Sky-Daddy

[Haran]

I've always found this somewhat derogatory and offensive, but maybe I'm wrong.

There is a thought that without the belief in a God that will/might punish us for the wrongs we commit against each other that anything is possible and permissible. Unthinkable crimes suddenly become possible if they will benefit the perpetrator and one can get away with them...

Responses like this one from another thread are a dime a dozen:

"...if there was no god would you...go and kill people, rape and steal? If no, then it says a lot about the dependence of morality on god. If Yes, then it says something about you and your character and not about morality in general."

However, there is a pattern everyone's life experience for this... Parents...Police...Govenments...Security...
I'm sure the list could go on. So, from life experience, it is obvious that humans need someone to correct and guide them in life and keep them out of trouble.

What would be the result of doing away with government? Anarchy? Chaos? Everyone for himself?

What would be the result of doing away with the police? Parents?

Who guides and governs the things we do that others can't see or refuse to? Are we really able to do this ourselves?

It seems to me that life experience can lead one toward a belief in God...the "Sky-Daddy" who keeps us in line...

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Haran

...but maybe I'm wrong.
Quite possibly.

So, from life experience, it is obvious that humans need someone to correct and guide them in life and keep them out of trouble.
Oh, of course, that explains why everyone does not commit crimes as long as some policeman is watching them.
Oh wait, it doesn't.

Who guides and governs the things we do that others can't see or refuse to?
Ever heard of individual conscience ?
Are we really able to do this ourselves?
Certainly, I can. Many can.
It seems to me that life experience can lead one toward a belief in God...the "Sky-Daddy" who keeps us in line...
You mean you build the concept of a Sky Policeman from all the earthly policemen ?
huh.
Out of interest, why don't you also build the concept of a Sky Prostitute from all the earthly prostitutes ?
After all, prostitution most likely predates policing as a human career.

[Haran]

So, Gurdur, you didn't need parents? You could have grown up just fine without their guidance and worry that you might be punished for doing something wrong? No social issues whatsoever?

I'm serious here. I obviously wasn't in the beginning of the other thread. If you don't want to be serious here, then I think you are a troll.

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Out of interest, why don't you also build the concept of a Sky Prostitute from all the earthly prostitutes? That would actually clear up a few things for me. All the great questions theology has never been able to answer to my satisfaction simply fall away.

[Shake]

Originally posted by Haran
I've always found this somewhat derogatory and offensive, but maybe I'm wrong.

There is a thought that without the belief in a God that will/might punish us for the wrongs we commit against each other that anything is possible and permissible. Unthinkable crimes suddenly become possible if they will benefit the perpetrator and one can get away with them...

Responses like this one from another thread are a dime a dozen:

"...if there was no god would you...go and kill people, rape and steal? If no, then it says a lot about the dependence of morality on god. If Yes, then it says something about you and your character and not about morality in general."Whoa! Let's stop right here. I'm going to tackle your responses in reverse order. Whether or not you agree with us, there are many of us for whom there is no god, and no, we are not out killing, raping, stealing, etc. And no, it's not necessarily just because of the existence of secular laws and the bodies which would enforce those laws. It's just not what civilized people do. Gurdur asked if you've heard of individual conscience; I will ask if you've heard of a thing called integrity. The simplest definition I've heard for integrity is doing what's right when nobody's looking. So, for the second case, you are right. If I answered yes, that would say a lot about my character, but you're wrong if you don't think that personal morals are not part of my character.

As for the 'no' response, this is no way evidence for the great sky daddy. Basic logic tells you that this is a poorly constructed argument. I refer you back to my preceding paragraph about integrity, and also ahead to the response to the rest of your post.

Who guides and governs the things we do that others can't see or refuse to? Are we really able to do this ourselves?

It seems to me that life experience can lead one toward a belief in God...the "Sky-Daddy" who keeps us in line... Again, I'll take the above questions out of order:

Yes! We really are able to do this ourselves. Many, many people who are raised from birth without the god-belief are moral, law-abiding citizens of their respective societies. Conversely, there are those who are brought up their whole lives in some faith and are horrible criminals. Belief in a sky-daddy or not in no way correlates to one's moral character.

Who guides these things? I'll add 'or what' to the 'who' part of this question. Secular laws, parental influences, and just a general respect of human life and liberty are things which influence one's morals.

For a society to sustain itself, there have to be rules. Even if you got rid of governments and the like, society would have to impose some sort of limits on itself, that is as I said above, if it wished to sustain itself. Anarchy is not society, it's a breakdown of society. Even if anarchy broke out, it's totality would be limited by people wishing to protect themselves, who would naturally form alliances, thus setting up a new society.

I'd love to discuss this further, but I don't have the time right now. I'll check back soon though.

[xorbie]

ROFL!!

Where do you think religion came from, precisely? Your question is, basically, "why do atheists need policemen if morality comes from God?"

My counter is "why do theists need religion (organized in society by the way, anarchy would obviously destroy all organized religion) to keep them in line of morality comes from God?"

Get it straight, man. People need to be kept in line. Not everyone, but if .01% of the population happened to want to murder someone, we would need policemen and women. Also, I hope you realize that Christians commit crimes just about as often as atheists.

[Odemus]

Originally posted by xorbie
Also, I hope you realize that Christians commit crimes just about as often as atheists.

one could argue that Christians who commit crimes (serious crimes, not speeding or something like that), are not really Christians because they fail to follow their beliefs. But one can be an athiest and do whatever he desires without ever contradicting his philosophy.

[The AntiChris]

Originally posted by Odemus
But one can be an athiest and do whatever he desires without ever contradicting his philosophy.

Atheism is not a moral philosophy. :mad:

Chris

[Haran]

Shake
Whether or not you agree with us, there are many of us for whom there is no god, and no, we are not out killing, raping, stealing, etc. And no, it's not necessarily just because of the existence of secular laws and the bodies which would enforce those laws. It's just not what civilized people do.

I thought my heart would be in for this debate of ideas, but I've gone through it all a hundred times...I may not continue (...I can hear the rants coming...) unless I see something that peaks my interest.

I'm moral because I'm civil. I'm moral because I'm moral. In the end, one never seems to be able to get at what truly underlies poor statements like these and they don't really seem much better than God told me so or Society told me so.

Parting thoughts. I do not think that people are inherently good and thoughtful. Watch children take toys away from each other and pound on each other for a while. They learn not to do these things because they begin to realize that their parents are watching and that they will get punished if the continue the wrong behavior. Again, who is there to check our unseen behavior? (Kudos to you if you're perfectly good to others because you weren't taught this by behavior modifying punishment or threat thereof... :rolleyes: )

If you still don't believe me about children, I would imagine you can find studies that talk about the behavior problems toward others of children who grow up without good guidance and punishment or threat thereof.

So, I still see reason from these kinds of things drawn from human experience to turn toward thoughts of a God that serves the same type of role as a parent.

[Haran]

Originally posted by The AntiChris
Atheism is not a moral philosophy. :mad:

Chris

No. But it results in a particular stream of moral philosophy and can therefore be characterized....despite the will of some to try and keep it uncharacterizable for what seem like purely rhetorical reasons.

[Ronin]

After all, prostitution most likely predates policing as a human career.

On behalf of the boys in blue, I'd only like to emphasize that this claim is not only completely unsubstantiated by facts, but is directly contradicted by late night soft-core porn.

Oh, and Haran...if pretending that I'm watching your every move makes you a better person, then I'm happy to be of service.

[Haran]

Ronin
Oh, and Haran...if pretending that I'm watching your every move makes you a better person, then I'm happy to be of service.

Do let me know when you have something substantial to say...

[Ronin]

Do let me know when you have something substantial to say...

It's called Miranda, so play nice, I'm watching.

[keyser_soze]

Originally posted by Haran
Do let me know when you have something substantial to say...

You didn't get that? Because it was crystal clear to me, and he made a good point...sarcastically true, but still a good point. And atheism is the LACK of belief in a god. Do you assume that people raised without a belief in a god/gods CHANGES their philosophy mid-stream because a name get's tacked to their lack of beliefs? And it is considered poor form to start a thread and a post later decide you aren't really interested in it. "Hey, you people suck!", followed by "you guys talk that over, I'm outta here."

[Deacon Doubtmonger]

Originally posted by Shake
... there are many of us for whom there is no god, and no, we are not out killing, raping, stealing, etc. And no, it's not necessarily just because of the existence of secular laws and the bodies which would enforce those laws. It's just not what civilized people do.... The simplest definition I've heard for integrity is doing what's right when nobody's looking.... Yes! We really are able to do this ourselves.
I concur wholeheartedly. IMHO this flows from the ability of humans to think ahead and see the consequences of their choices and actions. Put simply: If I arrogate to myself the right to cheat on my wife, I can hardly blame her if she does the same to me. The pain she and I would both feel is a strong enough deterrent on its own, without Sky-Daddy shoving the Seventh down our throats.

Twenty years ago, we made a mutual promise to be faithful and loving to each other. It is earth-shatteringly significant enough that we made that promise to each other; the promise becomes no less valid just because there's no Sky-Tyrant to solemnize it. Besides, I always wondered about the idea that you're promising god you'll be faithful to each other ... what can god's stake possibly be? He ain't much of a god if his regime will topple as a result of an affair. Or maybe he's just a big self-centered crybaby who can't stand not having his way.

One thing about life experience leading to religion, though: If you're one of those types who wants power over others, the idea of a Sky-Daddy does provide a highly efficient means of social control. Haran's original post mentioned parents, police, government and security. Well, neither the police nor private security can actually take up residence in your house to keep order, nor does government usually show up there until the tax bill arrives or you're cited for a building code violation. And even parents, being only human, can't exert perfect control. But who needs all that infrastructure when you can scare kids about Sky-Pappy's wrath from little on?

Deacon Doubtmonger

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/obscene/eck28.gif religion

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Haran

I thought my heart would be in for this debate of ideas,
Oh, come off it. You just found out trolling on this subject is harder than you thought it would be.
:)
but I've gone through it all a hundred times...
And you still have nothing new to say ?
:eek:
I may not continue
But then maybe you will.
unless I see something that peaks my interest.
Well, you're certainly not piquing my interest so far.
To pique my interest, you'll need real analysis, not these throw-away flamebaits of yours.

....So, I still see reason from these kinds of things drawn from human experience to turn toward thoughts of a God that serves the same type of role as a parent. Fallacy of poverty of imagination.
:)

[Aravnah Ornan]

Originally posted by Odemus
one could argue that Christians who commit crimes (serious crimes, not speeding or something like that), are not really Christians because they fail to follow their beliefs. Yes, one could argue that, but if one did, one would be guilty of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. By the way, I don't see how the New Testament verses about submission to authority distinguish between "serious crimes" and speeding.

But one can be an athiest and do whatever he desires without ever contradicting his philosophy. So, then, an atheist who is an Objectivist can do whatever he or she desires without ever contradicting Objectivism? No, it doesn't work that way. My point is that while atheism is not by itself a moral philosophy, there exist moral philosophies that are consistent with atheism or that even build on atheism.

[Aravnah Ornan]

Originally posted by Haran
So, Gurdur, you didn't need parents? You could have grown up just fine without their guidance and worry that you might be punished for doing something wrong? No social issues whatsoever? I, for one, freely admit that I used to need parents. But then I became an adult.

[Donnmathan]

The problem is, all of the authority figures "named" in the O.P. are secular, except Mr. "Sky-daddy." Whether Haran chooses to admit it or not, he (?) answered the question for us. No "Sky-daddy" mandated the social roles he named, and they date back to the first cities at the very least (parents farther than that, obviously). Where did they come from, then? They arose all on their own, from the sense of social resposibility and relative morals of the citizens of those same early cultures. No "Sky-daddy" required, unless the christians want to admit the existance of Ra, Enlil, Indra, Quetzalcoatl, and a host of others.

The answer to the multiple questions in the O.P. is, therefore, that the removal of secular authority would create huge problems, but said authority would likely be replaced in short order by the society itself. Anarchy is an unstable and ultimately self-destroying system. The things that occur out of view form society are governed by the rules of that society and individual morals, as they are held by an individual. The thing you seem to miss is that nothing that affects more that the individuals participating can be kept completely out of society's view.

This, I believe, is an acid test of sorts; if it could be done completely and consistantly without the knowledge of society at large, then society has absolutely no business poking it's nose in. Sodomy passes this test, as does religion; rape, murder, and even most drug use (as examples) do not, as they will tend to be noticed. A person attacked, disappearing, or driving erratically and dangerously tends to cause problems and attract notice. Suicide would be left to dangle in the grey area, and is the only one that I can see. Of course, people here are likely to poke holes in my little idea, but hey, that's what this board's about, right? ;)

[The Other Michael]

What's this? Let's not be accusing each other of trolling.

Originally posted by Ronin
Oh, and Haran...if pretending that I'm watching your every move makes you a better person, then I'm happy to be of service.

It's called Miranda, so play nice, I'm watching.

All right Ronin - out of the car, hands on your head. You're going in on a 3532, impersonating an MF&P moderator and/or invisible Sky-Daddy.

That's just one more story in the naked forum.

My name's Michael - I'm a moderator.

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Haran
No. But it [atheism] results in a particular stream of moral philosophy and can therefore be characterized.... Actually, theism often results in one particular stream of meta-ethical philosophy, namely divine command theory. Atheism is compatible with the whole network of rivers outside of this one theory, a mighty Mississippi with tributaries from all backgrounds. The only thing that atheism does is cordon off a particular (bankrupt) idea that the good is what a god says.

And on any particular issue of normative ethics, you will find both theists and atheists lining up on either side. If you disagree, please explain the particulars of the Moral Foundations & Principles shared by all without belief in gods, as a consequence of this disbelief. State the atheist stance on socialism vs. capitalism, on the Middle East situation, on abortion, on capital punishment, etc. [I don't think that this could be done for either theists or atheists as a whole.]

best,
Peter Kirby

[lpetrich]

Haran's position, stated more honestly, is essentially the Royal Lie theory of religion. I get this term from Plato's Republic, whose ideal community features rulers who are willing to tell convenient lies, including an official religion/ideology that Plato calls a "royal lie". The religion of Plato's society will not do; Plato advocates that his society's sacred books be banned, because they contain such bad examples as heroes lamenting and gods laughing (seriously!).

Variants of Plato's position were common in the Greco-Roman world, and advancing several centuries, we find Niccolo Machiavelli having similar opinions. But one seldom sees such clear honesty these days.

[Vorkosigan]

Haran, the difference between enforcement by police, and enforcement by Deities, is simply the difference between enforcement and non-enforcement.

Look, I live in Taiwan, where laws aren't enforced, so they are not obeyed. God does not enforce his laws either, so they aren't obeyed either, especially by his followers. Punishment in the afterlife is worthless. The police and courts and your parents and teachers punish you in this life. The issue, as any criminal can tell you, is not the nastiness of the punishment but its certainty. In this life, it is absolutely certain that gods do not punish. Therefore, as a deterrent, they have no effect.

Vorkosigan

[Aravnah Ornan]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
State the atheist stance on socialism vs. capitalism.... Good example. I'm sure it will be no problem at all to state an "atheist" stance on socialism vs. capitalism such that both Ayn Rand and Stalin would have wholeheartedly agreed with it.

[Scorpion]

I've always found this somewhat derogatory and offensive, but maybe I'm wrong.

Well, so far Sky-Daddy hasn't commented how he takes it, and until he does, we can't really know, can we?

-S-

[streamline]

Originally posted by Haran
So, I still see reason from these kinds of things drawn from human experience to turn toward thoughts of a God that serves the same type of role as a parent.

So who is God's parent or parents? Who reared The Almighty so righty that He grew up to run such a great universe as this? Certainly, following your reasoning, if we can ask who is the "parent" of all parents, then we are duty-bound to next ask who is the parent of that parent ... and on and on and ... ----what's that? God has no parents? says who -- you? If you go there, so may we, and claim that the universe has no parents either, as it were. After all, at least we already have the universe in plain sight (still waiting for God to show himself).

Be careful, Haran, of analogical arguments like this, as they are only as strong as the similarities between the two items being compared. For this one to even get off the ground, your God needs to be nearly as flawed and limited as the human parents you are using as its inspiration (of course, even then, this argument will crash and burn an ugly death, as there are no shortage of ways to dismantle the idea of an omni-god and supernatural moral lawgiver).

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Haran, the difference between enforcement by police, and enforcement by Deities, is simply the difference between enforcement and non-enforcement.

Look, I live in Taiwan, where laws aren't enforced, so they are not obeyed. God does not enforce his laws either, so they aren't obeyed either, especially by his followers. Punishment in the afterlife is worthless. The police and courts and your parents and teachers punish you in this life. The issue, as any criminal can tell you, is not the nastiness of the punishment but its certainty. In this life, it is absolutely certain that gods do not punish. Therefore, as a deterrent, they have no effect.

Vorkosigan

Totally correct. Laws that are completely unenforced, such as taping TV shows on your VCR, are so uselessly policed that it's not worth having them.

[orac]

Originally posted by Haran
It seems to me that life experience can lead one toward a belief in God...the "Sky-Daddy" who keeps us in line...
So, you're saying people should be encourage to believe in a non-existant sky daddy so that they'll be frightened into behaving according to the wishes of the people who manage the Imaginary Sky Daddy's PR?

And you're also saying that it doesn't really matter if this sky daddy exists or not, so long as we make sure everyone is so terrified of hell that they never question? Or are you just saying "if he existed then people would be good, so we'ld better all believe really hard in order to make him exist?"

Or, and I find this hard to believe, are you saying that all people who believe in the sky daddy are always good and moral people and atheists should believe so we'll behave too?

And I used to think I was cynical.

[lpetrich]

That's what I'd posted about earlier as the "royal lie" theory of religion, the theory that it's about some fake cosmic bogeyman invented to make people virtuous.