I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[MathGeek]

Interesting. Why would a materialist even care about morality since right and wrong are immaterial concepts and thus really don't exist. Thoughts, ideas, numbers, concepts, don't exist. You cannot measure these things scientifically, therefore, they are meaningless.

I guess you skipped the philosophy class.

 

Hey Han, it has been a while...

 

You mean that morality is material in nature, or do you mean that a materialist can accept something that cannot be proved by scientific testing and empirical verification?

 

It's called axiomatic thinking, my friend. Furthermore, we sometimes need to make definitions. How can I see that and you cannot?

[MathGeek]

You misunderstood me, I do believe that God is flawless; just that there are some ethical dilemmas presented in the bible that are difficult to resolve, if not impossible, to your satisfaction. I wasn't showing off words, I am well aware that there are highly educated persons such as yourself on this board. I was short handing the whole moral issue he was questioning into one word for convenience . With people like you on this board, there is no reason for me to argue in defense of cherem, genocide, total consecration or whatever you want to call it since you know what I am going to say and have rejected the notion.

 

Actually, ethical dilemmas have been around since before Christianity took off like the philosophical rocket it has become. It is a known fact that the Greek philosophers of old have spilled ink and toiled away the hours trying to come up with answers to certain moral dilemmas, and it continues from there with the addition of new philosophical work all the time. If you do some digging, you will find that different disciplines of study have courses solely devoted to ethics (I am veteran of two of them). The majority of these issues come about through practical study of the material world in which these disciplines live. Honestly, how else can discover or invent ethical principles without doing some kind of natural investigation first (not so much following the scientific method as just doing observation). I have lately likened morals with mathematics. Without the thinkers of old, we wouldn't the moral and mathematical principles we have now. I believe it all started with simple observation and a bit of rational thought and it went from there and now we have all this complexity around us. Simply put, two little constraints created all that ethical and mathematical complexity.

 

Need more be said....

[Ouroboros]

You mean that morality is material in nature, or do you mean that a materialist can accept something that cannot be proved by scientific testing and empirical verification?

So morality defined by the different philosophical theories are wrong, because they are not taken from the Bible or given in a vision from God? So when the Greeks laid out reciprocation as a possible foundation for morality hundreds of years before Jesus, they were wrong, while Jesus was right when he did it? Such hypocrisy.

 

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." (Pittacus)[3]

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." (Thales)[4]

"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." (Sextus the Pythagorean)[5]

"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." (Isocrates)[6]

"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." (Epictetus)[7]

"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed'[8]),

 

and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." (Epicurus)[9]

They were all wrong, because they didn't know Jesus.

 

But, "Do to others..." by Jesus, ooooooh, that must be good then...

[Ouroboros]

I do believe in a first cause, it is the only position that makes logical sense to me. Freedom to choose is not necessarily determined by prior causes otherwise it would be determined and not truly free. I am not sure why you see a conflict in these ideas.

If I make a decision based on my Free Will, then that decision was not made by God. Hence the First Cause of that decision was ME, not God. That leaves us with 6 billion First Cause agents currently in action. Where does God fit in there? And how can you NOT see this problem? If I make a decision to lift the pen, what was the First Cause of events for that pen to be lifted? God? Then my decision was caused by God. By me? Then God wasn't the cause.

[Neon Genesis]

Sure, if we are to judge based upon whether a person feels guilty, then a lot of convicts would go free. Feeling guilty gives evidence that there is a basis for those guilty feelings; however, lack of guilty feelings does not necessarily give evidence of a lack of guilt. That was my point and it stands. I haven't said that all those who leave Christianity will feel guilt, just that those who do have a reason for feeling that guilt. The fact that you don't feel guilt doesn't change what I said since I didn't say all people feel that guilt.

What reason would that be? That we dared to disagree with you?

 

And, I never said that it did. Tell me how you believe Christianity to be insidious, I am curious. I mean, I am sorry that you feel so ill-treated by Christians with whom you associated; however, I believe that says more about the people with whom you associated than it does about Biblical Christianity.

Maybe you should try answering shantonu's question to find out? When are you going to answer it? Why are you avoiding shantonu? Are you too much of a coward to ask it or are you just another closed minded xtian that can't stand to face the truth? Answer shantonu's question!

 

 

There we will disagree. I actually think that the evidence against a Christian worldview is quite weak and requires more faith than that required for the Christian worldview.

Why do xtians always say this line? What does it mean? It makes no sense. I thought xtians consider faith to be a good thing yet suddenly when they're debating with the enemy, they use faith as a weapon against them? So, if you believe that we have more faith than you (whatever that means), do you admit you don't have enough faith and thus you aren't a true Christian?

 

However, evolution does not explain the origin of life from non-living matter, it only explains change over time. Evolution doesn't necessarily negate a Creator either. The question of who created the creator is an argument based upon a category error. When we consider that something requires a cause, that only has to apply to material entities as they are, according to science and philosophy, always effects of prior causes. However, immaterial entities do not fit within these same limitations, and so, do not require prior causes. Also, the definition of God is a necessary being (this is a philosophical, not a religious definition) and necessary beings are not contingent for existence, they are self-existent. Now, if you don't accept this argument, you are left with a bigger problem to explain which is how the universe violates known physics by existing forever; or, how an infinite regress can actually exist in the real world (which has logical problems that cannot be resolved). So again, you are left with bigger problems to solve if you negate the possible existence of a necessary being.

Again, YOU are the one left with the bigger question of explaining what created the creator which you have failed to do so. And evolution may not disprove the existence of God in itself, but it most certainly does disprove your inane argument that complexity needs to have been created in order to exist. If you accept evolution as a fact, then you accept it's perfectly possible for complexity to evolve from simplicity by purely natural means without the need to invoke a divine creator. If it's possible for complexity to evolve from simplicity by purely natural means, then you must either accept it's also possible for the universe to have come into existence without having been divinely created or you must deny that evolution is a fact. You can't on the one hand insist that complexity must be created but then exempt evolution from the rules. Complexity must either be created or it can exist without being created, and if complexity can exist without being created as you freely admit, then there's no reason to believe in God. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

 

You changed my argument. I said that apart from the existence of God objective moral values can not exist. Evolution cannot produce objective moral values, nor can it produce moral values at all. The best it can do is produce instincts to act one way or another. The problem is that we often have competing instincts, and unless there is an objective standard that tells us to obey one and not the other, then all becomes relative. If, as you say, morals change as time goes by or that morals are defined by culture, then you are arguing for subjective moral values. And then we have to ask, which time defines morals? Can I change my morals today from what they were yesterday? How do we define culture? Can I be my own culture and define my own morals? If morals are subjective, should we really care if someone feels that we have wronged them when we don't believe that their standard necessarily applies to us? Should we say that slavery was OK in the 19th century since it was a generally accepted practice? Can rape ever be justified? How about racism? If not, why not?

Again, if we can't have morality unless an outside source gives it to us, who gave morality to God? By your own logic, you admit that God must be immoral since no outside source gave God his sense of morality. If you don't believe God is immoral, then you must accept that morality doesn't need to have been created by someone else to exist and thus you have no reason to believe in God. And have you ever heard of the phrase common sense? Humans don't need God to come out of the sky and write a holy book to tell people it's a stupid idea to touch a hot stove. If they can figure out that much without God, why do we need God to give us morals? And again, if our morals come from God, why do we need the bible if God already gave us our sense of right and wrong? And it should also be pointed out that it was Christians in the 19th century who used the bible to justify slavery as it was all the most religious states (those ones in the south, you know?) that believed slavery was justified by God. And I find it amusing that you're accusing us of justifying slavery by not believing in your delusions, yet you're the one threatening us with torture to worship your God. What do you call that? Oh yeah, slavery!

 

 

 

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matt. 12:36,37)

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18)

Jesus also says in Mark 16:17-18 that the true Christians will be able to take up serpents, cast out demons, and drink poison and survive.

And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.

So, if you believe you're a true Christian, you must prove it by drinking poison and surviving. If you can't drink poision and survive, then according to Jesus, you are not a true Christian and I see no reason why we should believe you. Or if you deny this are you calling Jesus a liar?

[shantonu]

Sure, if we are to judge based upon whether a person feels guilty, then a lot of convicts would go free. Feeling guilty gives evidence that there is a basis for those guilty feelings; however, lack of guilty feelings does not necessarily give evidence of a lack of guilt. That was my point and it stands. I haven't said that all those who leave Christianity will feel guilt, just that those who do have a reason for feeling that guilt. The fact that you don't feel guilt doesn't change what I said since I didn't say all people feel that guilt.

What reason would that be? That we dared to disagree with you?

 

And, I never said that it did. Tell me how you believe Christianity to be insidious, I am curious. I mean, I am sorry that you feel so ill-treated by Christians with whom you associated; however, I believe that says more about the people with whom you associated than it does about Biblical Christianity.

Maybe you should try answering shantonu's question to find out? When are you going to answer it? Why are you avoiding shantonu? Are you too much of a coward to ask it or are you just another closed minded xtian that can't stand to face the truth? Answer shantonu's question!

 

 

Thanks for the support Neon Genesis. I believe the God-authorized genocides in the Books of Joshua and Samuel are the best arguments against Bible-believers because the argument refers only to the Biblical text itself and does not rely on science or any technical knowledge. The Bible-believer says "God is good, God is just, and the Bible is an inerrant account of God's actions in history." The Bible-believer is then obligated to explain why a good and just diety would order the wholesale killing of women, children, and babies.

 

I've had long online arguments with fundamentalists before. Some are well meaning and very intelligent. Others have admitted to just copying from the various apologetics guides that they have. For example, I had a long discussion with a neo-Calvinist who claimed that "scientific understanding presupposed the existence of a triune God." I asked him "why triune and not biune?" and he couldn't tell me. And that was because it wasn't in the apologetics guide that he was copying from. He really didn't know what he was talking about because he hadn't really thought the issues through for himself.

 

On the other hand, there are very smart and well-meaning fundamentalists out there. I've used the genocide line of argument against well-meaning fundamentalists before and gotten honest (though unsatisfactory) answers. One fundamentalist said that God knew the babies were going to grow up to be evil, so it was justified for God to order their slaughter.

 

Again, that's not a satisfactory answer because God could have ordered the Israelites to adopt the babies, but at least that particular fundamentalist was looking honestly at the question posed by Biblical accounts of God-ordered genocide. I can respect that.

 

What I cannot respect is someone hiding behind important-sounding concepts and fancy words and answering questions with questions. Not only is it cowardly and intellectually dishonest, but it takes up and wastes everyone's valuable time. I can abide a liar and a cheat, but not thief.

[Neon Genesis]

Thanks for the support Neon Genesis. I believe the God-authorized genocides in the Books of Joshua and Samuel are the best arguments against Bible-believers because the argument refers only to the Biblical text itself and does not rely on science or any technical knowledge. The Bible-believer says "God is good, God is just, and the Bible is an inerrant account of God's actions in history." The Bible-believer is then obligated to explain why a good and just diety would order the wholesale killing of women, children, and babies.

I agree these are the best arguments. This was actually what was the final nail in the coffin for my faith. I already had my doubts before but then I read about all those immoral scriptures in the bible. I even read the whole chapters to make sure they were being quoted in their context and every one of them was. I've asked fundies before to justify God's immoral actions and so far not a single one has been able to do it without also justifying mass infanticide in the process. To me there simply was no justification for an omnibenevolent God to slaughter innocent children.

 

 

 

 

Again, that's not a satisfactory answer because God could have ordered the Israelites to adopt the babies, but at least that particular fundamentalist was looking honestly at the question posed by Biblical accounts of God-ordered genocide. I can respect that.

Or why couldn't have God sent Jesus to convert them to Christianity? The Israelites wouldn't have had to fight in a war, they would have converted to Christianity, and maybe there would have been a happy ending, but for some reason, Jesus had more important things to do than saving babies.

[shantonu]

I agree these are the best arguments. This was actually what was the final nail in the coffin for my faith. I already had my doubts before but then I read about all those immoral scriptures in the bible. I even read the whole chapters to make sure they were being quoted in their context and every one of them was. I've asked fundies before to justify God's immoral actions and so far not a single one has been able to do it without also justifying mass infanticide in the process. To me there simply was no justification for an omnibenevolent God to slaughter innocent children.

 

There are several attempts at explaining the genocides on the internet. None of them are satisfactory because they assume that collective punishment is just. But we know that collecitve punishment is wrong. Even the Biblical text says so. Deut. 24:16. Apparently, unless God does it. Duet. 5:19.

 

The other problem with the standard apologetic for genocide--other than it's an apologetic for genocide!--is that the apologetic assumes that collateral damage is okay. Collateral damage is okay for humans. We can bomb parts of Iraq with justice (maybe) even if we know we might hit a school, because our goal was to destroy a weapons plant.

 

But collateral damage is just part of human practicality. God, on the other hand, is all-powerful. So God's justice has to be better than ours. We sometimes say "kill them all, let God sort them out," but God can't because he is God.

[LNC]

Wow, I guess I should my love for mathematics out the window. There goes engineering of all kinds and at least for me, a mental pastime. It's meaningless even though I derive pleasure and normalcy from it. I am sorry but I call bullhonkery on this too. Your thinking and my thinking are both derived from some kind of axioms. Since you seem to have a love for philosophy (face it, apologetics is Christian philosophy) as do I, then we both know that the law of non-contradiction is an axiom. We know that 1 + 1 = 2 and it can be demonstrated materially. You believe that God exists as an axiom. You believe that God is all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful as an axiom. You and I are both axiomatic thinkers. Why does my set of existential axioms disqualify me for making up my own morality?

 

Furthermore, Christianity is just as parasitic as atheism is. There are atheists that hold the Bible in decent regard because they agree with the teachings of Jesus, but they also do the same with say Buddha or some other great figure from the past. Christians before Thomas Aquinas held the philosophy of Plato in high regard because he was a theist, and much of what has come out of Christian philosophy has followed from the Platonic tradition. After Thomas Aquinas, much of Aristotlean philosophy has been taken up by the Christian camp as well. Tell me this, aren't Christian philosophers being parasites if they think the Aristotlean ethical golden mean is generally a good idea. In fact, I personally believe that the narrow road Jesus wants Christians to walk is just another way of describing Aristotle's theoretical golden mean of ethical behavior. Since Christianity has "inherited" those ideas, I don't see why atheists can't use religious morality as an example to derive their own. Since Plato and Aristotle followed the Greek pantheon, aren't Christians just being parasites off of their theistic worldview in terms of philosophy?

 

As for the idea that Christianity is a clever plagiarism of other pagan religions, if the accusations had any bearing, then Christianity can also be accused of being parasitic in that regard. As I said, I don't think those accusations have any bearing.

 

Our axioms must conform to reality if they are to be meaningful. If your axiomatic belief is that matter is all that exists, then your beliefs should be consistent to that axiom. I am just trying to point out where materialists make "leaps of faith" in their beliefs. Let's face it, we all build our lives on beliefs, with axioms at the root of those beliefs, so the question is whether we live consistently with our beliefs. When someone says that matter is all that exists, then I question why they then still hold to certain "romantic" (not meant in the usual sense, but that which has emotional appeal but no basis in reality) beliefs. So, the person would put the material world in the lower story of existence and the immaterial realm (meaning, love, hope, etc.) in the upper story, with the line of despair separating the two realms. To cross the line of despair requires a "leap of faith" Kant said, and that is what I believe that many materialists do.

 

I think you make the mistake that many do in these discussions of ethics and morality, which is to confuse ontology with epistemology. We first must answer the question of whether moral values are objective in nature, and if so, on what basis, before we jump to the question of how and from where we derive our knowledge of moral values. I would like to focus on that question before we move on.

[LNC]

Ummmm. No. I asked you a question, now you're asking me a question before you answer my question. That's hardly fair. I asked you to explain why it was moral for God to order the genocide in 1 Samuel 15:3. And you can't seem to answer a straight question. Instead, you're just wasting time. My "basis" for the astounding conclusion that killing babies is wrong is simply that I've observed that killing babies leads to suffering mothers, and the wail of suffering mothers is enough to convince me that killing babies is wrong and always has been wrong. But what does my basis have to do with it? I think killing babies is wrong. If you don't agree, then say that. If you do think that killing babies is wrong, then explain why 1 Samuel is an exception.

 

You need to show that your question has a valid basis, which I don't know that it does. If you have an objective basis for morality, then I will be happy to answer your question (assuming you give a valid basis for the grounding of objective morality.) However, if your basis of morality is subjective, then you really don't have a valid complaint against God, you are merely expressing what you do and don't prefer; yet, that is just an opinion and not much more. Much like if I said that I like Coke and you said you like Pepsi (or some other soft drink). We could argue about that all day, but there would ultimately be no right answer to which was the better soft drink. The same goes with morals. Unless they are grounded in an objective basis, then we are just discussing what we do and don't prefer, but there is no ultimate right or wrong. So, I choose not to get into an argument about your preferences and would like to know that you have an objective basis for morality before diving into this discussion, and if you do, on what basis. Once we have established that, then we can dive in.

[LNC]

Now, I agree that genocide or any murder is wrong, but then, I have a reason to believe that objective moral values exist as they derive from a transcendent God. But, I would like to know how you ground your moral values.

 

Really? Well then how do you explain the fact that God ordered a genocide in 1 Samuel chapter 15?

 

Did God command something that was immoral?

 

Besides grounding your morality in an objective basis, you must also define genocide and show that this is what actually occurred.

[Neon Genesis]

Besides grounding your morality in an objective basis, you must also define genocide and show that this is what actually occurred.

Why don't you just get it over with and admit you want to murder us all because we're atheists since this is obviously what you want as you're basically saying that unless we believe in God, you can do whatever you want to us? I personally find it tragic that you're basically admitting you would be a murderer without God and I think you should really seek psychiatrist help for this. As for how we can define moralty without God, isn't the Golden Rule enough? It would logically make sense to me that a society that does good is going to have less complications as a whole than a society who does bad. If we love our neighbors as ourselves, then wouldn't the values we consider most important logically fall into place? Again, why do we need God to tell us morality if we don't need God to tell us not to touch a hot stove? Our sense of morality has nothing to do with God and everything to do with basic common sense. And if believing in God gives you such a perfect understanding of morality, why is it that even Christians can't agree with each other what's right and what's wrong?

[shantonu]

Ummmm. No. I asked you a question, now you're asking me a question before you answer my question. That's hardly fair. I asked you to explain why it was moral for God to order the genocide in 1 Samuel 15:3. And you can't seem to answer a straight question. Instead, you're just wasting time. My "basis" for the astounding conclusion that killing babies is wrong is simply that I've observed that killing babies leads to suffering mothers, and the wail of suffering mothers is enough to convince me that killing babies is wrong and always has been wrong. But what does my basis have to do with it? I think killing babies is wrong. If you don't agree, then say that. If you do think that killing babies is wrong, then explain why 1 Samuel is an exception.

 

You need to show that your question has a valid basis, which I don't know that it does. If you have an objective basis for morality, then I will be happy to answer your question (assuming you give a valid basis for the grounding of objective morality.) However, if your basis of morality is subjective, then you really don't have a valid complaint against God, you are merely expressing what you do and don't prefer; yet, that is just an opinion and not much more. Much like if I said that I like Coke and you said you like Pepsi (or some other soft drink). We could argue about that all day, but there would ultimately be no right answer to which was the better soft drink. The same goes with morals. Unless they are grounded in an objective basis, then we are just discussing what we do and don't prefer, but there is no ultimate right or wrong. So, I choose not to get into an argument about your preferences and would like to know that you have an objective basis for morality before diving into this discussion, and if you do, on what basis. Once we have established that, then we can dive in.

 

That's cowardly nonsense. And you know it. Or maybe you don't know it. Because apparently you think that the rightness or wrongness of killing todlers wholesale is up for grabs.

 

Killing todlers is wrong. I don't need to have theory about why it's wrong. But you know what. I'll indulge your little game just to expose you for the fraud you are. I do have an objective ground for knowing that killing todlers is wrong. It's this: I'm a Buddhist and according to the universal principles of ahimsa, killing a baby is wrong.

 

Okay, now explain to me why God was justified in . . . well you know the rest by now.

[shantonu]

Now, I agree that genocide or any murder is wrong, but then, I have a reason to believe that objective moral values exist as they derive from a transcendent God. But, I would like to know how you ground your moral values.

 

Really? Well then how do you explain the fact that God ordered a genocide in 1 Samuel chapter 15?

 

Did God command something that was immoral?

 

Besides grounding your morality in an objective basis, you must also define genocide and show that this is what actually occurred.

 

Dude, you're so full of crap. Fine, as above, I'm willing to indulge your bullshit only to amply demonstrate that you are complete charlatan. Let's assume is was not a genocide so as to avoid the little sematical game you are playing. Let's just focus on the killing of babies. Are you saying that didn't happen?

 

Let me anticipate your next line of bullshit:Maybe there weren't any babies in the entire land of Canaan. Does that make God's command moral? It does not. If I say, go and kill John Smith, a particular person, but John Smith is already dead so it's impossible to kill him, does that absolve me of giving an immoral order? Of course not.

 

You should really quit while you are behind because you are embarassing yourself.

[shantonu]

Besides grounding your morality in an objective basis, you must also define genocide and show that this is what actually occurred.

Why don't you just get it over with and admit you want to murder us all because we're atheists since this is obviously what you want as you're basically saying that unless we believe in God, you can do whatever you want to us? I personally find it tragic that you're basically admitting you would be a murderer without God and I think you should really seek psychiatrist help for this. As for how we can define moralty without God, isn't the Golden Rule enough? It would logically make sense to me that a society that does good is going to have less complications as a whole than a society who does bad. If we love our neighbors as ourselves, then wouldn't the values we consider most important logically fall into place? Again, why do we need God to tell us morality if we don't need God to tell us not to touch a hot stove? Our sense of morality has nothing to do with God and everything to do with basic common sense. And if believing in God gives you such a perfect understanding of morality, why is it that even Christians can't agree with each other what's right and what's wrong?

 

This guy is really a joke. He can't recognize the contradictions in his own words: He said that he knew that killing babies was wrong because he believed in a transcendent God. So what happens if the transcendent God told him to kill a baby? I guess that would be okay. So killiing babies is wrong, except when it isn't. So much for an "objective ground" for morality. I've sort of stopped taking this seriously.

 

However, I hope that people are careful in engaging this guy. He's a troll, and trolls know how to pull you into their little world with sematic games and feigned ignorance.

[chefranden]

Besides grounding your morality in an objective basis, you must also define genocide and show that this is what actually occurred.

 

I think that maybe shantonu was giving you the benefit of the doubt, by supposing that you knew the definition of genocide, or knew how to look it up.

 

Genocide: ...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

 

a) Killing members of the group;

b Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2

[shantonu]

Besides grounding your morality in an objective basis, you must also define genocide and show that this is what actually occurred.

 

I think that maybe shantonu was giving you the benefit of the doubt, by supposing that you knew the definition of genocide, or knew how to look it up.

 

Genocide: ...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

 

a) Killing members of the group;

b Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2

 

I think it's clear that LNC is a troll out to waste everyone's time with pointless sematic arguments. Next he'll say he doesn't know what "killing" or "babies" means. Perhaps I shouldn't "feed the troll" but I'm not taking him seriously anymore.

[Guest JohnEx]

To the original thread starter: Do some research, read history, read Bible scholars without an agenda. Start with Bart Ehrman. The mentions of Jesus in Josephus are known forgeries. Pliny talks about christians not christ, but just because christians exist doesn't mean christ did. The existence of the cult of Dionysis didn't make Dionysis any "realer". Read the gospels independently from one another. Ask yourself how the accounts can be so contradictory. Separate what is actually there from the tradition that grew around it over time. The historicity of christ is not a given. The character of Jesus Christ is likely a composite of several historical figures. The more you research the easier it will be to cut the cord.

[pitchu]

LNC:

you are merely expressing what you do and don't prefer

 

Yeah. That's right. Taking a stand against infanticide is not a moral choice, it's merely a matter of personal preference... you either like live babies or dead babies... like Pepsi or Coke.

 

LNC hasn't yet stated what he prefers, but our being heathens like we are on this site, I'll bet there's a bunch of us whose personal preference is for killing babies.

 

Can we see a show of hands?

 

(Don't be shy -- this isn't about your morality; it's just a "paper or plastic" kind of choice.)

[Guest end3]

LNC:

you are merely expressing what you do and don't prefer

 

Yeah. That's right. Taking a stand against infanticide is not a moral choice, it's merely a matter of personal preference... you either like live babies or dead babies... like Pepsi or Coke.

 

LNC hasn't yet stated what he prefers, but our being heathens like we are on this site, I'll bet there's a bunch of us whose personal preference is for killing babies.

 

Can we see a show of hands?

 

(Don't be shy -- this isn't about your morality; it's just a "paper or plastic" kind of choice.)

 

Let's see....one moral live baby or an amoral dead baby....or an amoral live baby or dead moral baby.....or two live babies, one moral and one amoral....or two babies, just plain dead. I prefer Dr. Pepper...

[pitchu]

Let's see....one moral live baby or an amoral dead baby....or an amoral live baby or dead moral baby.....or two live babies, one moral and one amoral....or two babies, just plain dead. I prefer Dr. Pepper...

 

[MathGeek]

Our axioms must conform to reality if they are to be meaningful. If your axiomatic belief is that matter is all that exists, then your beliefs should be consistent to that axiom. I am just trying to point out where materialists make "leaps of faith" in their beliefs. Let's face it, we all build our lives on beliefs, with axioms at the root of those beliefs, so the question is whether we live consistently with our beliefs. When someone says that matter is all that exists, then I question why they then still hold to certain "romantic" (not meant in the usual sense, but that which has emotional appeal but no basis in reality) beliefs. So, the person would put the material world in the lower story of existence and the immaterial realm (meaning, love, hope, etc.) in the upper story, with the line of despair separating the two realms. To cross the line of despair requires a "leap of faith" Kant said, and that is what I believe that many materialists do.

 

I am going to nitpick first: didn't Kierkegaard use the phrase "leap of faith" because I don't remember ever hearing or seeing that phrase associated with Kant. Just a minor nitpick is all.

 

Why am I not allowed to make "leaps of faith"? Isn't knowledge just another form of faith to some degree? Even if we question a certain "fact" or "conjecture", we are making a leap of faith in accepting a truth value be it based on hard evidence or simple supposition. You and I both know this for a fact. I accept the "ethic of reciprocity" as an axiom because is has been proven effective in many cultures across the world and since cultures live in this reality, then I don't see how that moral axiom is inconsistent with my worldview.

 

Since when are having emotionally-based beliefs are not allowed in a materialistic worldview? Last I checked, humans are biologically in tune to be social animals much like primates and other animal communities. Without emotionally-based beliefs, human society would cease to function. Trust (as a general emotion) is key belief here. Since I am a materialist to some degree, I should disregard trust and somehow become this monster of a person that cares less about everybody else. From my experience, if I hurt a person's feelings then I am liable to make reparations of some kind because I dislike injuring a person in any way. The emotional reaction given by anger and tears and a raised voice tell me that I am liable for the injury and that I need to make amends. Because I can't account for this, I am being a hypocrite and a parasite off the theistic worldview.

 

Sorry, that does not compute. Granted this only works if I have comprehended you correctly.

 

Because I try live in an ethical manner that is accepted by my culture, that makes me a parasite by default according to Squidward here.

 

I think you make the mistake that many do in these discussions of ethics and morality, which is to confuse ontology with epistemology. We first must answer the question of whether moral values are objective in nature, and if so, on what basis, before we jump to the question of how and from where we derive our knowledge of moral values. I would like to focus on that question before we move on.

 

This question has been answered for me thanks to biological studies done on primates and other animal species. Did you know that primates and humans have a tendency to dislike theft and adultery? Did you know that there are over 100 animal species that have homosexual characteristics? Did you know that certain animal species don't cannabalize the other members of species? By keen and repeated observation, humans have discovered these truths for themselves.

 

Let me guess, these don't count because we are the stuards of the animals because God gave us dominion over the planet, and since we are higher then them, we can't use other animal species as a topic of discussion.

 

I don't know what else I can tell you on this. I guess since I have a staunch dislike for Pol Pot but since the atrocities of The Killing Fields make me take pause when I am reminded about them, I am in essence being inconsistent because empathizing with those that died because materialists can't have emotions.

 

You are absolutely in the wrong here. You are dead on wrong, LNC.

[shantonu]

LNC:

you are merely expressing what you do and don't prefer

 

Yeah. That's right. Taking a stand against infanticide is not a moral choice, it's merely a matter of personal preference... you either like live babies or dead babies... like Pepsi or Coke.

 

LNC hasn't yet stated what he prefers, but our being heathens like we are on this site, I'll bet there's a bunch of us whose personal preference is for killing babies.

 

Can we see a show of hands?

 

(Don't be shy -- this isn't about your morality; it's just a "paper or plastic" kind of choice.)

 

Let's see....one moral live baby or an amoral dead baby....or an amoral live baby or dead moral baby.....or two live babies, one moral and one amoral....or two babies, just plain dead. I prefer Dr. Pepper...

 

I guess you are joking, but there are no "moral babies." Babies aren't capable of morality or immorality. They are, after all, only babies.

[shantonu]

Our axioms must conform to reality if they are to be meaningful. If your axiomatic belief is that matter is all that exists, then your beliefs should be consistent to that axiom. I am just trying to point out where materialists make "leaps of faith" in their beliefs. Let's face it, we all build our lives on beliefs, with axioms at the root of those beliefs, so the question is whether we live consistently with our beliefs. When someone says that matter is all that exists, then I question why they then still hold to certain "romantic" (not meant in the usual sense, but that which has emotional appeal but no basis in reality) beliefs. So, the person would put the material world in the lower story of existence and the immaterial realm (meaning, love, hope, etc.) in the upper story, with the line of despair separating the two realms. To cross the line of despair requires a "leap of faith" Kant said, and that is what I believe that many materialists do.

 

I am going to nitpick first: didn't Kierkegaard use the phrase "leap of faith" because I don't remember ever hearing or seeing that phrase associated with Kant. Just a minor nitpick is all.

 

Why am I not allowed to make "leaps of faith"? Isn't knowledge just another form of faith to some degree? Even if we question a certain "fact" or "conjecture", we are making a leap of faith in accepting a truth value be it based on hard evidence or simple supposition. You and I both know this for a fact. I accept the "ethic of reciprocity" as an axiom because is has been proven effective in many cultures across the world and since cultures live in this reality, then I don't see how that moral axiom is inconsistent with my worldview.

 

Since when are having emotionally-based beliefs are not allowed in a materialistic worldview? Last I checked, humans are biologically in tune to be social animals much like primates and other animal communities. Without emotionally-based beliefs, human society would cease to function. Trust (as a general emotion) is key belief here. Since I am a materialist to some degree, I should disregard trust and somehow become this monster of a person that cares less about everybody else. From my experience, if I hurt a person's feelings then I am liable to make reparations of some kind because I dislike injuring a person in any way. The emotional reaction given by anger and tears and a raised voice tell me that I am liable for the injury and that I need to make amends. Because I can't account for this, I am being a hypocrite and a parasite off the theistic worldview.

 

Sorry, that does not compute. Granted this only works if I have comprehended you correctly.

 

Because I try live in an ethical manner that is accepted by my culture, that makes me a parasite by default according to Squidward here.

 

I think you make the mistake that many do in these discussions of ethics and morality, which is to confuse ontology with epistemology. We first must answer the question of whether moral values are objective in nature, and if so, on what basis, before we jump to the question of how and from where we derive our knowledge of moral values. I would like to focus on that question before we move on.

 

This question has been answered for me thanks to biological studies done on primates and other animal species. Did you know that primates and humans have a tendency to dislike theft and adultery? Did you know that there are over 100 animal species that have homosexual characteristics? Did you know that certain animal species don't cannabalize the other members of species? By keen and repeated observation, humans have discovered these truths for themselves.

 

Let me guess, these don't count because we are the stuards of the animals because God gave us dominion over the planet, and since we are higher then them, we can't use other animal species as a topic of discussion.

 

I don't know what else I can tell you on this. I guess since I have a staunch dislike for Pol Pot but since the atrocities of The Killing Fields make me take pause when I am reminded about them, I am in essence being inconsistent because empathizing with those that died because materialists can't have emotions.

 

You are absolutely in the wrong here. You are dead on wrong, LNC.

 

MathGeek. It's not just a slip of the lip. LNC has never read any of the sources he cites. He's never read one word of Kant. He doesn't really know what ontology is or epistemology. He's a fake. He can look up the entry on wikipedia and use the word correctly in a sentence, but it's just parroting. He hasn't thought about these issues--he only knows how to sound as if he has. He is carrying around knowledge the way a donkey might carry around a sack of books.

[hereticzero]

Letting go of Jesus is the last act in deconversion; afterall, Jesus is what is crammed down our throats and even if you do not go to church you cannot help hearing something about him. Don't worry if you cannot give up Jesus as a belief. There are many other things to worry about in life these days.