

ex-xian

June 19, 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Hired Gun
I appreciate the humor. Of course, I could have done a much better job of it, but where would be the logic in parodying my own site? I have linked to it, though.

A.S.A. Jones
So is this a first in the history of Nutwatch?
MORE
Yes, this type of discussion is indeed too 'serieus' for this thread. I shall let you have your fun in peace. It's such a drag when an opponent is capable of defending his point of view. Sucks the fun right out of the game! Of course, if any of you are up to seeing just how well I can defend my position, just start the thread and let me know.
That wasn't his point. The mods here do their job well, and if this thread goes any more off topic, I suspect it will be moved or closed. That said, I have to comment (and contribute to the furtherance of this deliquant thread).
MORE
Is there no truth behind stereotypes? Do stereotypes just generate themselves, despite truth to the contrary, or are stereotypes formed based on observeable truths?
I guess you're in favor of racial profilling too, because there is "truth behind sterotypes."
MORE
It was because of atheism that I reached a logical conclusion that allowed me to lose my compassion for other people. I realize that not everyone who holds an atheistic belief will follow that belief to its logical end, and/or act upon that conclusion if it is eventually reached.
So anyone who disagrees with isn't logical, huh? Which atheistic thinkers and philosophers did you read? Perhaps some of them would have had a solution to your quandry. Or are you so sure of your own thinking abilities that you need consult no one else?

I am a non-theist, in the way that theism is commonly defined, but I do believe that objective standards of morality can and are present without the need for a platonic-like idea. The fact that there are many, many atheists/non-theists who feel the same way should cause you to question your conclusion. Unless you're sure that we're all incapable of using logic for ourselves.

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by ex-xian
So is this a first in the history of Nutwatch?

That wasn't his point. The mods here do their job well, and if this thread goes any more off topic, I suspect it will be moved or closed. That said, I have to comment (and contribute to the furtherance of this deliquant thread).
[/b]
I guess you're in favor of racial profilling too, because there is "truth behind sterotypes."
[/b]

Actually, it wouldn't necessarily follow that I would be in favor of racial profiling just because I believe that there may be truth behind stereotypes. I made statements concerning the truth of stereotypical atheists as it applied to one individual, specifically, me. Racial profiling attempts to apply stereotypical truths to entire groups of people, not taking into account their individual capacities to not conform to the stereotype. Thus, it is one thing to say that an individual fits the stereotype and another to say that the stereotype applies to all individuals within the group. Nice attempt to paint me as a racist, though. I really admire that type of deviousness.

[quote]
So anyone who disagrees with isn't logical, huh?

No, I stated in my site that two people can logically arrive at contrary conclusions. Disagreement doesn't constitute refutation, nor does agreement imply that anything has been 'proven'. It is, in my opinion, illogical to think that atheism, when followed to its ultimate end, can result in anything other than nihilism.

Which atheistic thinkers and philosophers did you read? Perhaps some of them would have had a solution to your quandry. Or are you so sure of your own thinking abilities that you need consult no one else?

All of them. Yes, I have more confidence in my own thinking abilities than those of any others.

I am a non-theist, in the way that theism is commonly defined, but I do believe that objective standards of morality can and are present without the need for a platonic-like idea. The fact that there are many, many atheists/non-theists who feel the same way should cause you to question your conclusion. Unless you're sure that we're all incapable of using logic for ourselves. [/B]

I see. You are saying that I should doubt my own conclusions based on the fallacy of ad populum. I haven't given into peer pressure since 1973.

A.S.A. Jones

braces_for_impact

June 19, 2003, 04:31 PM

To see what the Bible has to say about debate, check out my essay titled, "Contending Earnestly for the Faith; Logic, Debate and Apologetics, http://www.ex-atheist.com

Now come on, as an ex-atheist you should realize the bible will have no weight with me in any debate. This is exactly what I am talking about. Of course I'm not going to ask for references or your personal information. It's simple little mistakes like these that make me skeptical of your claims. If I were to ever feel that I had sufficient evidence to convert to Christianity, and I felt the need to debate a religious issue to atheists, the last thing I would do is offer the bible as any form of evidence.

Also, I do evaluate sincerity when someone tells me they used to be a Christian and are now atheists, but that wasn't the issue. In any case as I said welcome to the forums, I hope you stick around.

ex-xian

June 19, 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Hired Gun
Nice attempt to paint me as a racist, though. I really admire that type of deviousness.

Attempt to paint you as a racist? Where the hell did you get that from? Nice attempt to paint my post as an ad hominem, though. I really don't admire that type of deviousness, espcially from a xian.

(edited comments in italics) My point in raising racial profiling was in support of braces_for_impacts comments that your "testimony" seemed stretched to reflect typical xian's attitude toward an atheist. Your story seems to be a "racial" profile of an atheist. I appreciate your comments that there is some truth in some stereotypes, but are you really sure you didn't fudge the truth? Not even a tinsy, winsy bit?

MORE
No, I stated in my site that two people can logically arrive at contrary conclusions. Disagreement doesn't constitute refutation, nor does agreement imply that anything has been 'proven'. It is, in my opinion, illogical to think that atheism, when followed to its ultimate end, can result in anything other than nihilism.

If two people logically arrive at contradictory conclusions, then one of them has used faulty logic. Two people can logically arrive at different conclusions, but not contradictory.
MORE
All of them. Yes, I have more confidence in my own thinking abilities than those of any others.
All of them? Could you give some names?
I see. You are saying that I should doubt my own conclusions based on the fallacy of ad populum. I haven't given into peer pressure since 1973.
I see that you haven't sworn off misrepresenting those who disagree with you. To commit the appeal to popularity fallacy, I would contend that a proposition is true because a large number of people hold to it. I only made the statement that you should question your conclusions because there are many logical, reasoning people who arrived at a contradictory postition from yours.

From ex-atheist.com (http://www.ex-atheist.com)
DIRECT HIT DEBATE TIP:
If one already knows it all, he
isn't_ in a position to learn
anything new.
Are you really sure that you know it all wrt atheistic morality? You yourself said that you didn't start out as a nihilistic atheist. You statements that men are like termites seems to reflect your final state of belief before conversion. Yet, I know of no modern atheist thinkers who would agree that men are not significantly different and infinitly of more value than termites.

Once again, I would like to know who you have read. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you summarize your arguements against their points.

I realized after I posted this that I did not express my reasons for bringing up racial profiling. Edited thusly.

Puam

June 19, 2003, 05:01 PM

It was because of atheism that I reached a logical conclusion that allowed me to lose my compassion for other people. I realize that not everyone who holds an atheistic belief will follow that belief to its logical end, and/or act upon that conclusion if it is eventually reached.

ok, my assumption was wrong. You do not think that all atheists are immoral, but I get the feeling that the ones who are, are considered exceptions by you.

No, I meant exactly what I said and I also acknowledged the fact that our current conversation is off topic and I have, therefore, presented you with an opportunity to continue our little discussion elsewhere. I have complete confidence in your ability to grind me into the ground. Surely, you would not pass up the chance to showcase your superior intellect?

Alas, I have a degree in philosophy, so I ought to know that I have not a superior intellect, and that I do not know everything. I have no superior intellect, and I know it, and I'm not out in *proving* that my opinion is right to the rest of the world (I'm no missionary, not even a witness in your definition). That aside, you are just challinging for the sake of it.
Not that I have a problem with that, but give me some time to browse other forums (about morality and such). I'll meet you there.
Since this is far too much offtopic, this will be my last comment here. I do not want to risk any severe beating by the moderators!

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by braces_for_impact
Now come on, as an ex-atheist you should realize the bible will have no weight with me in any debate.

First of all, I realize that the Bible has no authority to an atheist and throughout my site I make comment about this; "Most of the explanations I heard rested on the Bible's authority. "The Bible says... the Bible says... the Bible says." Who cared what the Bible said? I certainly didn't. "It's all a bunch of made up, superstitious baloney."

Many atheists believe that Christians are hypocrites when they attempt to defend their faith because they take certain passages out of context. When you snidely (and take no insult, because I am one who can appreciate snide remarks!) threw back my quote about living my Christianity and not debating it, I assumed that you were implying that I was a hypocrite, not only unto my own philosophy, but unto my Christian faith as well. That is why I made reference to the Bible, not because I thought that it would 'carry weight' with you, but to defend my actions against what I thought was an implication of hypocrisy.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Of course I'm not going to ask for references or your personal information. It's simple little mistakes like these that make me skeptical of your claims. If I were to ever feel that I had sufficient evidence to convert to Christianity, and I felt the need to debate a religious issue to atheists, the last thing I would do is offer the bible as any form of evidence.

Yes, yes, and I'm sure that now, despite all of my advice to Christians to not use the Bible as an authority with those who don't believe in the authority, my explanation will be seen as an elaborate coverup.

Also, I do evaluate sincerity when someone tells me they used to be a Christian and are now atheists, but that wasn't the issue. In any case as I said welcome to the forums, I hope you stick around.

Thank you for the welcome! Debate is my only form of relaxation. I'll be visiting more often.

A.S.A. Jones

ex-xian

June 19, 2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Hired Gun
It was because of atheism that I reached a logical conclusion that allowed me to lose my compassion for other people. I realize that not everyone who holds an atheistic belief will follow that belief to its logical end, and/or act upon that conclusion if it is eventually reached.
Implicit in this statement is that an atheist who does reach your conclusion is not applying logic. Is this your intent? If not, perhaps you should retract the statement. If so, where exactly is the flaw in the reasoning of the atheists?

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by ex-xian
Attempt to paint you as a racist? Where the hell did you get that from? Nice attempt to paint my post as an ad hominem, though. I really don't admire that type of deviousness, espcially from a xian.

Now, now. Many racial profilers are indeed accused of racism and so it is not so far fetched to think that this was the direction in which you were headed. Why would you make the comment at all? You said: "I guess you're in favor of racial profilling too, because there is "truth behind sterotypes."

This technique is common and effective, but also fallacious. You were attempting an ad hominem, but committed a non-sequitur in the process. If you didn't think that racial profiling was wrong, why would you have bothered to comment? Really, you are not being honest here.

If two people logically arrive at contradictory conclusions, then one of them has used faulty logic. Two people can logically arrive at different conclusions, but not contradictory.
[/b]

False. I can give logical reasons to quit my job; I can also give logical reasons to continue in my employment. Both arguments will use logical reasoning, but they will contain subjective choices that are weighted according to a different set of preferences. I can go into much greater detail. Just let me know if you would like a formal and in depth presentation.

All of them? Could you give some names?

Kant, Sartres, Hume, Hobbes, Rand, Aristocrates, Nietzschegaard...

I see that you haven't sworn off misrepresenting those who disagree with you. To commit the appeal to popularity fallacy, I would contend that a proposition is true because a large number of people hold to it. I only made the statement that you should question your conclusions because there are many logical, reasoning people who arrived at a contradictory postition from yours.

Do you really think that I haven't questioned my conclusion? Do you really think that one day I just started tossing rose petals into the air while singing, 'Jesus Loves Me'?

Are you really sure that you know it all wrt atheistic morality? You yourself said that you didn't start out as a nihilistic atheist. You statements that men are like termites seems to reflect your final state of belief before conversion. Yet, I know of no modern atheist thinkers who would agree that men are not significantly different and infinitly of more value than termites.[quote]

Correct. I started out as an apathetic atheist who thought that the idea of God was so ridiculous that it didn't require any further thought. But the more I took my atheism to its logical conclusion, the more nihilistic I became. Your 'modern atheist thinkers' are full of crap, in my opinion.

[quote]
Once again, I would like to know who you have read. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you summarize your arguements against their points. :)

Yeah, right, I'm going to get right on that.

Say! Here's an idea! Why don't you present their points to me and I'll give you the counter arguments! That way we can debate instead of me writing an essay like a homework assignment. Or aren't you capable of presenting their points?

A.S.A. Jones

ex-xian

June 19, 2003, 05:46 PM

Welcomes to Puam and Hired Gun...forgive me for not extending them sooner.
:D
Originally posted by Puam
Alas, I have a degree in philosophy, so I ought to know that I have not a superior intellect, and that I do not know everything. I have no superior intellect, and I know it, and I'm not out in *proving* that my opinion is right to the rest of the world.
Socrates? Is that you?

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 05:47 PM

(edited comments in italics) My point in raising racial profiling was in support of braces_for_impacts comments that your "testimony" seemed stretched to reflect typical xian's attitude toward an atheist. Your story seems to be a "racial" profile of an atheist. I appreciate your comments that there is some truth in some stereotypes, but are you really sure you didn't fudge the truth? Not even a tinsy, winsy bit?

My autobiographical account is true and accurate. I have dozens of essays, composed throughout high school and college, that will verify my atheistic, anti-Christian position.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Puam
ok, my assumption was wrong. You do not think that all atheists are immoral, but I get the feeling that the ones who are, are considered exceptions by you.

This is simply untrue. My husband is an atheist but he possesses integrity and character. Two of my past mentors, with whom I am still friends, display only the highest moral attributes, even by Christian standards. I was not this type of atheist. I had no logical reason to maintain the facade of morality and I therefore found reasons to indulge in immoral behavior.

Alas, I have a degree in philosophy, so I ought to know that I have not a superior intellect, and that I do not know everything. I have no superior intellect, and I know it, and I'm not out in *proving* that my opinion is right to the rest of the world (I'm no missionary, not even a witness in your definition). That aside, you are just challinging for the sake of it.[quote]

Well, I am. I'm frightfully bored and I need these forums to unleash my intellect. By the way, the very best thinkers have always been drawn to philosophy, in my opinion. I'm sure that you could present an intelligent defense of your view. I'm sorry that I was so sarcastic towards you. It's just my Slytherin nature.

[quote]
Not that I have a problem with that, but give me some time to browse other forums (about morality and such). I'll meet you there.

All right. Just e-mail me to let me know.

Since this is far too much offtopic, this will be my last comment here. I do not want to risk any severe beating by the moderators!

Ha ha, O.K.. I can't really take a beating because I don't recognize their authority :)

A.S.A. Jones

ex-xian

June 19, 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Hired Gun
This technique is common and effective, but also fallacious. You were attempting an ad hominem, but committed a non-sequitur in the process. If you didn't think that racial profiling was wrong, why would you have bothered to comment? Really, you are not being honest here.
Really, I am being honest here. It's amazing that you have so much insight into me after knowing me only...well that's right, you don't know me at all. The only "attacking the man" that's going on here is when you attempt to show that I did so. Once again, very devious and deceptive...not very xian (and before you post any more latin, I realize the last sentence is ad hominem).

MORE
False. I can give logical reasons to quit my job; I can also give logical reasons to continue in my employment. Both arguments will use logical reasoning, but they will contain subjective choices that are weighted according to a different set of preferences. I can go into much greater detail. Just let me know if you would like a formal and in depth presentation.
No, thanks, I like to get my instruction in critical thinking from people that actually engage in it. Arriving at a conclusion of a string of reasoning and weighing pros and cons of a decision are two different proceses.
Originally posted by ex-xian
Which atheistic thinkers and philosophers did you read?

--snippage--

Originally posted by Hired Gun
Kant, Sartres, Hume, Hobbes, Rand, Aristocrates, Nietzschegaard...
Are you sure you actually read them? Kant wasn't an atheist, Plato held to god-like Ideas, and Aristotle believed in a "Prime Move"--not god, but not exactly atheistic either. Also is "Aristocrates" supposed to mean that you read both Aristotle and Socrates? If you have them, you would realize the vast differences in their philosophy, and the mistake in this amalgamation.
Do you really think that I haven't questioned my conclusion? Do you really think that one day I just started tossing rose petals into the air while singing, 'Jesus Loves Me'?
Of course I don't believe that. I believe that you sincerely questioned you atheistic beliefs, but, with all due respect, you missed my point. I was trying to say that you should continue to question what you believe, espicially since so many intelligent thinkers disagree with you conclusion about atheistic morality. A conclusion that, and please correct me if I'm wrong, contributed significantly so your conversion.
MORE
Correct. I started out as an apathetic atheist who thought that the idea of God was so ridiculous that it didn't require any further thought. But the more I took my atheism to its logical conclusion, the more nihilistic I became. Your 'modern atheist thinkers' are full of crap, in my opinion.
But you haven't cited any that you read. The two most modern in your list are Rand and Sarte. Do you think that the study of ethics stopped there. There has been, and continues to be, much work done in this area. I would recommend Alistair MacIntyre. I don't believe that he is currently an atheist, but his work on virtue and ethics are excellent, especially in light of what we're discussing.
MORE
Say! Here's an idea! Why don't you present their points to me and I'll give you the counter arguments! That way we can debate instead of me writing an essay like a homework assignment. Or aren't you capable of presenting their points?
I would like to, but you aren't giving me any clues about any modern authors you've read.

edit to correct vB code

Kevbo

June 19, 2003, 06:55 PM

Hired Gun: want to start a discussion on how morality works within an atheistic framework in the Moral Foundations & Principles section? I like your stuff, even though I disagree with it.

I suppose that many atheists become Christians because they weren't very good at atheism. It sounds like you might have been one of these. Being a secular humanist moral relativist I'm not going to fault you for that, because I'm not very good at motorcycle maintenance and therefore am not a mechanic, so I can see where you're coming from.

On second thought, maybe you converted because you lack the sharp, pointy little teeth that are so important to being an atheist. That's probably it :D

orac

June 19, 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Hired Gun
I never make the statement that atheists are immoral. I was a moral atheist for many years.
Actually, you argued that you were a bad person because you had no reason to be good - you didn't see any difference between termites and people, remember?

Originally posted by Hired Gun
I just recognize the fact that without divine authority, an atheist has no logical basis for his or her morality.
Can I ask a really silly question?

You state that divine authority is needed in order to provide a logical basis for morality. That's fine, many other people have made this claim, too.

So, why do we need morals?

I'm completely serious here. For example, can you provide a single reason why murder is wrong other than "God said so"?

The reason I ask is that your statement seems to imply that you consider a logical moral value system to be a good thing - but you also seem to think that the definition of "good" relies completely and solely on the existance of God. This leaves me wondering what actually is your logical and rational basis for deciding that a logical moral system would be a good thing.

As an example, many people consider "thou shalt not kill" to be a good commandment, but are completely unable to rationalise why they think that. Can you answer this question? "God said so" may be a valid reason why you should obey - at least assuming God is real - but is there any other reason at all why this should considered to be a good commandment?

Oddly, if you do answer this question, you'll have to do so by justifying a moral value without reference to God, which you've claimed you can't do. (Before you get offended, I actually suspect you can answer this question - which is pretty much my point. If you have to, prove me wrong by saying you still don't know why murder is wrong, but I do hope you're a better person than that.)

Why (assuming you do) do you now believe people are different to termites? is there any reason other than "the Bible says so" or "God says so" ?

Incidentally, even if you believe that God is needed for morals to be "real", or to guarantee justice and punishment for all, this won't in and of itself cause God to be created. Proving God exists is not done by stating that God should exist or that God would be useful.

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 07:51 PM

Are you sure you actually read them? Kant wasn't an atheist,

Are you sure you know your philosophers? Kant was a practical Christian but he was agnostic in his philosophy.

Plato held to god-like Ideas,

I never mentioned Plato.

and Aristotle believed in a "Prime Move"--not god, but not exactly atheistic either.

A 'Prime Move' could be an unstable isotope. Aristotle did not believe in a god(s).

Also is "Aristocrates" supposed to mean that you read both Aristotle and Socrates? If you have them, you would realize the vast differences in their philosophy, and the mistake in this amalgamation.

Hence, the irony of humour.

[/b]
Of course I don't believe that. I believe that you sincerely questioned you atheistic beliefs, but, with all due respect, you missed my point. I was trying to say that you should continue to question what you believe, espicially since so many intelligent thinkers disagree with you conclusion about atheistic morality. A conclusion that, and please correct me if I'm wrong, contributed significantly so your conversion.
[/b]

I am an intelligent thinker in my own right. Don't tell me that free thinking has become trapped in the herd mentality.

But you haven't cited any that you read. The two most modern in your list are Rand and Sarte. Do you think that the study of ethics stopped there. There has been, and continues to be, much work done in this area. I would recommend Alistair MacIntyre. I don't believe that he is currently an atheist, but his work on virtue and ethics are excellent, especially in light of what we're discussing.
[/b]

I'll tell you the name of a modern day atheist philosopher with whom I am in agreement of certain key issues: Peter Singer. At least he realizes the reality to which logic leads.

Bottom Line: If our lives are products of random mutation and natural selection, we are only pretending to be worth more than a fungus. I don't care how any modern day philosopher tries to fluff it up and make it pretty. No matter what mental gymnastics he can perform for the audience, he will always land flat on his ass in front of a person who sincerely seeks the truth of this world's reality.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Kevbo
Hired Gun: want to start a discussion on how morality works within an atheistic framework in the Moral Foundations & Principles section? I like your stuff, even though I disagree with it.

I suppose that many atheists become Christians because they weren't very good at atheism. It sounds like you might have been one of these. Being a secular humanist moral relativist I'm not going to fault you for that, because I'm not very good at motorcycle maintenance and therefore am not a mechanic, so I can see where you're coming from.

On second thought, maybe you converted because you lack the sharp, pointy little teeth that are so important to being an atheist. That's probably it :D

Sure just give me the link and I'll start posting. Thanks for the compliment, too, by the way. As for the sharp, pointy little teeth, I still have those. They scare my pastor but he'll get over it.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by orac
Actually, you argued that you were a bad person because you had no reason to be good - you didn't see any difference between termites and people, remember?

I also said that not everyone who holds to an atheistic philosophy will take that philosophy to its ultimate logical conclusion. Many atheists will remain blissfully ignorant; some will choose to act willfully ignorant.

Can I ask a really silly question?

You state that divine authority is needed in order to provide a logical basis for morality. That's fine, many other people have made this claim, too.

So, why do we need morals?

We don't.

I'm completely serious here. For example, can you provide a single reason why murder is wrong other than "God said so"?

No, I can't.

The reason I ask is that your statement seems to imply that you consider a logical moral value system to be a good thing - but you also seem to think that the definition of "good" relies completely and solely on the existance of God. This leaves me wondering what actually is your logical and rational basis for deciding that a logical moral system would be a good thing.

I never make the claim that a logical moral value system is a good thing. I simply state that without divine authority, we have no logical basis for the promotion of any value system, no matter what we think of that system. I'm not so much concerned with the definition of 'good' as I am with an objective standard. The standard of morality cannot have an objective reality without divine authority.

As an example, many people consider "thou shalt not kill" to be a good commandment, but are completely unable to rationalise why they think that. Can you answer this question? "God said so" may be a valid reason why you should obey - at least assuming God is real - but is there any other reason at all why this should considered to be a good commandment?

There is no other reason why this should be considered to be a good commandment. None. Zilch. Try to logical prove that killing is morally wrong. You will fail. Other than the reality of a god who declares killing to be morally wrong, there is no logically compelling reason for us to believe it is wrong.

Oddly, if you do answer this question, you'll have to do so by justifying a moral value without reference to God, which you've claimed you can't do. (Before you get offended, I actually suspect you can answer this question - which is pretty much my point. If you have to, prove me wrong by saying you still don't know why murder is wrong, but I do hope you're a better person than that.)

Oh my! No, you have certainly mistaken me for someone else. I really have no other reason to logically believe that murder is wrong. I could be honest and say that it emotionally upsets me, but I always choose reason over my emotions. If our lives have no inherent purpose or value, we are only kidding ourselves when we establish the facade of morality.

Go ahead. Logically prove to me that murder is wrong.

Why (assuming you do) do you now believe people are different to termites? is there any reason other than "the Bible says so" or "God says so" ?

If we are designed and loved by a god, we have inherent purpose and value as opposed to self-assigned, imaginary purpose and value.

Incidentally, even if you believe that God is needed for morals to be "real", or to guarantee justice and punishment for all, this won't in and of itself cause God to be created. Proving God exists is not done by stating that God should exist or that God would be useful.

Yes, I am aware of the fallacy of consequence and never made the argument that God exists because of the ramifications of his non-existence. I did say that belief in God provides us with a better model for the reality in which we persist than does atheism, and that a model that increasingly approaches reality in its theory, becomes more of a reality in and of itself.

A.S.A. Jones

Silent Dave

June 19, 2003, 09:28 PM

Before this thread, I suspected that Jones was never really an atheist -- in such cases where I don't have enough evidence to bet my life's savings on whether or not a person really was an atheist or a Christian or what have you, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and take their word on it, if only for simplicity's sake. But I had my suspicions about Jones.

After this thread, I would bet my life's savings that Jones was never really an atheist.

Dave

PandaJoe

June 19, 2003, 09:58 PM

So apparently, according to Hired Gun, the only reason to beleive in any morality is because someone else tells you.

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Silent Dave
Before this thread, I suspected that Jones was never really an atheist -- in such cases where I don't have enough evidence to bet my life's savings on whether or not a person really was an atheist or a Christian or what have you, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and take their word on it, if only for simplicity's sake. But I had my suspicions about Jones.

After this thread, I would bet my life's savings that Jones was never really an atheist.

Dave

I'll tell you what, Dave. If I thought that your life's savings amounted to more than the $42.50 that you have in your checking account, I would gladly bring this wager out of virtual reality and into the real world. How many of my friends'/enemies' sworn testimonies concerning my past skepticism would you deem necessary to convince you of this truth? 5? 20? 100?

Face it. No amount of evidence is enough to convince you of any truth that you don't wish to see. I am in the position to know the truth about myself and I welcome you to take steps to be in that same position. Of course, you won't. It's so much easier just to blather on about your 'fairness' and then declare me to be a liar despite your *famous* charity in giving others the benefit of the doubt. You make me ill. And then you all wonder about where the Christians get these stereotypes of atheists. You are the stereotype. Ooohhh! If you fit that stereotype so well, maybe you aren't really an atheist! Maybe you're just pretending to be one!

I would like to say that I am amazed at the level of intelligence on this thread, but it's about what I expected.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by PandaJoe
So apparently, according to Hired Gun, the only reason to beleive in any morality is because someone else tells you.

No, Panda, that is exactly contrary to what I am saying. If there is no God, then no man is in a position to force his opinion of morality upon another. One man's subjective view of morality is equal to another man's equally subjective view of morality. Thus, there is no reason to believe in any morality just because another man tells you that it is good.

It would take an authority that was above having only a subjective view of morality to legislate that morality. God's view of morality is objective, not subjective. Ask me why, if you care to know.

A.S.A. Jones

PandaJoe

June 19, 2003, 10:51 PM

Actually, forget I said anything. Listening to someone with an ego like yours isn't high on my to-do list. Let me just suggest that you knock off the attitude. Not too many people are impressed that you went from being an incredibly pretentious atheist to an incredibly pretentious theist.

Hired Gun

June 19, 2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by PandaJoe
Actually, forget I said anything. Listening to someone with an ego like yours isn't high on my to-do list. Let me just suggest that you knock off the attitude. Not too many people are impressed that you went from being an incredibly pretentious atheist to an incredibly pretentious theist.

How is my obnoxious attitude any more annoying than your 'colleagues''? Oh that's right. You agree with them and that's what makes their crummy attitudes so much more tolerable than my crappy attitude.

A.S.A. Jones

Kevbo

June 20, 2003, 12:01 AM

I don't find her attitude to be bad at all. After "debating" (read: receiving insults from) with people like Johnathan Sarfati, it doesn't seem that any other theist is half bad.

BrotherMan

June 20, 2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Hired Gun
It would take an authority that was above having only a subjective view of morality to legislate that morality. God's view of morality is objective, not subjective.

I disagree. God hands down commandments that we are to follow after hundreds of generations have mucked about in the dark. For many generations after handing out those laws, God himself and through his people breaks some of them. Now, if you're going to tell me that God's laws are good enough for us but not good enough for him then I'll tell you that you're off your rocker.

Toto

June 20, 2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Hired Gun
Kant, Sartres, Hume, Hobbes, Rand, Aristocrates, Nietzschegaard...
. . .

A.S.A. Jones

Well, this is the humor section. Aristocrates?? Aristotle and Socrates? Nietzschegaard?? Nietzsche and Kirkegaard? Is this a clue that ex-atheist is not completely on the level?

Hired Gun

June 20, 2003, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by BrotherMan
I disagree. God hands down commandments that we are to follow after hundreds of generations have mucked about in the dark. For many generations after handing out those laws, God himself and through his people breaks some of them. Now, if you're going to tell me that God's laws are good enough for us but not good enough for him then I'll tell you that you're off your rocker.

Are you saying that no authority is above the law that it establishes? Are you saying that there are no reasons that would exclude an authority from adhering to its own laws?

Let us examine parental authority, which divine authority closely resembles. A parent establishes the rule that a child must never cross the street unless that child is holding the hand of another adult. In your thinking, any time the parent needs to go across the street, they, too, must be holding the hand of another adult. In fact, any time a child is restricted from any activity, such as drinking, engaging in sexual intercourse, staying up past 10 PM, the parent would have to obey his own rules.

There is a difference between parent and child that gives the parent the right to be an authority over the child, just as there is a difference between God and man that gives God the right to be an authority over man.

You don't have to hear my response to call me 'off my rocker'. Why not just skip any guise of argument and just deliver the insult. That way you can continue to think that you make sense.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

June 20, 2003, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Toto
Well, this is the humor section. Aristocrates?? Aristotle and Socrates? Nietzschegaard?? Nietzsche and Kirkegaard? Is this a clue that ex-atheist is not completely on the level?

It's 'Kierkegaard'. Also, in a prior post, someone misspelled Sartres as Sarte.

livius drusus

June 20, 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Hired Gun
It's 'Kierkegaard'. Also, in a prior post, someone misspelled Sartres as Sarte.

That would be Sartre, actually.

Silent Dave

June 20, 2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Hired Gun
I'll tell you what, Dave. If I thought that your life's savings amounted to more than the $42.50 that you have in your checking account, I would gladly bring this wager out of virtual reality and into the real world. How many of my friends'/enemies' sworn testimonies concerning my past skepticism would you deem necessary to convince you of this truth? 5? 20? 100?

Face it. No amount of evidence is enough to convince you of any truth that you don't wish to see. I am in the position to know the truth about myself and I welcome you to take steps to be in that same position. Of course, you won't. It's so much easier just to blather on about your 'fairness' and then declare me to be a liar despite your *famous* charity in giving others the benefit of the doubt. You make me ill. And then you all wonder about where the Christians get these stereotypes of atheists. You are the stereotype. Ooohhh! If you fit that stereotype so well, maybe you aren't really an atheist! Maybe you're just pretending to be one!

I would like to say that I am amazed at the level of intelligence on this thread, but it's about what I expected.

A.S.A. Jones

I have two responses that I can make to that post, A.S.A. -- one which is appropriate to my own preffered level of discussion, and one which is appropriate to what is apparently yours. I can't decide which one to post, so I'll post them both.

RESPONSE APPROPRIATE TO SILENT DAVE'S PREFERRED LEVEL OF DISCUSSION

It seems that you may have been trying to make a point against presuming things about other people with that response. I am, of course, presuming to some extent when I say that you were never an atheist, but I think to a reasonable one. My belief comes not from stereotypes of Christians -- which I probably have like everyone else, but which I try to be wary of, -- and from your less-than-saintly behavior -- which, sadly, is common among many atheists. Rather it comes from several different, mostly little things -- observations on your use of arguments, your stance on morality, and so forth.

It is, of course, possible that you were once an atheist. And I'll admit something: if my life's savings were substantially more than what it currently is (certainly more than $42.50 in a checking account, but not posh), then I may have hesitated before making the statement that I did. But with circumstances being what they are, and with the evidence I have, I felt comfortable making the statement. I still feel comfortable making it. It may not be a rational, verifiable statement, given the impracticality of demanding things such as sworn affidavits and polygraphs, and so I would be in no position to argue it in a rational debate. But this is an informal discussion, and I simply wanted to venture an opinion. If anything, what you have written above makes me more comfortable in my statement.

RESPONSE APPROPRIATE TO HIRED GUN'S APPARENT PREFERRED LEVEL OF DISCUSSION

Yeah, well, at least other human beings want to have sex with me.

Dave

Hired Gun

June 20, 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by livius drusus
That would be Sartre, actually.

Actually, you are correct. I don't know when I started adding the rogue 's' to his name.

A.S.A. Jones

BrotherMan

June 20, 2003, 07:46 AM

I apologize for the 'off your rocker' insult and amend the offending sentence as follows:

Are you saying that God's laws are good enough for us but not good enough for him?

To which you've already replied in the affirmative.

Originally posted by Hired Gun
Are you saying that no authority is above the law that it establishes? Are you saying that there are no reasons that would exclude an authority from adhering to its own laws?

Yes, that's a fair approximation. Is my reasoning perfect? Probably not, but I am only human after all.

Let us examine parental authority, which divine authority closely resembles. A parent establishes the rule that a child must never cross the street unless that child is holding the hand of another adult. In your thinking, any time the parent needs to go across the street, they, too, must be holding the hand of another adult. In fact, any time a child is restricted from any activity, such as drinking, engaging in sexual intercourse, staying up past 10 PM, the parent would have to obey his own rules.

There is a difference between parent and child that gives the parent the right to be an authority over the child, just as there is a difference between God and man that gives God the right to be an authority over man.

That's cute, but not accurate. The moral components to the hand holding rule or staying up past 10pm dictate are not the same as murder. In order for such rules to be objective they must apply to everyone equally. As they do not, by your own admission, they are subjective.

Perhaps I don't have a complete understanding, in order for a moral construct to be objective then it compels every being, including creator, to follow it. That's not to say that every being will, thus we have the word "immoral."

ex-xian

June 20, 2003, 07:48 AM

Hired Gun - I really must say that you the most arrogant person that I've ever met on any message board, be they atheist or theist. To critizise someone over their spelling is ridiculous.
Originally posted by Hired Gun
I never mentioned Plato.
If you mention Socrates, you might have well as mentioned Plato. Or didn't you know that?
MORE
Are you sure you know your philosophers? Kant was a practical Christian but he was agnostic in his philosophy.
Kant was agnostic in his epistemology, but not in his moral philosophy.
MORE
A 'Prime Move' could be an unstable isotope. Aristotle did not believe in a god(s).
If you've actually read Aristotle, you wouldn't make that type of ridiculous claim. IMO, this is just another example of how you misrepresent anything that conflicts with you pre-established beliefs.

b]MORE
Bottom Line: If our lives are products of random mutation and natural selection, we are only pretending to be worth more than a fungus. I don't care how any modern day philosopher tries to fluff it up and make it pretty. No matter what mental gymnastics he can perform for the audience, he will always land flat on his ass in front of a person who sincerely seeks the truth of this world's reality. [/b]
Why do refuse to tell me any modern philosophers that you've read that disagree with your opinion? Is it because you don't have any? Come on, just one serious philosopher whose opinion is diametrically opposed to yours. I don't know about you, but in my search for truth, I read more of those who disagree than those who do agree with me.

MORE
Originally posted by Hired Gun
It's 'Kierkegaard'. Also, in a prior post, someone misspelled Sartres as Sarte.
I was the other person who misspelled Sartre, in addition to yourself. I missed the Kierkegaard reference before--consequence of fast reading. Kierkegaard was a devout xian. His whole philosophy was one of trying to convince people to return to orthodox xianity. So why did you list him among your list of "atheist" authors?

[b]MORE

I would like to say that I am amazed at the level of intelligence on this thread, but it's about what I expected.

I've stopped being amazed at the intelligence of theists. I must admit, there are a few honest intellectuals in the xian faith, but you're not one of them.

[b]MORE
You don't have to hear my response to call me 'off my rocker'. Why not just skip any guise of argument and just deliver the insult. That way you can continue to think that you make sense.
You've made several statements similiar to this; it seems that you're the one with the preconcievd ideas about those here. You claimed that debate was your only form of relaxation, yet you seem exceedingly soft-skinned for someone who has done this throughout your atheist and xian life.

Hired Gun

June 20, 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by ex-xian
Hired Gun - I really must say that you the most arrogant person that I've ever met on any message board, be they atheist or theist. To criticize someone over their spelling is ridiculous.

I didn't criticize anyone for their spelling. I simply attempted to correct the spelling. Do you always perceive correction as an attack? The fellow before this post corrected my spelling, yet I'm not getting all wedged up about it. I would rather have my spelling corrected than to continue looking like an illiterate.

If you mention Socrates, you might have well as mentioned Plato. Or didn't you know that?

Whaaa? You mean they are the same person??? *gasp*

Kant was agnostic in his epistemology, but not in his moral philosophy.

I believe that's exactly what I said.

If you've actually read Aristotle, you wouldn't make that type of ridiculous claim. IMO, this is just another example of how you misrepresent anything that conflicts with you pre-established beliefs.

Thank you for your opinion. I'll file it away with all the other opinions that have been given to me.

Why do refuse to tell me any modern philosophers that you've read that disagree with your opinion? Is it because you don't have any? Come on, just one serious philosopher whose opinion is diametrically opposed to yours. I don't know about you, but in my search for truth, I read more of those who disagree than those who do agree with me.

When I was an atheist, I did read books written by those who disagreed with me. I thought that most of these books, written by Christian authors, were a bunch of baloney, with the exception of those written by William Lane Craig. I have kept my admiration for him. As a Christian, I have read books that present views contrary to my faith. The last ones I can recall are as follows: A book by Clarence Darrow which was the equivalent of Norman Geisler's "Why I am a Christian". I consider both as mediocre. Paul Davies, whom I enjoy very much as an author, but with whom I disagree. Paul Kurtz, who put me to sleep every night for 2 weeks as I tried to find motivation to complete reading his book. And the 3 stooges, whom I find completely lacking in any substance of profound thought, Michael Martin, Dan Barker and Carl Sagan. The one atheist philosopher whom I continue to admire is Nietzsche, although I have tremendous respect for Peter Singer.

I was the other person who misspelled Sartre, in addition to yourself. I missed the Kierkegaard reference before--consequence of fast reading. Kierkegaard was a devout xian. His whole philosophy was one of trying to convince people to return to orthodox xianity. So why did you list him among your list of "atheist" authors?

I didn't list him with the intent to be sincere. I added the end of his name to Nietzsche's to be funny.

I've stopped being amazed at the intelligence of theists. I must admit, there are a few honest intellectuals in the xian faith, but you're not one of them.

Awe, and here I thought that I was somehow going to win your respect and admiration. I'm so disappointed in myself!

You've made several statements similiar to this; it seems that you're the one with the preconcievd ideas about those here. You claimed that debate was your only form of relaxation, yet you seem exceedingly soft-skinned for someone who has done this throughout your atheist and xian life.

Oh my yes, I'm emotionally devastated by your cutting remarks and criticisms. I'm really broken up about all of this! I want you all to know that I take great offense at everything negative that you have to say about me, my philosophy and my web site. I'm psychologically traumatized by this experience and I hope that I've learned my lesson and stay away from these forums from now on.

:chuckles: One man's aggravation is another man's relaxation. One man's enlightenment is another man's ignorance. You just can't seem to grasp this concept.

A.S.A. Jones

Defiant Heretic

June 20, 2003, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Hired Gun:
If there is no God, then no man is in a position to force his opinion of morality upon another. One man's subjective view of morality is equal to another man's equally subjective view of morality. Thus, there is no reason to believe in any morality just because another man tells you that it is good. Actually, I've been trying to develop a moral code that's fairly concrete, if not completely objective, and this statement plays a major part in it.

The current version of the code is as follows:
1) Everyone decides what they, personally, think is moral and immoral.
2) They must follow the code they develop in 1).
3) They cannot force this code upon another.

Now 3) is the important part, because not only does it mean that they can't force their opinion that something is immoral on someone else, but they also can't force their opinion that something isn't immoral on someone else. For example, murder is immoral because the murderer either thinks that killing the victim isn't immoral, in which case he or she is forcing this belief on the victim, and violating 3), or thinks it's immoral and is doing it anyway, in which case 2) has been violated.

Originally posted by Hired Gun:
It would take an authority that was above having only a subjective view of morality to legislate that morality. God's view of morality is objective, not subjective. Ask me why, if you care to know. I've actually put some thought into this argument before, and I came to the conclusion that if one type of being (human) cannot create an objective system of morality, then there is no reason to assume that another type (god) could. Could you please explain why you think this restriction only applies to humans, and not gods?

pariah

June 20, 2003, 12:24 PM

Wait wait...no one knows a modern atheist who thinks that man is no greater than a termite? someone said that earlier. wtf...why would he be?

Bill Snedden

June 20, 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Hired Gun
Bottom Line: If our lives are products of random mutation and natural selection, we are only pretending to be worth more than a fungus. I don't care how any modern day philosopher tries to fluff it up and make it pretty. No matter what mental gymnastics he can perform for the audience, he will always land flat on his ass in front of a person who sincerely seeks the truth of this world's reality.

Uhhh....no?

You're begging the question. Against what standard would such a determination be made? Indeed, there are some standards against which fungus would clearly be the winner (more prolific, more capable of survival in hostile environments, faster growth, etc.). However, just as surely there are standards against which the fungus will clearly fail (rational capability, ability to communicate propositionally, etc).

You assume that your moral system provides an objective answer to "of value to whom and for what purpose?", but unfortunately, such an answer would seem to be impossible by definition. Value presupposes a valuer...

I did find it interesting that you indicated you agreed with Peter Singer on some issues. Might infanticide be one of those? Clearly Singer and the Christian god are of the same mind on that one...

It's also pertinent to note that the analogical comparison of human parenting with the god/man relationship is clearly flawed. Children are not capable moral agents and therefore parents are justified in treating them differently than adults. This is not the case with adults...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Hired Gun

June 20, 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Defiant Heretic
Actually, I've been trying to develop a moral code that's fairly concrete, if not completely objective, and this statement plays a major part in it.

Finally. Very nice to make your thoughtful acquaintance, Defiant. I'm glad that you are above chasing after frisbees and I have complete confidence that you will know what I mean by that. :-)

The current version of the code is as follows:
1) Everyone decides what they, personally, think is moral and immoral.
2) They must follow the code they develop in 1).
3) They cannot force this code upon another.

Now 3) is the important part, because not only does it mean that they can't force their opinion that something is immoral on someone else, but they also can't force their opinion that something isn't immoral on someone else. For example, murder is immoral because the murderer either thinks that killing the victim isn't immoral, in which case he or she is forcing this belief on the victim, and violating 3), or thinks it's immoral and is doing it anyway, in which case 2) has been violated.

I believe that this is a more complex way of stating, 'Do unto others as you would want done unto you'.

I am in complete agreement with point #1 because it reflects reality as I know it; Everyone personally decides what is moral and immoral.

While point#2 makes logical sense, (I can't see why a person would decide to create a moral code that they had no intention of following), it doesn't take into account the prospect that a person would not think hypocrisy to be wrong. Why must a person follow his code of conduct if that code allows for hypocrisy? In other words, "Murder is wrong, unless someone gets me really mad."

Such a code wouldn't necessarily violate #3, if the person one murdered also had the same moral code.

The fault with point#3 lies within its impracticality if any justice system is to be implemented. What if my personal code says that murder is wrong, but that a murderer should be forgiven, not incarcerated? I then go on to commit a murder and you imprison me. You think that it is moral to punish a person who breaks their own moral code, but I consider it immoral. (Hey, we all make mistakes!) At this point, aren't you forcing your own code upon me?

Don't get me wrong. I believe that "Do unto others" is a very practical and compelling code of self government. But I recognize that others will disagree with this code, and at that point, who am I to tell them that their code is wrong? Your proposal contains two assumptions; it assumes that people will agree that hypocrisy is wrong and that forcing one's morality (or lack thereof) on another is also wrong.

I've actually put some thought into this argument before, and I came to the conclusion that if one type of being (human) cannot create an objective system of morality, then there is no reason to assume that another type (god) could. Could you please explain why you think this restriction only applies to humans, and not gods?

I copied this from my post at T-web to save time:

Why would God's 'opinion' be any less subjective than the opinions of men? God is, by definition, the author or designer of life. A designer designs with intention. Only the designer is in a position to know his intention; all others can only speculate concerning his intention. For example, players, without the set of instructions for a new board game, can only have opinions as to how the game is designed to be played. They don't know, with certainty, the objective intent of its designer. But when the designer reveals the objective purpose of the game through written instructions and rules, he objectively states his intention. The designer is the authority concerning his design; he is the objective authority when it comes to purpose of the design because only he can know, with certainty, its purpose. He may attempt to make that purpose known to others, but that attempt would make it open to interpretation. To deny this would be like saying to another, "We know what you think you mean, but we disagree."

The only way that morality can be conceptualized is through the actions of free will agents. The Christian God, by definition, has created the free will agents and has established a purpose and a plan involving the resulting morality of these free will agents. Therefore, God, and only God, is in a position to be the objective moral authority.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

June 20, 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Uhhh....no?

You're begging the question. Against what standard would such a determination be made? Indeed, there are some standards against which fungus would clearly be the winner (more prolific, more capable of survival in hostile environments, faster growth, etc.). However, just as surely there are standards against which the fungus will clearly fail (rational capability, ability to communicate propositionally, etc).

You assume that your moral system provides an objective answer to "of value to whom and for what purpose?", but unfortunately, such an answer would seem to be impossible by definition. Value presupposes a valuer...

Um...I believe that you have just answered your own question.

I did find it interesting that you indicated you agreed with Peter Singer on some issues. Might infanticide be one of those? Clearly Singer and the Christian god are of the same mind on that one...

The 'Spirit' generated by the text that describes Jesus Christ in the New Testament, provides me with the objective reason to think infanticide to be wrong; I don't think that Jesus would approve of infanticide and my love for Him supplies me with the motivation to seek His approval. (I know where you are going next; OT vs NT, same God, yadda yadda. My reply; Same God, progressive revelation, God can morally take an infant's life, If I thought that the OT God was complete, I would be a Jew, not a Christian, etc..) Without belief in God, Peter Singer logically sees that there is no compelling reason to refrain from infanticide and that logically, there are very good reasons to support the moral acceptance of infanticide. I agree with him completely. Fortunately, however, I believe in a god who disagrees with him.

[quote]
It's also pertinent to note that the analogical comparison of human parenting with the god/man relationship is clearly flawed. Children are not capable moral agents and therefore parents are justified in treating them differently than adults. This is not the case with adults...[quote]

God allegedly designed us as moral agents to carry out his moral plans. Compared to God, who is by definition, without sin, men are hardly 'capable' moral agents. Thus, God is justified in treating humans differently than He would Himself. When man manages to be without sin, I'm sure that God will treat them as His equal. I don't think that is about to happen any time soon.

A.S.A. Jones

Jinto

June 20, 2003, 03:23 PM

Why would God's 'opinion' be any less subjective than the opinions of men? God is, by definition, the author or designer of life. A designer designs with intention. Only the designer is in a position to know his intention; all others can only speculate concerning his intention. For example, players, without the set of instructions for a new board game, can only have opinions as to how the game is designed to be played. They don't know, with certainty, the objective intent of its designer. But when the designer reveals the objective purpose of the game through written instructions and rules, he objectively states his intention. The designer is the authority concerning his design; he is the objective authority when it comes to purpose of the design because only he can know, with certainty, its purpose. He may attempt to make that purpose known to others, but that attempt would make it open to interpretation. To deny this would be like saying to another, "We know what you think you mean, but we disagree."

The problem with your board game analogy is this: suppose someone designs a board game. Then someone else comes up aith a way to use the same equipment in a different game. How then, are we to decide that we must play one game over the other? Is poker any more or less valid a use of cards than blackjack?

In short, there is no reason why the intent that someone had when designing a system is the only right use of that system. What a system is designed to do is irrelevant, what is relevant is what it can do.

By the way, if humas were truly designed for moral behavior, then why is it that they seem to be so bad at it? This would seem to falsify the premise that God intended us to be moral.

Bill Snedden

June 20, 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Hired Gun
Um...I believe that you have just answered your own question.

Um...no. Positing god as a "valuer" doesn't immediately render his values objective. They are no less subjective than yours or mine. They're simply his preferences; who says he gets to make all the rules? ;)

Originally posted by Hired Gun
The 'Spirit' generated by the text that describes Jesus Christ in the New Testament, provides me with the objective reason to think infanticide to be wrong; I don't think that Jesus would approve of infanticide and my love for Him supplies me with the motivation to seek His approval. (I know where you are going next; OT vs NT, same God, yadda yadda. My reply; Same God, progressive revelation, God can morally take an infant's life, If I thought that the OT God was complete, I would be a Jew, not a Christian, etc..) Without belief in God, Peter Singer logically sees that there is no compelling reason to refrain from infanticide and that logically, there are very good reasons to support the moral acceptance of infanticide. I agree with him completely. Fortunately, however, I believe in a god who disagrees with him.

How can you argue that "...God can morally take an infant's life..." and that god disagrees with Peter Singer, when the definition of infanticide is "taking an infant's life"? :confused:

It looks like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too...

Originally posted by Hired Gun
God allegedly designed us as moral agents to carry out his moral plans. Compared to God, who is by definition, without sin, men are hardly 'capable' moral agents. Thus, God is justified in treating humans differently than He would Himself. When man manages to be without sin, I'm sure that God will treat them as His equal. I don't think that is about to happen any time soon.

Unfortunately, one's status WRT sin has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is a moral agent. God is most assuredly not justified in treating us differently than he would himself. You said something similar in an earlier post:

Are you saying that no authority is above the law that it establishes? Are you saying that there are no reasons that would exclude an authority from adhering to its own laws?

You then go on to indicate that you would answer these both in the negative.

But from the standpoint of modern, democratic societies, this is clearly the wrong answer. No one is above the law; it exists to equalize. Those in authority gain it by consent of the governed, but they have no right to exceed the specific grant of power which includes the rule of law. That's the whole point of democracy and the force of the social contract that lends legitimacy to modern democratic societies.

If god is able to break every rule he creates simply by virtue of being the rule-maker, then morality is a farce...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

QitALL

June 20, 2003, 05:33 PM

How can an incomplete OT God establish an objective, ultimate morality? If OT God's morality is incomplete, does this mean that Jews are by definition immoral?

Jobar

June 20, 2003, 07:30 PM

Hello, Hired Gun.

First, an observation, and a question. It seems to me that your justifications for your Christian belief are all moral arguments. As such, this discussion would be more appropriate in our Moral Foundations and Principles forum. I am not a moderator in this, the GRD forum, but I would suggest that one of them should transfer this thread to MF&P.

The question- solely from curiosity- do I understand correctly that you are a woman? I normally have no trouble distinguishing men from women by their posting style, and you have an extremely masculine style. I keep wanting to address you as 'Mr. Jones'! (This makes no difference to your arguments, of course- I think they are mistaken. ;))

I want to ask you why you think your system of moral absolutes are really absolute. You used 'thou shalt not kill' as an example. Do you truly believe that under no circumstances should one human kill another? If this is so, you do not consider war or self-defense extenuating circumstances, correct? And therefore you consider any church which grants absolution for killing in those circumstances, to be immoral and breakers of God's commandments? (Are you a Quaker, or a Mennonite? You don't sound like one.)

I also would like to take a stab (;)) at providing you with a workable system of relativist ethics. Ah, for clarity, I'm just going to list the famous 'metal rules'-

Golden Rule- Do as you would be done by.

Silver Rule- Do not to others what you would not have done to yourself.

Brass Rule- Do to as you are done by.

Iron Rule- Do unto others as you will, and can.

The system I try to live by starts by applying the Golden Rule- I attempt to treat others, at first interaction, as I want to be treated. I try to be honest, and honorable, and as generous as my circumstances allow.

If I am treated so in return, wonderful- I prefer to live by the Golden Rule, and in the company of others who prefer it too. BUT- if I am instead treated as a means, and not as an end- my response is to switch to the Brass Rule. And as long as I am being screwed, I try to screw back, applying the Iron Rule to the best of my ability. Ah, but not always- sometimes I attempt to offer good for bad. Not often. And not on any set schedule. But sometimes I will extend the olive branch, and if it is accepted I will switch to the Silver Rule- I will not betray, unless betrayed.

If you are familiar with Prisoner's Dilemma, you may recognize this as the winning strategy for extended games. I first read it in an essay by Isaac Asimov, many years ago, and I find that it allows me to live in a society where not all men are as honorable as I, with a minimum of victimization, and a minimum of anger. It requires no God, no absolute font of morality- which is a good thing, as no such font exists.

Cipher Girl

June 20, 2003, 07:57 PM

Hi Hired Gun

If you take all of the bible as literally true, "Everthing god commands is right and moral", then don't you have the morals of a 5 year old? A 5 year old says "I had better do as I am told, otherwise I'm in big trouble".

If you don't take every word in the bible as the literal word of god, then you would have to interpet the bible. Where do you get the guidance to select the parts of the bible that make up your moral code? It can't be within the bible, because you would then select everthing as true, even the the verses advising infanticide and genecide.

Just my 2 cents worth. I'm no philosophy student or anything.
;)

AquaVita

June 20, 2003, 08:16 PM

Jobar is right...this thread is migrating more and more towards discussion of morality. Off to MF&P!

Secular Pinoy

June 20, 2003, 08:28 PM

Jobar, that reads like something from Carl Sagan's last book, Billions and Billions. And Hired Gun said that Sagan is completely lacking in any substance of profound thought. So it might be of little worth to him/her.

KnightWhoSaysNi

June 20, 2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Hired Gun
My manipulation of people, and loss of compassion for them, didn't come until years after my embrace of atheism. Also, I am only speaking for myself, not other atheists, when I give my autobiographical account. Frankly, I don't consider ridiculing people for their beliefs as moral either, but hey, that's what this thread is all about. Without God, morality is merely contrasting but equal opinion.

I think the opposite can be true for theism or an acceptance of Christianity too. A loss of compassion can result from that as well. You may recall the rationale that Socrates/Sarfati gave at TheologyWeb for his attitude towards non-believers and fellow Christians who disagree with him. He charitably refers to fellow Christians who disagree with his approach as WFJ's (Wimps for Jesus):

From: http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4945&perpage=16&pagenumber=4

Mainly because you have no idea of the biblical challenge/riposte paradigm www.tektonics.org/madmad.html and nor do you have any idea what he and his fellow infidels have been up to. But like many WFJs, you wade in without knowing the facts.

It does in fact appear that his desire to serve Christ has actually led him to lose compassion and empathy for others. After all, he's just taking what he thinks Christian theology teaches to its logical conclusion. Being nasty towards the heathen makes God happy. (On a personal note, I think someone like him would turn more people away from Christianity as opposed to bringing them in. E.g., becoming a Christian means becoming someone like that? The fact that he was voted poster of the month at Tweb I think reflects badly on conservative Christians (at least at Tweb).

To a more extreme case, you may remember when I mentioned Christian Reconstructionism (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm). I once corresponded with a CR who wrote this to me:

from: http://www.errantyears.com/1996/old/000149.html

Jason,

Let's get a couple of things straight (and at the risk of sounding fanatical) - neither I nor nor any of the other Christians nor you nor any of the other atheists have the right to disagree with God. You can make a claim to that right, but you cannot philosophically justify it b/c all human rights flow from Him (I don't expect you to understand that argument, either).

Second, I seriously doubt you would personally be put to death. If the laws were passed, you (and many others on this channel), would probably silence yourselves. The few that didn't would be executed, and then the wholesale blasphemy you and your kind commit would stop.

But if you were executed, you would deserve it. So would Farrel, so would Mike, so would Greg, and millions of others. So would I, and any other former blasphemers. That's the indictment the Bible makes against us all - but there is forgiveness in Christ. But there can be no forgiveness without a crime to forgive - and God, through His word, rightly indicts us all and brings an ethical lawsuit against us. The only way we can settly with God is through Christ.

That's a couple, isn't it?

Guess what? I'm not happy with the ethical code the Bible demands. I'm not happy knowing I have to work toward restoring a society where people like you would have to be executed. I would *love* to let people live and believe whatever they wanted. But they can't. God doesn't allow it. And he demands every Christian, including Gryph, Roger, and Adam, to go along along in making this ethical lawsuit against you and your kind. They may disagree with me. But you guys would probably join me in saying truth is not a majority opinion. There can be no truth apart from Christ.

Yes, I'm sure you can bring up example of how a secular worldview can bring up a lack of compassion or downright evil beliefs too. But my point with Socrates/Sarfati and the CR is that a commitment to Christ rather than atheism doesn't always lead to gaining a sense of compassion and can even lead to just the opposite (and even a walk towards the darkest abyss, like the CR example).

Here's something to consider also. Regardless if you think that non-theists or humanists cannot rationally justify good deeds, why is it that many non-theists do in fact behave morally anyway? Personally, I volunteer at a homeless shelter every week and feel a sense of altruism and satisfaction from helping people. One II poster here, LadyShea, actually donated her healthy kidney so a friend of hers could survive. What do you think motivates many non-theists to act compassionately towards others? Why aren't we all evil hedonists on a rampage?
:confused:

Goober

June 20, 2003, 11:07 PM

Hired Gun, you are obviously very arrogant to presume that no atheists have ever followed their position through to its logical conclusion re ethics when you yourself have failed to do so with your own beliefs. You think that the bible provides an objective moral system, and yet you seem to ignore many of the assertions of the bible:

Exodus 31:15-17 "Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the lord; whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day shall surely be put to death",
Also, Exodus 35:1-3 confirms this with lines like: "These are the words which the lord hath commanded, that ye should do them" "whosoever doeth any work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations"

So you agree that people should be put to death for working on Sundays?

Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." Leviticus 20:9 "For everyone that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Deutronomy 21:18-21 This is too long to quote in full, but it explicitly says that if a child is disobediant "all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die"

Leviticus quotes a huge list of things that make people "unclean", such as menstruating. Leviticus 15:28-29 says that to become clean again, a woman must wait 7 days and then present 2 pigeons to a priest to be used as offerings. Do you do this?

Leviticus 19:19 "I am the Lord. Ye shall keep keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed: neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together"

<sarcasm>These are obviously wrong and immoral and should not be allowed.</sarcasm>

Deuteronomy 13:2-10 Says people trying to convert you should be put to death, saying "And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to draw thee away from the lord thy god."

Have you carried this out?

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Says "When men strive together, one with another, and the wife of one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity"

Would you agree to uphold this?

Oh, how about Deuteronomy 22:20-21 "But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel: then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die"

Were the "tokens of virginity" found in you? Be careful, you may be stoned to death.

I could continue for hours, but I think I've made my point. So, are you a complete hipocrite? It seems to me that you are completely ignoring what your own "objective moral system" has to say and are then accusing us of not taking things to their logical conclusion.

And another thing: without independent proof that that god exists and the bible is his word, your moral system is based entirely on a book that all evidence tells us was just written by a buch of humans. Hardly an objective standard.

And another thing: a moral system based on the word of god is one based on the subjective whims of a deity. How exactly is that objective again?

And another thing: If atheists have no objective moral system, how does that mean they must have no moral system at all? There's no objective reason to make law that makes everyone drive on the right as opposed to a law that makes everyone drive on the left. Does that justify driving wherever you want?

Hired Gun

June 20, 2003, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Jinto
The problem with your board game analogy is this: suppose someone designs a board game. Then someone else comes up aith a way to use the same equipment in a different game. How then, are we to decide that we must play one game over the other? Is poker any more or less valid a use of cards than blackjack?

Different Game...The inventor of Poker is still the objective authority on how the game of Poker is to be played. God invented the Game of Life, and therefore would be the objective authority oh how the game of life is to be played. God created the deck of cards, along with the gaming table and the players. Now men may take it upon themselves to take these instruments that were designed to play the Game of Life and create a different game, but the game they create will not be the Game of Life, but merely a game that can be played within the Game of Life. God's game is 'bigger' and all encompassing and therefore more valid.

In short, there is no reason why the intent that someone had when designing a system is the only right use of that system. What a system is designed to do is irrelevant, what is relevant is what it can do.

I agree. However, one will never win the game of poker if he insists on only playing blackjack.

By the way, if humas were truly designed for moral behavior, then why is it that they seem to be so bad at it? This would seem to falsify the premise that God intended us to be moral.

God intends for us to acknowledge how bad we are at it and repent and be saved.

A.S.A. Jones

The Other Michael

June 20, 2003, 11:35 PM

I simply state that without divine authority, we have no logical basis for the promotion of any value system, no matter what we think of that system. I'm not so much concerned with the definition of 'good' as I am with an objective standard. The standard of morality cannot have an objective reality without divine authority.

Divine authority - Kali, Baal, or Aphrodite?

Did you rigorously investigate all the available deities, or just go with the one your culture was most likely to have indoctrinated you with?

Just curious,

Michael

Hired Gun

June 20, 2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Um...no. Positing god as a "valuer" doesn't immediately render his values objective. They are no less subjective than yours or mine. They're simply his preferences; who says he gets to make all the rules? ;)

How can you argue that "...God can morally take an infant's life..." and that god disagrees with Peter Singer, when the definition of infanticide is "taking an infant's life"? :confused:

You are confused because you don't differentiate between God and man. The taking of life is God's perogative, but He reserves this perogative for Himself.

It looks like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too...

No, I just recognize authority when I see it.

Unfortunately, one's status WRT sin has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is a moral agent. God is most assuredly not justified in treating us differently than he would himself.

Logically prove to me that God is not justified in treating us differently than he would himself. If you can't logically prove this, then you are giving me an opinion and I doubt that you will be able to convince me that your opinion is better than my opinion, because I am very fond of my opinion.

[/b]You said something similar in an earlier post:

You then go on to indicate that you would answer these both in the negative.

But from the standpoint of modern, democratic societies, this is clearly the wrong answer. [/b]

In YOUR opinion my answer is the wrong answer. If you point to the opinions of a herd of people, you argue by the fallacy of ad populum. In the 1700's it was the standpoint of democratic societies to permit slavery. Did this permission make slavery the right answer? No. Then why should I believe that present day consensus is the right answer in this issue?

No one is above the law; it exists to equalize. Those in authority gain it by consent of the governed, but they have no right to exceed the specific grant of power which includes the rule of law. That's the whole point of democracy and the force of the social contract that lends legitimacy to modern democratic societies.

I agree that no MAN is above the laws established by other MEN. However, the nature of God is so exceedingly different than that of men that IN MY OPINION God cannot be held to the same laws by which we govern ourselves. You are welcome to disagree with my opinion, but unless you can present a sound and valid argument demonstrating the logical fallacy of my opinion, my opinion still stands.

If god is able to break every rule he creates simply by virtue of being the rule-maker, then morality is a farce...

God is not able to break every rule He creates simply by virtue of being the rule-maker, but by virtue of His nature. He is in the same position in which the state puts itself when it executes a law breaker. If the State can morally take a life, then God certainly can.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

June 21, 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Jobar
Hello, Hired Gun.

First, an observation, and a question. It seems to me that your justifications for your Christian belief are all moral arguments. As such, this discussion would be more appropriate in our Moral Foundations and Principles forum. I am not a moderator in this, the GRD forum, but I would suggest that one of them should transfer this thread to MF&P.

The question- solely from curiosity- do I understand correctly that you are a woman? I normally have no trouble distinguishing men from women by their posting style, and you have an extremely masculine style. I keep wanting to address you as 'Mr. Jones'! (This makes no difference to your arguments, of course- I think they are mistaken. ;))

I'm a woman. I'm just not in touch with my feminine side.

I want to ask you why you think your system of moral absolutes are really absolute. You used 'thou shalt not kill' as an example. Do you truly believe that under no circumstances should one human kill another? If this is so, you do not consider war or self-defense extenuating circumstances, correct? And therefore you consider any church which grants absolution for killing in those circumstances, to be immoral and breakers of God's commandments? (Are you a Quaker, or a Mennonite? You don't sound like one.)

I don't believe in moral absolutes. Reality, as I know it, consists of moral relativism and countless exceptions to any moral code. Christianity doesn't offer us a set of moral absolutes; it offers us a position of absolute righteousness when we submit to the will of its god. Submitting to the will of God isn't about following the letter of the law, which presents the impossible task of attempting to live by moral absolutes. It's about following the Spirit of the law, which is generated by developing the context of a divine personality.

I also would like to take a stab (;)) at providing you with a workable system of relativist ethics. Ah, for clarity, I'm just going to list the famous 'metal rules'-

Golden Rule- Do as you would be done by.

Silver Rule- Do not to others what you would not have done to yourself.

Brass Rule- Do to as you are done by.

Iron Rule- Do unto others as you will, and can.

The system I try to live by starts by applying the Golden Rule- I attempt to treat others, at first interaction, as I want to be treated. I try to be honest, and honorable, and as generous as my circumstances allow.

If I am treated so in return, wonderful- I prefer to live by the Golden Rule, and in the company of others who prefer it too. BUT- if I am instead treated as a means, and not as an end- my response is to switch to the Brass Rule. And as long as I am being screwed, I try to screw back, applying the Iron Rule to the best of my ability. Ah, but not always- sometimes I attempt to offer good for bad. Not often. And not on any set schedule. But sometimes I will extend the olive branch, and if it is accepted I will switch to the Silver Rule- I will not betray, unless betrayed.

Ha ha! I'm tempted to live by those rules myself.

If you are familiar with Prisoner's Dilemma, you may recognize this as the winning strategy for extended games. I first read it in an essay by Isaac Asimov, many years ago, and I find that it allows me to live in a society where not all men are as honorable as I, with a minimum of victimization, and a minimum of anger. It requires no God, no absolute font of morality- which is a good thing, as no such font exists.

Yes, I am very familiar with this. As I recall, tit for tat works best, but to win, you have to be able to stiff at least one other 'player' who continues to reciprocate for at least one additional transaction.

In real life, you find out that you can win to an even greater degree than computer simulation allows. Winning just depends on one's skill as a con man.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

June 21, 2003, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Cipher Girl
Hi Hired Gun

If you take all of the bible as literally true, "Everthing god commands is right and moral", then don't you have the morals of a 5 year old? A 5 year old says "I had better do as I am told, otherwise I'm in big trouble".

The atittude of the 5 year old in question isn't about morality but more about correctly assessing his or her situation. My five year old daughter has this attitude and she is very smart to have it, because she would indeed be in big trouble if she doesn't do what she is told. So, I agree that if one interprets the Bible to be literally true, they would believe that they would be in big trouble if they don't do as God tells them. I also believe that they would be justified in their fear.

If you don't take every word in the bible as the literal word of god, then you would have to interpet the bible.

Any time a person reads a text or hears words, they have to process that information. Every process of information results in an interpretation of that information, even if the interpretation results in a literal understanding.

Where do you get the guidance to select the parts of the bible that make up your moral code? It can't be within the bible, because you would then select everthing as true, even the the verses advising infanticide and genecide.

In studying English literature, there are guidelines for interpretation. One must recognize literary devices when one is being presented with obvious hyperbole and metaphor. But it is also important to understand the author and try to analyze his intention. One must take into account the culture in which the work was written. Most importantly, one must take every piece of text in context of the whole in order to fully appreciate and understand what is being said or implied. For example, in Steinbeck's story, 'Of Mice and Men', George kills Lennie. If we only read the segment describing this murder, can we interpret Steinbeck's novel to be about how a cold and ruthless killer brutally murders a trusting friend? I think not!

The fact that literature can be read and analyzed and graded speaks of the sufficiency of words. Yes, there will be differences in points of interpretation, but there are limits as to how far those interpretations can drift and still be considered honest in their attempts to convey the truth that is being presented.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun

June 21, 2003, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
Jobar, that reads like something from Carl Sagan's last book, Billions and Billions. And Hired Gun said that Sagan is completely lacking in any substance of profound thought. So it might be of little worth to him/her.

Carl Sagan is to science what Bob Ross is to art. What do you suppose this means that Carl Sagan is to religion?

:D

Jobar

June 21, 2003, 12:52 AM

Hired Gun:
I don't believe in moral absolutes. Reality, as I know it, consists of moral relativism and countless exceptions to any moral code. Christianity doesn't offer us a set of moral absolutes; it offers us a position of absolute righteousness when we submit to the will of its god. Submitting to the will of God isn't about following the letter of the law, which presents the impossible task of attempting to live by moral absolutes. It's about following the Spirit of the law, which is generated by developing the context of a divine personality.

Er... so tell me, what is the difference between "a position of absolute righteousness" and "a set of moral absolutes"? I see none, myself. Isn't 'righteous' the same thing as 'moral'?

Another thing. Just how are you determining the "will of God"? By your own individual interpretation of what the Bible says, right? Well, don't you also believe that your interpretation, made by your human intellect, is seriously flawed? Isn't it terrible hubris to believe that you are able to understand the "will of God" well enough to try to tell others- believers or unbelievers- what that will is?

Finally, I point out to you that the only argument you have made so far is the moral one. (And have made no converts using it.) Do you think you have answers for the other atheistic arguments which can be found in any of our forums, and may be ably presented by hundreds of our regular posters?

If you were once truly a convinced atheist, and you found answers to the myriad problems I and all the other skeptics here find with Christianity (of whatever stripe or interpretation), you have here a marvellous platform to present them.

Let me issue you a small challenge- I doubt your ability to convince a single one of the unbelievers here that your belief is logical, rational, or justified. If you are so confident of your debating ability, surely you can show one person here your belief is at least defensible, if not absolute truth. We are open to rational discourse- can you do this? If you can, you will be the first.

Hired Gun

June 21, 2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Goober
Hired Gun, you are obviously very arrogant to presume that no atheists have ever followed their position through to its logical conclusion etc. etc....

Don't take this personally, but although I immensely enjoy responding to posts like those made by Korihor, Jobar, Defiant, Jinto, and to a lesser extent, Bill Snedden, I can't spend all of my time answering posts. I don't eat goobers when I can have steak.

A.S.A. Jones

Cipher Girl

June 21, 2003, 01:55 AM

The atittude of the 5 year old in question isn't about morality but more about correctly assessing his or her situation. My five year old daughter has this attitude and she is very smart to have it, because she would indeed be in big trouble if she doesn't do what she is told. So, I agree that if one interprets the Bible to be literally true, they would believe that they would be in big trouble if they don't do as God tells them. I also believe that they would be justified in their fear.

I think it has everything to do with morals. How can one be justified in saying they have a superior moral code if they only do the right thing under fear of the constant threat of punishment? Contrast this with someone who simply does the right thing because it makes them feel happy to do good. No threats, no rewards, no punishment. Now, which person has the better moral code?

Any time a person reads a text or hears words, they have to process that information. Every process of information results in an interpretation of that information, even if the interpretation results in a literal understanding.

Of course everyone processes information whever they are presented with new information. But without a social context to process this information existing already, one would not be able to interpet anything. This must already exist before one can interpet something such as the bible. Only already having a moral code in place, could a religious person make any sort of a decision regarding the parts of the bible they will follow as a moral code.

The fact that literature can be read and analyzed and graded speaks of the sufficiency of words. Yes, there will be differences in points of interpretation, but there are limits as to how far those interpretations can drift and still be considered honest in their attempts to convey the truth that is being presented.

How then would you interpet "Dash thy little one's heads against the stones."? Along with the dozens of others in the bible. I take this as advocating infanticide. What do you think? Or will you apply so much interpetation as to leave the phrase meaningless. What about the dozens of other verses in a similar vein?

Or just because whatever god orders is "right and moral" even if it involves infanticide? Is this what you are advocating? How then is this a better moral code? Why would I follow such a code, since it would conflict with my conscience?

Don't take this personally, but although I immensely enjoy responding to posts like those made by Korihor, Jobar, Defiant, Jinto, and to a lesser extent, Bill Snedden, I can't spend all of my time answering posts. I don't eat goobers when I can have steak.

Actually some of the harder questions have been asked by some of the other posters. I'm curious, why the moniker "Hired Gun