Why Do Atheists Care About Religion?

[LNC]

Then tell me, which person did he attack? Who? An ad hominem is an attack on a PERSON, a real entity, a real living being, so who is it? Give me the name? The problem here is that he doesn't name any names. He doesn't accuse or attack any person at all. He attacks religion.

 

He attacks a whole class of people, people of faith, particularly, the Christian faith. For example, he writes, "The point is that religious people do all those things and they have tried to force their ridiculous beliefs on society without providing sufficient evidence for those beliefs." He gives examples of what "all those things are" in the previous paragraph: he says they "believed ridiculous mythologies," "stealing tax payer money in the form of tax-exempt statuses," "tried to force their ridiculous beliefs on society without providing sufficient evidence for those beliefs." These are attacks on the people, not on the evidence for or against the particular faith. Again, he paints with a broad brush by grouping all religions together, rather than treating them as individual belief systems. So, there is evidence of the ad hominem against more than a person, but against a group of people, real, living beings, me included. One doesn't have to name names to commit an ad hominem, unless you have a definition that includes that caveat that I don't know about. If so, give me the website or book with the definition that lists that as a requirement.

 

You keep on mixing up different kinds of fallacies and handle them in one big lump, and you call them all ad hominem. The broad brush is not ad hominem. Hasty generalization is not ad hominem. And he's not attacking any particular person.

 

That is a misreading of my posts. I, in fact, listed several fallacies committed by the author and detailed how the author committed those individual fallacies. Go back and reread my posts more carefully.

 

Your fallacy is that you think you're so smart, but in reality you fail constantly. (<-- THAT is an ad hominem.)

 

Well, at least you're honest enough to admit when you commit a fallacy, a trait the author could stand to gain.

 

And as an FYI, I checked in three different books I have about reasoning, logic, and argumentation, and as far as I can tell, they all agree with me. You're inventing your own definitions of the fallacy.

 

Please cite your sources that say that I am inventing my own definition. I am not aware of any authors that have referred to me personally. Now, if you mean that their definitions are not in accord with the way that I have applied the fallacy, please cite those sources and I will check them out. I have checked several sources and they all say that an attack on the person rather than on the argument is an ad hominem attack. That is what the author has done repeatedly in his article. He has attacked religious people as unreasoning, thieves, compared them to a crazy person,

said that they try to forcetheir points of view on others, etc. Those are clear examples of personal attacks. Maybe you don't see it that way since you agree with the author's point of view and methodology, but it is an attack nonetheless.

 

When he says, "People use religion to justify the most absurdly cruel acts and attitudes," he's making an unsupported statement, but he's not making an ad hominem. He's making an absolute statement and should have added a qualifier for this claim. He should have said, "Some people use religion to justify the most absurdly cruel acts and attitudes." Do you really disagree with this modified claim? What about terrorists who kill people in the name of religion? What about 9/11? Are you saying they were not religious or used religion to justify their cruel act? I'd say they did. So this modified statement is most definitely true and can be supported with valid data. So is this modified claim an ad hominem? How? If not, it proves that it wasn't an attack on the person, but rather it was a very hasty generalization without support. End of story.

 

If you will read my post closely, you will notice that I shifted my argument from ad hominem at that point. The point I was making is that evil people will use whatever excuse suits them to justify their evil acts. Religion is an easy scapegoat for many, including the 9/11 terrorists. So, yes, some people do use religion as an excuse for evil acts, just as some use atheistic philosophy or evolutionary philosophy as excuses. Does that count against the belief? I don't think so, the belief stands or falls on the merits of the arguments and evidence. If the belief system gives justification for the evil act, then it counts against that belief. But then again, the belief would be evil based upon its teachings irrespective of whether anyone ever acted upon them. So, if you, or anyone else can prove that the core Islamic teachings justified the 9/11 terrorists, then it would count against that system of belief. However, if it cannot be proved, then it does not. The same is true of social Darwinism. If someone can make a legitimate connection between social Darwinism and the evils committed under Communism, then it counts against social Darwinism as a belief system. If not, then it cannot be counted against that system. However, to make sweeping generalizations simply based upon unfounded connections is erroneous. The author does not do the hard work of trying to make the connection in a legitimate way, but simply resorts to assertion and loose association. It is not uncommon in the skeptic community as Chris Hitchens has made an industry of it.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

Whatever. Have it your way. I don't know why I even bother anymore.

[Ouroboros]

You must be a very good poker player. You attempt to pull off a pretty impressive bluff.

You are questioning his integrity and honesty?

 

Ad hominem?

 

Oh, right. Forgot. Not when you do it.

 

However, I am too much of a skeptic to be taken in by such maneuvers,

Yes, you're a god. Other people are not. Only you.

 

However, you are simply using a form of an ad hominem to treat them as rubes for which "any ol" reason will do.

Right. Your favorite fallacy to use in your favor.

 

Or are you simply assuming these ideas to fit your pre-defined worldview?

And that is not an ad hominem if you do it, only if someone else does it.

 

I will give you credit for at least reading some Greek lexicons, that is more than most skeptics will do.

Ad hominem and hasty generalization if it had been about Christians, but not here, since it's about skeptics.

 

He lumps in all religions with the 9/11 terrorists, which is the composition fallacy.

Oh. It's an composition fallacy as well? The fallacies are all piling up, aren't they? So it's an ad hominem, hasty generalization, composition fallacy, ... why not say: all of the fallacies. It's faster.

[NotBlinded]

Yes, I want to agree, I really do, but there might be a band of cannibals that think otherwise. I know that is a horrible thought, but this it what stops me from thinking that there can be anyone truly objective without any outside influence in the decision of what is right and what is wrong. Could we condem them? It is our own values, an outside influence, in our judgment of their actions.

 

I should have said this before, because this is the underlying reason I used definition 3a.(expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations). Excluding those who are not born with empathy, wouldn't any other human have negative feelings witnessing another human being stabbed or tortured to death? It seems to me that most would feel some disgust and empathy for the victim, if they weren't already callous through being conditioned to accept this sort of behavior. What I mean by "fact as perceived without distortion" would be the raw feeling evoked by the extreme suffering of a person like ourselves. And the fact of our human physical makeup that suffers and dies. I think (I may be wrong?) that we naturally react, apart from our social conditioning, with empathy and revulsion.

 

You said:"I don't think there is anyone that can be truly objective." I agree that we can't be in the strictest sense. I'm saying that humans being harmed and our reaction of empathy, constitutes what I mean by objective facts. It isn't the same as the person being objective. So, human makeup is objective and it evokes a natural (objective) reaction to being harmed. I think of this as the basis for human morality. Does that make sense?

Yes, that does make perfect sense. If a baby sees someone upset, they also become upset. They certainly don't giggle, but is that a fear response instead of an empathetic one? Is it conditioning against a natural response to feel empathy, or is empathy a conditioning to avoid our animalistic nature?

 

I tell you what, I go 'round and 'round with this in my head!

 

Exactly! They would know if bacon was objective morality!

 

I got it! Woo Hoo!

 

When looking at this from the objective morality angle, this would also have to be seen as a natural empathetic reaction, right? I mean that in order for us to instictively know to be upset by something such as torture, we are all smelling bacon right? Would this mean that it is evolutionary or would it mean that objective morality actually does exist? Are we back to objectivity in the b sense...an injecting of this into our consciousness as AM said? Is this why LNC, et al, want to claim that morals are objective?

 

I don't think it's possible to ever find this out. We can't take a group of people that have no influence one way or the other in their lives to find out how their reaction would be if they were to watch a person in this group be tortured and killed.

 

I do agree with you that it is objective, but only to certain conditioned groups, but then that's not really objective. Damn!

 

I have to say that my beliefs are such that I have difficulty separating all this out because to me, subjects and objects are one. I'll use AM's words because he expresses my beliefs better than I do. I'm not saying my understanding of them is lacking, he's just better at expressing them in a coherent way.

 

The only kind of truth that would be truly objective, would be direct intuition within God. But then, is that understanding reality objectively? Not really. Because there is really is no longer object nor subject. It simply is all. It simply is what IS.

[Antlerman]

I'm sitting here reading this linked post of yours, thinking 'fallacies about fallacies'. It's like a loop that goes around and around on itself... sort of like a snake eating its own tail....

 

 

[NotBlinded]

I'm sitting here reading this linked post of yours, thinking 'fallacies about fallacies'. It's like a loop that goes around and around on itself... sort of like a snake eating its own tail....

 

 

Yes,

 

LNC likes to call fallacy quite often. Do you know there is a fallacy for that?

 

Fallacy Fallacy

Alias:

Argumentum ad Logicam

Fallacist's Fallacy

Type: Bad Reasons Fallacy

Form:

Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious.

Therefore, C is false.

 

Exposition:

Like anything else, the concept of logical fallacy can be misunderstood and misused, and can even become a source of fallacious reasoning. To say that an argument is fallacious is to claim that there is no sufficiently strong logical connection between the premisses and the conclusion. This says nothing about the truth-value of the conclusion, so it is unwarranted to conclude that a proposition is false simply because some argument for it is fallacious.

 

It's easy to come up with fallacious arguments for any proposition, whatever its truth-value. What's hard is to find a cogent argument for a proposition, even when it's true. For example, it is now believed by mathematicians that the proposition known as "Fermat's last theorem" is true, yet it took over three centuries for anyone to prove it. In the meantime, many invalid arguments were presented for it.

 

Exposure:

It is reasonable to, at least provisionally, reject an improbable proposition for which no adequate evidence has been presented. So, if you can show that all of the common arguments for a certain proposition are fallacious, and the burden of proof is on the proposition's proponents, then you do not commit this fallacy by rejecting that proposition. Rather, the fallacy is committed when you jump to the conclusion that just because one argument for it is fallacious, no cogent argument for it can exist.

 

Fallacy Files

 

Oh noes...I did it too! Well, the snake will soon reach it's own head and vanish.

 

I wonder if there is a Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy?

[Guest end3]

I'm sitting here reading this linked post of yours, thinking 'fallacies about fallacies'. It's like a loop that goes around and around on itself... sort of like a snake eating its own tail....

 

 

 

So does certainty breed stagnation or comfort?

[NotBlinded]

I'm sitting here reading this linked post of yours, thinking 'fallacies about fallacies'. It's like a loop that goes around and around on itself... sort of like a snake eating its own tail....

 

 

 

So does certainty breed stagnation or comfort?

end, the things that you say sometimes takes me aback (not in a bad way). That is a very good question and I wasn't expecting it from what AM said. You went deep on that one!

 

My answer would have to be stagnation if one can recognize the changing nature of the universe and all life in it. My other answer would have to be comfort if one wants a feeling of permanence in this ever changing universe and the life it contains.

[Ouroboros]

I'm sitting here reading this linked post of yours, thinking 'fallacies about fallacies'. It's like a loop that goes around and around on itself... sort of like a snake eating its own tail....

 

 

I took some courses in argumentation and logic, and my impression of modern style of argumentation is that it's less formal than it used to be. LNC still subscribe to the old fashioned formal logic kind, and unfortunately, you can almost always find a fallacy of some kind in every argument. That's why I poke him so much. Any kind of inductive inference is a form of generalization. Is a generalization valid or not? It's not always quite clear, and most of the time it's based on culture, values, and popular opinion rather than logic. That doesn't mean fallacies are useful, but they should be applied with care and not in a monkey-throwing-shit-around fashion (unless it is a specific syllogism that is under analysis, then you would apply every fallacy you can find). It's not of any value to apply formal logic to informal arguments, while restricting the use on syllogisms. It should be reversed.

 

I recommend that everyone on this board look into Toulmin, and his ideas of a model for modern argumentation.

[Ouroboros]

I'm sitting here reading this linked post of yours, thinking 'fallacies about fallacies'. It's like a loop that goes around and around on itself... sort of like a snake eating its own tail....

 

 

 

So does certainty breed stagnation or comfort?

Perhaps comfort leads to stagnation?

[Mriana]

Yet amazingly, when I gave an answer concerning the difference between what O'Hara said some dude out in the Far East, he never acknowledged it. It seems he prefers not addressing realities and facts or something.

[Antlerman]

I'm sitting here reading this linked post of yours, thinking 'fallacies about fallacies'. It's like a loop that goes around and around on itself... sort of like a snake eating its own tail....

 

 

 

So does certainty breed stagnation or comfort?

Interesting question. It depends. I would say that if we wish to claim certainty in our minds about something so we can assure ourselves we are correct, and take comfort from that self-assurance, then that puts us at risk of having that comfort destroyed once we have new information that comes along and unseats that belief in our certainty. Just ask any one of the 5000 members on this site if they understand what that means.

 

I believe that kind of certainty that comes from thinking we have the correct mental understanding of something, gives the illusion of comfort and can in fact breed a certain stagnation by forcing you to limit what you are willing to be exposed to in knowledge. You will in fact limit your growth by being married to only safe things that don't threaten that assurance. Again, ask any one of the site here if they understand that.

 

But, I do believe there is a certainty that we can have that doesn't depend on having the correct interpretation, or evidence, or any such thing that has to do with reason alone. It can be a knowledge beyond reason, an assurance of the heart, and from that it is open to reason and knowledge of the mind without fear of it.

 

This is the exact opposite of LNC who claims 'faith' (to use that word) "flows from the evidence". Just on an argument of logic alone, how can one start with evidence and find "God" like he was discovering the existence of a Yeti? It reduces the Transcendent to a thing, and that could not be God.

[agnosticator]

Yes, that does make perfect sense. If a baby sees someone upset, they also become upset. They certainly don't giggle, but is that a fear response instead of an empathetic one?

 

Maybe both.

 

Is it conditioning against a natural response to feel empathy, or is empathy a conditioning to avoid our animalistic nature?

 

Since animals have been observed to display empathy, our empathy may be a natural response from our animal nature. Oooh hoo ahaahaaaaah!!!(shrill, ape-like noises)

What influence conditioning has with empathy, I don't know. I'd like to find a study about it somewhere.

 

When looking at this from the objective morality angle, this would also have to be seen as a natural empathetic reaction, right? I mean that in order for us to instictively know to be upset by something such as torture, we are all smelling bacon right? Would this mean that it is evolutionary or would it mean that objective morality actually does exist? Are we back to objectivity in the b sense...an injecting of this into our consciousness as AM said? Is this why LNC, et al, want to claim that morals are objective?

 

I don't think it's possible to ever find this out. We can't take a group of people that have no influence one way or the other in their lives to find out how their reaction would be if they were to watch a person in this group be tortured and killed.

 

I do agree with you that it is objective, but only to certain conditioned groups, but then that's not really objective. Damn!

 

Hmm...you have revealed our limited subjectivity. What a pickle we are in! Though it is interesting...

 

I have to say that my beliefs are such that I have difficulty separating all this out because to me, subjects and objects are one. I'll use AM's words because he expresses my beliefs better than I do. I'm not saying my understanding of them is lacking, he's just better at expressing them in a coherent way.

 

Oh, I understand your English just fine!

[LNC]

Well for one thing, I don't know who Kim Jong II is. I can't imagine anyone enjoys watching people suffer. I don't think one would be normal if they wanted to see someone suffer from illness. Even elephants keep their dying company and mourn when they see one of the loved ones die. Secondly, prayer never works. No one is cured by prayers. It takes knowledgeable drs to help the sick and even then, like say in the case of cancer, there is no guarantees, but I can guarantee you that IF my mother had not gone in to see a dr when she discovered that lump in her breast, she would have died of breast cancer. It was already at stage 3 and she procrastinated too long as was, using prayer in hopes it was not cancer. Even my grandmother, who was alive at the time was surprised because we never had a case of breast cancer in our family. Turns out that is usually the case, BUT since my mother had breast cancer, I am at risk. It's been 10 years now and she has been declared by the drs as being a cancer survivor. Prayer alone cannot do that. We must seek out other knowledgeable humans to help us.

 

 

First, sorry, I seemed to have inadvertently skipped over this post and didn't realize it until I saw your later post. Kim Jong Il has been referred to as the two-bit dictator (of N. Korea) with a bad haircut. He seems to take great pleasure in the starvation and suffering of the N.K. people as he lives in palatial pleasure. I don't think it is much different than many of the other dictators who have lived throughout history, whether it is Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin or many others, they were brutal to their people while they themselves lived the high life. People have the capacity to be desperately wicked. I am glad to hear that your mother is doing well; however, I have seen examples of answered prayers in cases that were inexplicable to doctors. Yet, that doesn't mean that God cannot include a doctor's work as part of his answer to prayer. It is important to realize that God is not a cosmic vending machine in which you insert your prayer coin and he responds by giving you your request. God is omniscient and knows what would be best for the person and humanity in the long run. I don't know the mind of God enough to know why he answers some prayer requests according to the request and others contrary to the request as I am a finite being and he is an infinite being. All I know is that it is not an argument against God's existence that he does not answer every person's prayers according to his/her request, that would make him a contingent being.

 

I do not know of an atheist who condones starvation or exploitation of others. That is just morally wrong, but that does not mean, given that atheists are human, that there isn't one out there. What you say of Kim Jong II is totally opposite of what O'Hare was saying. People made O'Hare out to be a monster just because she was an atheist and someone killed because they were sick and demented and probably believed such crap about her. The thing is, it simply was not true from what I can tell. The other mistake she made was giving people a second chance. She gave an ex-con a second chance, probably without even looking into his background. She had been a little too trusting and wanted to believe he had been rehabilitated. She probably also thought that if no one gave them a chance to prove themselves, they'd just end up right back in jail. She seemed to have had good intentions, but they backfired on her.

 

I do not believe she was necessarily a bad person and I do not believe for a minute she was a bad person because she was an atheist. What she stated had nothing to do with starving people or exploiting them. Everything she said in that statement are good things. There is not a thing wrong with what she said. Show me how they were bad things. Show me how that statement does not live up to this by the AHA: Humanist Manifesto III

 

Creating hospitals benefits society and advancements in medical science benefits society. Good health also maximizes happiness too. What she stated are ethics based on human need and interests.

 

What she said also fits this by the CSH: Humanist Manifesto 2000

 

Now show me how what she said was a bad thing and does not fit either of those Humanist Manifestos. Of course at that time, the Humanist Manfesto III did not exist. It was the Humanist Manifesto II, but she still did not go outside these things with her statement: Humanist Manifesto II

 

Everything she stated benefits society, encourages the betterment and advancement of society, maximizes happiness and well-being, and focuses on individuals, not the advancement of some religious ideology and dogma, which really hasn't done much to advance and better society.

 

One more thing, her statement wants to rid society of poverty, not impoverish them.

 

Kim Jong IL, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Amin and others were atheists and all condoned starvation and the exploitation of others. However, could you give me a basis as to why this would be morally wrong from your worldview. I am not asking what your preference or inclination is on this subject, but why it is objectively wrong to do these things. If you ground it in the value and worth of the individual, you also need to ground that value objectively. In other words, you need to explain why this standard applies to all people rather than just to certain individual or times. Now, O'hare may have been a very nice person, I don't know as I didn't know her. I don't judge whether a person is nice or not based upon what they believe about God. My father in law was a very nice person and an atheist. I am just saying that the atheist needs to ground morality as more than a personal opinion in order for it to mean anything beyond that individual.

 

LNC

[agnosticator]

LNC:

I am not asking what your preference or inclination is on this subject, but why it is objectively wrong to do these things. If you ground it in the value and worth of the individual, you also need to ground that value objectively...

 

In other words, you need to explain why this standard applies to all people rather than just to certain individual or times. I am just saying that the atheist needs to ground morality as more than a personal opinion in order for it to mean anything beyond that individual.

 

All humans can suffer and die. All humans feel pain and have emotions,and react emotionally within themselves to stimuli. These are the objective facts of the human makeup. Humans think about their circumstances, and choose their own actions. Since these actions affect others, humans enter into a relationship with those around them. This is morality.

 

The basis of human morality is the objective human animal. The emotions expressed that affect other humans within relationships, are also part of the objective basis. Without all this, there can be no morality.

 

People who cause unnecessary suffering and death have a direct impact upon other humans' makeup. The reason they cause pain, suffering, and death, is a lack of empathy and fairness towards other humans. This is not a natural occurrence. IOW, nature is not the instigator of this suffering and death; these individuals are. In order for humans to survive and thrive, they create laws and rules to prevent these people from harming others. Since all humans share an objective base of existence, each individual should be treated with fairness and equality.

[Antlerman]

I am just saying that the atheist needs to ground morality as more than a personal opinion in order for it to mean anything beyond that individual.

 

LNC

You do read the posts others are putting up in here? I believe we agree that morality is objective, in that it is greater than the individual. That was discussed at some length by us. It was in those posts where I talked about how you avoid any discussion that leaves behind the safety-net of your tower of evidence you anchor your faith in. This make four times you've avoided that discussion. (No surprise actually).

[Ouroboros]

This make four times you've avoided that discussion. (No surprise actually).

Haven't you noticed? He favors the confrontations with me.

[LNC]

LNC I became a xian in 1970. About four years ago I made a decision to leave church for good because I was sick and fucking tired of being surrounded by people who claim the name of christ, yet run around causing so much damage with their judgement.

 

Because I became a xian as a child, I have always had a childlike faith, pretty well unpolluted by adult justifications for bad behaviour.

 

This is what I saw in the church. People who even though they say they believe in a god of love wouldnt know what love was if it jumped up and bit them on the ass. The church is about CONFORMITY, not about love. If you convince us you are one of US, we will accept you and pretend to love you. But you put one foot outside what we think is acceptable, and we will expel you from among us so fast your feet won't touch the ground. We will gossip about you, judge you, reject you and pretend you never existed. Doesn't matter that you gave your life to serve the brethren that you really did love, and valued the souls of those with whom you worshipped. We will spread unfounded lies about you, laugh at you behind your back and say well "the penny never really dropped there did it"?

 

The church has become a business/social club with a bit of praise god thrown it to make it seem legitimate. It is a heirachy that gives sociopaths a perfect arena to act out their pathologies, because if "god told you" you can get away with anything. You can emotionally, spiritually and mentally abuse people until they commit suicide, you can manipulate anyone and everyone with the social mores the church imposes in the name of god. You can twist scripture to make it mean whatever suits your agenda.

 

In all my years as a xian I have met thousands of them. About 50 of them ever really understood who jesus was. And I recognised them the way the bible said I would, by their genuine humility and love for each other, despite the circumstances. By their belief we are all equal, so they need to feel no superiority over others. By their love for people over money, by their willingness to tell the truth even if it wasnt pretty. Most of all by the way they were prepared to be rejected by the group (church) if they knew what the group was doing was wrong.

 

So for me its not about who has the best arguments or who understands the scriptures. You can keep your Greek meanings. Its about show me. Show me you understand by living them, or don't stand there and tell me anything at all.

 

I am an idealist, I wanted the whole thing to be true, but experience has shown me that in the majority of cases even when people say they are saved, their hearts dont change at all. I'm tired of being part of something that treats people so badly and consistently violates everything it says it believes. I'm done.

 

I wonder why you consider your judgmentalism to be OK, while the judgmentalism you perceived in the members of your church to be bad? If you left the church because the people there were judgmental, why are you now so judgmental of them? Isn't that being a bit hypocritical? Now, there is no perfect church as each is made up of sinners and yours was included in that list. I also can only go by what you say about the church, so I cannot judge the people there as you seem to be able to. All I can say is that I have been in many churches in my life and belonged to three of them over the time I have been a Christian and none has been like what you have said. Are there sinners in these churches? Sure. Are there hypocrites, not for the most part. You see, none of us is claiming to be perfect. None of us is claiming to have overcome sin completely. Are there phonies in the church? Sure, Jesus even had a phony as a disciple (Judas). However, there are also people who are genuinely changed by the gospel and people that want to be like Jesus.

 

Now, when you say that only 50 people you knew ever really understood Jesus, I have to ask what is your understanding of Jesus. Maybe your understanding is inaccurate, or at least your understanding of what a Christian is and should look like. I don't know and can't judge whether you have a proper understanding of these things.

 

However, the gospel is not about what Christians look like, it is about what Jesus has done and can do in the life of a sinner. I have had that experience, as has my wife and many of my friends. I see genuine change in their lives. You have to remember however, that you don't judge a person by where you think they should be, but by where they have been and are now. Some people start in much more difficult backgrounds than others, so even though they have made great progress, it may not be as apparent. But nevertheless, the gospel is about sinners who were bound for hell and have been redeemed. Leave the judging of those people's lives and motives up to the Lord, that is his job, not yours nor mine.

 

LNC

[Mriana]

God is omniscient and knows what would be best for the person and humanity in the long run. I don't know the mind of God enough to know why he answers some prayer requests according to the request and others contrary to the request as I am a finite being and he is an infinite being. All I know is that it is not an argument against God's existence that he does not answer every person's prayers according to his/her request, that would make him a contingent being.

 

Oh OK, so if your god exists, then it was OK for me to have been abused most of my childhood and I got no help, because it was best for me? What sort of morality is that? Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. What sort of sick god or person for that matter because it is YOUR god concept, would believe that someone, esp a child, that is being abused should be because there is "no choice" due to that being what God says is best for that person? Give me a break! That is not a god concept I wish to have. No, again it is humans who must stop another person from being abused. There is no god who is going to put an end to the abuse. Only humans can do that.

 

Kim Jong IL, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Amin and others were atheists and all condoned starvation and the exploitation of others. However, could you give me a basis as to why this would be morally wrong from your worldview. I am not asking what your preference or inclination is on this subject, but why it is objectively wrong to do these things. If you ground it in the value and worth of the individual, you also need to ground that value objectively. In other words, you need to explain why this standard applies to all people rather than just to certain individual or times. Now, O'hare may have been a very nice person, I don't know as I didn't know her. I don't judge whether a person is nice or not based upon what they believe about God. My father in law was a very nice person and an atheist. I am just saying that the atheist needs to ground morality as more than a personal opinion in order for it to mean anything beyond that individual.

 

LNC

 

In MY worldview? Well, if you are asking for my personal view, it is because such things harm others (this includes other animals) and I am highly sensitive to the pain of others and do not like seeing others harmed. In all honesty, when others are in pain so am I and I want to stop it if I can. This is called mirror neurons and I apparently have a lot of them to be able to feel what others feel when they are hurting. One does not need a god concept in which to have a desire to make the pain stop. This is not a personal opinion, but rather pure empathy. I'm not talking about some fictional character like Deanna Troi or Lwaxana Troi, in which one can read some or all a person's thoughts, I'm talking about being sensitive to others- their pain, their needs, and all that good stuff. This is something that comes from within myself, not something that is out there outside myself. I can read people's body language and sometimes I can read what they don't say- like someone I know, but not personally, emailed me once. We email each other quite often and she didn't say a word about feeling bad, but somehow I sensed something was wrong- she admitted to having a headache. I read little clues- both from body language and little other things when I don't see them. I am very sensitive to others. So much so that even though my sons didn't say a word, I knew when they had an ear infection and oddly enough I had an earache too- pediatricians have a word for this, but I forgot what it was. The same goes when someone is not happy, I feel that too. If I can, I try to help the person feel better, which in turn makes me feel better. It goes both ways.

 

How does it apply to all people? I don't know that it should. I cannot say that it is the best thing in the world to empathize with others so greatly or to be so sensitive to other people. I feed off other people and I do not think that is always a good thing. Why should I impose such things on others UNLESS they are hurting others? If they are hurting someone, then yes, I am going to do what I can to stop it. I don't like to see other people in pain- emotionally or physically. However, these mirror neurons are not something from outside myself. It is all within me and developed due to how I was treated growing up. Do I think everyone should live this way? Yes and no. Yes in that we should not allow humans or other animals to be harmed by others. Yes, in that when we see suffering we should do what we can to help. In this way, we are bettering ourselves and others. No, in that sometimes being highly sensitive to others is not always a good thing and sometimes very painful, either emotionally or psychologically physically painful.

 

Here is a metaphor for you, if it helps: Joseph Campbell once said, "Now in the Gnostic tradition, we are ALL Christ crucified." Every day we as a society "crucify" each other. Other humans are doing harm to others (not just to humans, but other animals) and IMO, that should not be. If you can picture this, being highly sensitive to others is almost like having a form of "stigmata". Something I would not wish on anyone, but even so, I believe we all need to work together to relieve other people's suffering- both mental and physical suffering. In doing so, I think we would better ourselves as a society. Some people need more empathy while others need less. Pity for you though, IF Christ's crucifixion had been real and I had been there, I would have tried to stop it. (Go ahead. Say what you want about that. I've heard it before and personally I find that disgusting and sick.)

 

Now here is something else you might not be aware of or even comprehend and it concerns other animals: Sometimes, in times of great trauma, other animals, such as pets, can be very sympathetic. So much so that one can feel at one with them (feel transcendence) and all the pain of the trauma is temporarily alleviated. Again, this is all neuro-chemical and has nothing to do with any deity. It has all to do with being connected to each other and everything on earth. Other animals are not oblivious to a child or even an adult who is suffering in some fashion and even they will do what they can to help, even if it is just showing some love to the wounded person. I know this, because I have experienced it many times in my lifetime. They are a lot like us. They do what they can and sometimes even work as a team, in order to survive. That is what it is about- survival. If we do not work together, then we cannot survive. Humans are social animals, just as other animals, mammals in particular are. This is why you see wolf packs- a lone wolf doesn't survive very well by himself. You see prides of lions and even when you don't see several wild cats together, the offspring stays with their mother for a while in order to learn to survive. It is also not a myth that you see a mother of another species find an orphan of different species and raise them.

 

 

Again, it is called survival. Pay attention to the leopard. There was no god involved in any of that. It was purely empathy and sympathy. Suffice it to say, there is no god who will save us. We must save ourselves and to do that, we must work together. Prayer will not do anything to help us survive. At best it is like meditation and does nothing more than to help us relax and/or calm ourselves. The only thing that will do any good to better society is if people take action.

 

So, there you go. Hopefully that answers your question. If not, I don't know what to tell you, except get your head out of your butt and face reality.

[Antlerman]

I wonder why you consider your judgmentalism to be OK, while the judgmentalism you perceived in the members of your church to be bad? If you left the church because the people there were judgmental, why are you now so judgmental of them? If you left the church because the people there were judgmental, why are you now so judgmental of them? Isn't that being a bit hypocritical?

Well, if you're not going to want to step out of your safety zone, then I'll come to where you are. How do you consider his criticisms of those of his church to be judgmentalism?? For all your laborious training in tightening the belt of your arguments against the skeptic and the atheist, you don't understand the difference here?

 

The members of the church who point at others "not them", and talk about how righteous they are while all those lost sinners out there are so blind, not knowing the Lord like them... that my friend is judgmentalism. Whereas this person, who is sick and tired of that sort of self-righteous, judgmental, hypocritical attitude chaffs against it and rightly criticizes their bad and harmful behaviors, you consider this judgmental?

 

As smart as you are, if you can't or are unwilling to recognize the difference, that will knock you down several notches on my respect scale.

 

You see, none of us is claiming to be perfect. None of us is claiming to have overcome sin completely.

Oh, I don't think the criticism is because any of them claim to be perfect. None of us are that naive LNC. What is the problem, is that they claim to be superior in righteousness, in morality, in values, in beliefs, etc to those poor lost, blind, unsaved sinners who are in darkness because they don't have their light. That is the issue. Not that they claim to be perfect. Whereas the real truth of the matter LNC, is that most every single one of us are in fact now better people for not being part of that garbage of religious social pressures and hypocrisies.

 

I've said many times in irony, "I'm a better Christian now that I'm not one, than I ever was when I was one." I'm not a Christian, but yet now that I'm freed from that world of 'fitting in', or 'conforming' (which this persons post was all about that you missed, BTW), it all comes naturally, "flowing", not from the evidence as you falsely imagine, but from the heart. But you wouldn't understand that.

 

Are there phonies in the church? Sure, Jesus even had a phony as a disciple (Judas).

Yeah... right. You know there's lots of different takes on the Judas character in the narrative tales. The best ones I know don't see him as phony. That's an imaginative one on your part. But I don't care to explore your theological constructs. They're really utterly beneath the point.

 

However, there are also people who are genuinely changed by the gospel and people that want to be like Jesus.

Yes, but what's the really interesting question is are they trying to fit some ideal model (which "Jesus" as a symbol can be some cultural ideal, some social ideal of that club or church, etc), or looking for an example to follow on their own in becoming their own light, entirely irrespective of any act of conformity?

 

You see, when I hear you say this, I can see some few who sincerely do want to become better. But the problem is that Jesus as the symbol of that is tied much too much with their religion and all its ideals that they ascribe to God as part of that system. But again, how much do you really understand any of this beyond the structure of your tower of theologies?

 

*sigh*

 

I don't know and can't judge whether you have a proper understanding of these things.

Paul, did you just hear what you just said? Read that again. The fact that you just said you can't judge whether he has a "proper understanding" of these things, says that you in fact CAN judge if he does or doesn't. You believe you have a proper understanding, but you just don't have enough information about his beliefs to judge by yours. Don't you see that? You conclude the superior understanding. You can and will judge other by how you believe.

 

If you can't see that in there, I'll try further to help you see it. It is key to the criticism he is making, BTW. It's that subtle arrogance that you or any Christian presumes that their understanding is the proper one, the correct one, the right one, the God-Approved one! Get it?

 

However, the gospel is not about what Christians look like, it is about what Jesus has done and can do in the life of a sinner.

Oh, but in reality, in the church body, in the social interactions, it is not just about what you say. That's just so much theoretical talk. Unless you're talking something like a monastery where people are in a community for the sole purpose of the individual pursuit of spiritual depth, then you are not at all doing justice to the reality of what a church of common 'believers' are.

 

You'd like it to be this ideal, but that's not reality. Very few people truly go to any level of real depth in the spiritual lives within the church body. They are the exception, not the rule.

 

I have had that experience, as has my wife and many of my friends. I see genuine change in their lives.

Then I would suspect you will be able to hear my voice as well, even though I don't identify as a Christian. But I mostly suspect your theology won't allow for your ears to hear. I know the mindset (deliberate choice of words there). I understand fully the marriage of beliefs to a system that can't allow itself to see beyond it.

 

You have to remember however, that you don't judge a person by where you think they should be, but by where they have been and are now.

And the same holds true for you Paul. Why do you presume we need to convert to Christianity? Why do you presume that others aren't on a better path now? With what faculties are you judging? With your doctrines, or your heart setting aside any ideas of some ultimate truth you try to build up for yourself to convince others? You do understand there is real truth beyond your trite philosophical definition, right?

 

 

Leave the judging of those people's lives and motives up to the Lord, that is his job, not yours nor mine.

That is of course unless you think you've got a lock on an understanding of God, and can come in and tell people they're lost......................

 

 

*sigh*

 

 

Let's see where you're willing to step beyond your doctrines to....

[Guest Valk0010]

Umm LNC, how about the adapting the word objective for a moment. Because objective at least in the way you use it, almost assumes what is not a given. Objective means beyond us, not in our control, right.

 

What about the idea, that if we had no moral compass(or instinct, since the terms are interchangeable) as animals we would not survive.

 

My objective as a being on this planet, is to do the best I can for society. To help people. If we didn't have that biological drive to do good, we would have not survived are early ancestors in evolutions. We would have died. We would have thought murder was okay and did it.

 

You might as well drop the term objective really, and be honest about it, you want a arbiter of judgement, not objective morality. We have our objective morality, we would have not survived without it.

[Mriana]

What about the idea, that if we had no moral compass(or instinct, since the terms are interchangeable) as animals we would not survive.

 

HA! Sometimes I think other animals have more morals than the human animal does. I agree moral compass and instinct are interchangeable. This basically goes along with what I was saying, only you said it in far fewer words than I did. IMHO, "morals" which are imposed on us by others and not within us, are not necessarily morals at all, esp if they are something that comes from within a person. Doesn't mean that such morals can't be internalized though. IF "Thou shalt not kill" then why go into war? Doesn't make much sense to me and that is just one example from the Bile that Xians say they adhere to, yet they scream for "Ima geddon out of here!" and war in the Middle East. Seems like a total contradiction to me.

[Guest Valk0010]

What about the idea, that if we had no moral compass(or instinct, since the terms are interchangeable) as animals we would not survive.

 

HA! Sometimes I think other animals have more morals than the human animal does. I agree moral compass and instinct are interchangeable. This basically goes along with what I was saying, only you said it in far fewer words than I did. IMHO, "morals" which are imposed on us by others and not within us, are not necessarily morals at all, esp if they are something that comes from within a person. Doesn't mean that such morals can't be internalized though. IF "Thou shalt not kill" then why go into war? Doesn't make much sense to me and that is just one example from the Bile that Xians say they adhere to, yet they scream for "Ima geddon out of here!" and war in the Middle East. Seems like a total contradiction to me.

Well no offense but what else does white republican jesus do all day j/k

 

And also, why have a moral dilemma if our divinely given morals are so well divine.

 

We shouldn't have such moral issues like we do, and what is moral and what it not if, we have the arbiter of judgement, the christian deity.

[Mriana]

What about the idea, that if we had no moral compass(or instinct, since the terms are interchangeable) as animals we would not survive.

 

HA! Sometimes I think other animals have more morals than the human animal does. I agree moral compass and instinct are interchangeable. This basically goes along with what I was saying, only you said it in far fewer words than I did. IMHO, "morals" which are imposed on us by others and not within us, are not necessarily morals at all, esp if they are something that comes from within a person. Doesn't mean that such morals can't be internalized though. IF "Thou shalt not kill" then why go into war? Doesn't make much sense to me and that is just one example from the Bile that Xians say they adhere to, yet they scream for "Ima geddon out of here!" and war in the Middle East. Seems like a total contradiction to me.

Well no offense but what else does white republican jesus do all day j/k

 

Jesus was a White Republican? Gasp! I thought he was a well tanned Jew.

 

And also, why have a moral dilemma if our divinely given morals are so well divine.

 

We shouldn't have such moral issues like we do, and what is moral and what it not if, we have the arbiter of judgement, the christian deity.

 

It seems to me one can't have a moral dilemma if everything they need to know is written in a primitive book. The tribal council has already worked this out for them so they wouldn't have to think for themselves.

[Ouroboros]

Kim Jong IL, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Amin and others were atheists and all condoned starvation and the exploitation of others.

Even though Mao and the others are atheists, there are no evidence that Hitler was an atheist. He was a believer. Perhaps not a believer in the traditional Christian God, but he was definitely a believer of higher beings, lifeforms, and a creator.

 

And what do you mean that they condoned starvation? I doubt Stalin intentionally condoned and supported starvation. I suspect even communists prefer food over no food.

 

I'd say you're accusing these leaders of things they didn't do. Are you making an ad homimen perhaps?

 

However, could you give me a basis as to why this would be morally wrong from your worldview.

What is your evidence that they believed starvation was acceptable?

 

I am not asking what your preference or inclination is on this subject, but why it is objectively wrong to do these things. If you ground it in the value and worth of the individual, you also need to ground that value objectively. In other words, you need to explain why this standard applies to all people rather than just to certain individual or times.

Traditions and culture contains objective guidelines. They are not all from the Bible, but there are many values grounded in other things than the Bible. Slavery for instance. The Bible doesn't make a stand on that point. Or racism. Where do you get the insight from that slavery and racism is morally wrong? The Holy Ghost?

 

I base it on the idea that human life is valuable, but also that the life has some level of quality. There are no absolute values to measure against for what exactly is life with quality. We can't always know what quality of life is for one person or for the next. But it all boils down to a certain level of fairness. We value fairness in all affairs because we deep down know that if I treat you one way, you will reciprocate in one way or the other. So it benefits me to give some level of support to you. It benefits me not to be killed by you, and therefore it's reasonable that I don't kill you either.

 

I value life, therefore I should value your life, because if I don't, I suspect you won't value my life either.

 

Now, O'hare may have been a very nice person, I don't know as I didn't know her. I don't judge whether a person is nice or not based upon what they believe about God. My father in law was a very nice person and an atheist. I am just saying that the atheist needs to ground morality as more than a personal opinion in order for it to mean anything beyond that individual.

So when you use your personal opinion that the Bible contains the absolute moral code, then somehow you are not using your personal opinion? Come on.

 

It will always come back to subjective views. Ultimately you are the judge for what is to be considered as the absolute morality, and hence you are using subjective thoughts to arrive to those conclusions. It is your personal view that the Bible, God, revelation, or whatever it is gives you absolute morality, which means that you are fundamentally basing your morality on personal opinion.

 

There are 613 different laws in the Old Testament. You pick (subjectively) which ones are the "real" ones and preempt the others. If the Bible was objectively truth and morality to you, you would have to follow ALL (100%) of the Bible laws, not just 1, 10, 15, or 20, and then add on 500 other "rules" you have learned through society and tradition.

 

So then again, why is slavery immoral to you? Or genocide? Is killing a whole group of people morally right or wrong?

 

The only way to arrive to appropriate absolute morals is by reason, not by an outdated book. Because only through reason can we arrive to same or similar conclusions, not by reading a code-book from a desert tribe 2,500 years ago.