Printable View
You're saying that because you need that security of knowing that there must be some divine influence, a glue that holds it all together, that's what makes you believe. You say that because of the possiblity of what might happen if there was no divine influence, then it must be true. Those scenarios you mentioned are possibilties. Just because they might happen if there was no divine influnce doesn't mean ther is a divine influence.
Whether god exists or not humans are social beings and will chose to have rules called laws. Anyone can argue anytime that a particular law is a bad one and needs to be changed or anyone can argue that a new law is needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
As time goes on, societies will change and modify their laws as needed. Some laws will established in dictatorships. The authority for those laws will be the dictator. Laws established in democratic republics are established by the people in a democratic fashion by their elected representatives creating the law, which will be enforce by the government selected.
What in all of this do you not understand? It is quite straightforward. Law and morality is a matter of pragmatic necessity. No god is required. What about this simple fact do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by metal134
Well, metal134, how would you know why I'm saying what I say? Only God would know such a thing (and maybe me, if I'm thinking before I'm speaking :) ). Your attempt to reduce my belief to a "security blanket" (and thus trivialize it) doesn't change the validity of my point.
What do you mean "possibilities"? Those behaviors occur in reality RIGHT NOW. And, without a higher moral law to appeal to ither than cultural agreement, on what basis do you condemn those behaviors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
I am an agnosic atheist. I don't know and I also don't believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvia
Is that ok? :)
Right. I have no argument with this - what have I posted that indicates I don't agree with this?Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
I understand it just fine. What do you think I don't get? My disagreement isn't based on confusion - it's based on a different opinion than yours. Do you understand that?Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Neither you nor metal have answered my question: how do we interact with societies that condone behavior that we believe to be immoral? What gives us the right to "intervene" if their vision of morality is equally as valuable as ours (since both are human-created)? Deal with my argument rather than act as if I don't get your points. I get them fine.
But I've already made the point that it IS that way. Christain morals and laws are different from Buddists. Buddist morals and laws are different from Taoists. Taoists are different than Muslims. You're making it seems as if there currently is one unifying standard of withics across cultures. There isn't. You ask how, if there was moral ambiguity across cultures how we would deal with it. There alreasy IS moral ambiguity across cultures and we already DO have to do with it. If there is a divine authority as to what is moral and what is not, then how do you exlain the differences in ethics that ALREADY exist across cultures and religions.
Lol, yeah, everything is ok in my opinion. In one respect being an atheist implies that you do believe that no god exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
I'm not arguing how things are; I'm arguing that our lack of a transcendant standard reduces the authority of humanly-constructed "morality." The current existence of "moral ambiguity" validates my position: since all standards are "equal" then we are in the sticky position of having to condemn behaviors without having a standard to appeal to that the other culture will acknowledge as having authority. I'm speaking hypothetically: I'm not so much saying we have to have a divine law as much as I'm saying that our current difficulties are largely due to the fact that we don't have one. That's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by metal134
Ok, this part interests me. Why would we assume that they would acknowledge the divine authority that they do not believe in, or follow. Surely if they were willing to acknowledge that authority they would already be ascribing to those principles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
OK - I probably need to shut up now because I must not be making any sense because people don't seem to understand what I'm saying. My post indicated that I'm speaking hypothetically. I'm simply trying to point out some of the pitfalls of extracting morality out from the context of Divine Law. If we accept that a Being of INFINITELY greater intelligence established guidelines for life then we have a "frame" within which to judge/evaluate human behavior - a "frame" based on the acceptance that the Divine Being knows better than I about what is right/wrong, good/evil. Once we eliminate a transcendent law that is above and beyond human bias/preferrence, we now have difficulties in moderating/judging conflicts between cultures. I'm not asking the entire world to believe in the Divine Law I acknowledge - I'm pointing out the benefits of having a law that is immune to human revision; a law that is beyond cultural preferrences and human manipulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
As I see it you are distinguishing between "not believing in the existence of a god" and "believing that no god exists".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
I see that as a distinction without a difference. E.g.:
1. I have no belief in leprechauns.
2. I also believe that no leprachauns exists.
Does sentence #2 above add information that either clarifies or contradicts anything is #1? No, I don't think so. It's the difference between saying "John's house is white" or "The white house is John's".
Oh - you mean like it would be a great benefit to me if I were presented with a check for one billion dollars by Bill Gates?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Yes, that would be a great benefit, but I don't think that is ever going to happen, so I don't worry about it much, one way or the other.
There may be a god, but there is no evidence of such, so the fact that it would be of great benefit if it did is of little consequence.
Somehow I must muddle along without my dreamed of one billion dollars and likewise humans must muddle along and make their own way, find a way to organize societies and live in peace without the dreamed of source of absolute morality that you find so fascinating.
If you like metaphors, then: If frogs had pockets they could carry pistols to shoot snakes with. So what?
It's more like a difference between statements like
1. I don't promote war.
2. I believe in pacifism.
One is passive, the other active. There is a difference, however subtle.
No we understand perfectly. The issue here is that you say because of said hypothetical, then it must be divine law. Just because the absence of divine law means moral ambiguty doesn't mean that divine law exists. That's the pitfall. You're saying that because x might mean y, then z has to be true. Well, I'm saying that maybe x does mean y.lQuote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
JGL57: The metaphor you have used is flawed. You have already assumed God to be non-existent.
You cannot prove that God is non-existent.Quote:
If you like metaphors, then: If frogs had pockets they could carry pistols to shoot snakes with. So what?
And you cant prove that I am unable to turn invisible when ever I feel like it. It doesnt mean that I canQuote:
Originally Posted by yingqiee
I guess my only point was that you believe something. Assuming theat belief implies certainty, a belief that something exists is not much different from believing that it doesn't. If belief does not equal certainty, then I retract my statement. 8-)Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Was that supposed to be a serious comparison? Intellectual debate becomes very difficult when one's opponent is either unwilling or unable to even try and see the other person's point-of-view.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
OK - but just because one doesn't "think" something "is ever going to happen" does not mean that it cannot or willnot.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Only if you're correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
I'm so tired of the "no evidence" argument about God. There are plenty of firm beliefs that people base their ideas of reality on that they have never actually had "proven" to them - they've been told by a book or a person that such-and-such is true, but that's not personal verification. I doubt your life is based on a ruthless commitment to believe only that which is "scientifically" proven to you through "evidence." Please.
Very entertaining - but you really didn't offer any substantial answer to my post. Could you address my argument, please?Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
No I didn't. I did not imply any causal relationship. You're flipping my argument around and drawing a conclusion I did not suggest. I'll try again. I'm suggesting what the absence of Divine Law leads to: our current moral ambiguity. Moral ambiguity may result in trivial conflicts, but at some point - even if that point right now seems remote and incredible - at some point something somewhere will be offered up that you and/or your culture will object to, and object strongly. I am simply telling you that the lack of a transcendant moral law means that we are now on very unstable and virtually undefendable ground when it comes to condemning certain practices - especially if committed by another culture. What's so confusing about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by metal134
'What's so confusing about that?'
Pretty straightforward. Nothing confusing at all.
I guess it's hard to discuss religion with strangers because everyone comes to the table with so much baggage that it takes several rounds before people start understanding each other. I'll probably regret jumping in, but here goes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I think your line of thought is pretty reasonable. If you'll allow me to try to paraphrase in my own words, it runs something like this:
Without something or someone divine to hand you a moral law, any theory of morality will logically amount to might makes right.
I more or less agree here, but I also get the impression that you feel this theoretical moral ambiguity is a relatively new phenomenon. If we simplify things and just focus on the Christianized West, it sounds like you feel a new moral ambiguity is rising because the West has abandoned it's traditional belief in God-given authority. This may well be true, but (IMO) I don't think it is much different than the previously existing moral ambiguity resulting from the difficulty of determining what the divine moral law is. Should the laymen simply accept what the clergy says is right and wrong? Do the Papists have it right, or are the Schismatics the true followers of God? Rome or Constantinople? Practically speaking, the world has always operated according to the principle of might makes right (IMO, again).
I offer these thoughts in the hope that some of them can fuel a more productive discussion.
Thank you for a balanced response - such a refreshing thing around this thread. It's not that I think moral ambiguity is "new" but I do believe that the effects of postmodernism has taken the moral ambiguity present in the world and accelerated it to a new and scary height. Whereas in the past we might have some qualms about moral conflicts between culture, now we are virtually paralyzed because postmoderism "flattens" all belief systems into a false equality, where all cultural views are accepted as equally valid, despite their moral problems. That is a fairly recent (20thC) view - a view that has been exacerbated in American culture by the immense well-spring of guilt we collectively possess as a by-product of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. Our postmodern culture posits the idea that we are to "accept" all views, cultures, religions and views as equally valid and equally worthy of respect (except Christianity, it seems). So, yes, moral ambiguity is not new, but the severe "levelling" of all systems of belief is.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevictim
What's interesting, of course, is that the political side of postmodernism is fueled in no small part by attitudes like my own, that 'the world has always operated on the principle of might makes right'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
One of the things that sometimes frustrates me about diatribes against postmodernism is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in addressing the issues that postmodernism is a reaction to. I think that perhaps this frustration is, in part, behind comments like, "Oh - you mean like it would be a great benefit to me if I were presented with a check for one billion dollars by Bill Gates?" Postmodernism is a reaction to a lot of difficulties that arose out of modernism. Yes, a belief in our own divine correctness made it easier for us to justify our actions, some of which are hurtful to other people. Unfortunately, we have run against some major difficulties in trying to prove our own divine correctness. Even according to our own traditional belief system, we have to account for the possibility that our beliefs are mistaken.
This brings up the idea of proof. In fact, I think postmodernism is strongly related to 20th century developments in logic which exposed major problems with the Enlightenment trust in the power of reason. This probably isn't the place to discuss that, though.
Anyways, you may be right to find the postmodern culture scary. If history is any indication, it may indicate the beginnings of the fall of our empire. However, I'm not sure it's possible to go back.
Ok, firstly I do not believe there has much disrespect towards christianity (or anyone elses beliefs) over the last few pages. Perhaps my comment about not being able to prove I can not make myself invisible was out of order, however it was in direct relation to a previous comment about not being able to prove god does not exist: Proof of the existence or otherwise of any supernatural being is impossible, I'll find out when I die - it is solely a matter of belief, I do not believe such a thing exists this surely shouldn't impact anyone else's faith in the same way that people believing in a god figure has no impact on mine. It has no place in this debate, but if people post about not being able to prove non-existence they must accept that there will be a response.
There has however, been response made to posts, questioning the exact meaning/origin of the idea, together with putting forward our own beliefs on the subject (which have been treated by the believers in the same manner as we have treated theirs). This has been done for the most part in a respectful manner.
Now, that is out of the way on to my main reason for posting (bullet posted for quickness):
- I believe being a fellow human being this gives me the right to criticise what I find to be unethical and proffers me the voice to do it.
- This is not to say however that if I criticise the culture of another culture/country that they are required to change their practices to suit my beliefs as to what is right or wrong. An example would be gay marriage, I believe it is unethical to deny homosexuals the right to marry - however I respect that the church & I are ideologically opposed on this issue and if they do not wish to recognise/carry out these ceremonies that is their decision and they are free to not comply if they wish not to.
- Where this relates to practices where it brings harm(of any kind) to another unwilling person, the perpetrator forgoes their right to participate within the society - where this relates to foreign countries, I believe that international organisations are the place to decide these cases.
- I actually believe that moral relativism is a good thing, as I have said on another thread I am glad we no longer accept some of the things which were thought to be Ok in the past.
Wow, talk about topic drift. Nothing wrong with it but.. this is friendly mod note to all that just because someone doesn't agree with you or believe the same thing(s) doesn't mean they're being disrespectful or not allowed to express their perspective/opinion etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adelheid
.
.
.
No, belief does not equal certainty - unless it is supernatural (theistic) belief associated with organized religion. That is, one hardly hears of the existence of an agnostic Christian or an agnostic Muslim. Followers of theistic organized religion are dogmatists generally by definition (though, admittedly the rare agnostic theist does exist, similar to the white rhinoceros). ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
Atheists, on the other hand, are much more diverse. My proof? - well, besides meeting and talking to several dozen over the years, and interacting with many, many atheists on line over the years, I posted two polls regarding atheism last year on the Internet Infidels website forum and both times about 80 per cent turned out agnostic atheists and about 20 per cent dogmatists (those willing to assert "there IS no god.").
Quote:
Originally Posted by yingqiee
As kilted exile replied, one can never prove a universal negative - which doesn't matter because the burden of proof is on the one asserting a positive belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Have theists met their burden? I haven't noticed. Thus, my assumption must be 1. god is imaginary or 2. if god exists his existence is unproven, apparently non-provable, has no affect on my life, and thus "there is a god" is a trivial claim at best and a irrelevant or nonsensical claim at worst.
Another metaphor: the ball is in the theist's court.
:rlaugh: I was reading page after page of this and was amazed at the tangents. As often happens with threads of this nature, I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
As a 99.9% atheist I do consider myself near fundamentalism at times, because I am narrow minded. I am waiting for proof of existence; and until that happens, and argument is frivolous IMO.
I say I am 99.9% because 100% would make me a complete fool. It wasn't so long ago that we thought the world was flat. Why should we think that anything MUST be true, even in presence of great evidence. I will never cave into any absolute; even someone saying that the sun will rise tomorrow, without a doubt.
A fool thinks he is wise; a wise man knows he is a fool. - not me.
The basis of my belief is that there is not one single thing in this world today that is conclusively supernatural. Just because we cannot explain something completely doesn't automatically make it supernatural (i.e. how the earth was created). A quote I really took to heart was "Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear supernatural". I take that one further in saying "anything sufficiently advanced will appear supernatural".
Because in the beginning of our existence, we could not explain many things in this world, we deemed them supernatural. This spawned the idea of God, witches, etc. A final and absolute idea to explain everything in our universe. Kind of nice not needing to wonder about the world around us when you have an idea like God to explain everything, eh?
The popularity of God is due to it's widespread belief in history; The idea of an atheist back then would have got you hung. It still continues now, as no open atheist would ever have a chance to get elected president.
I believe it was Bertrand Russel who conjectured the "floating teapot". If you are not familiar, it postulates that there was a teapot orbiting the sun, so small that you could not see it with the most powerful telescope. What if everyone, in history, gave it the same attention, reverence and relentless respect that was given God? Would we still believe it? Personally, I truly think so. Just as with God, you can never disprove it, especially if you gave it the omnipotent/omniscient characteristics that God has.
And the argument that "you cannot disprove God" holds the same weight as "you cannot disprove the floating teapot". Lack of proof leads to no logical conclusion.
A paraphrased sherlock holmes line. "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true." Obviously, since you can neither eliminate the idea of god's existence or lack thereof, this logic cannot apply.
I have more, but I will conclude my epic in hope that you all enjoy what I have written, and I cannot wait for your retorts.
Scott
IMO, I believe that argument to be flawed; it can be applied both ways:Quote:
Have theists met their burden? I haven't noticed. Thus, my assumption must be 1. god is imaginary or 2. if god exists his existence is unproven, apparently non-provable, has no affect on my life, and thus "there is a god" is a trivial claim at best and a irrelevant or nonsensical claim at worst.
Have atheists met with their burden of asserting God does not exist? If I applied your argument, then I get this proposition which appears flawed:
"The non-existence of God is apparently non-provable, has no effect on my life, and thus "there is no God" is a trivial claim at best or nonsensical at worst."
This presents a contradiction in such an argument. Just because something cannot be proved does not mean that it is trivial or that it has no effect on our lives. I'd like to use the hackneyed analogy:
I have never in my entire life seen, felt, tasted or heard my brain. Does that mean it does not exist and that it cannot affect me? I would not like to think so.
Thus the atheist is as much a believer as the theist is; one has faith in the existence of God, the other in the non-existence of God.
P.S. I apologize if my previous comment about not being able to prove that God does not exist offended someone. I'm rather blunt in my writing.
With respect to the argument about turning invisible, you raise a valid point that I also am unable to prove that God exists. However, my argument was not about proving God but rather against the argument that:Quote:
And you cant prove that I am unable to turn invisible when ever I feel like it. It doesnt mean that I can
1) God cannot be proven
2)God does not exist
I think we have misunderstood each other because we are basically arguing over the same thing from a different perspective. My bad; should have been more clear.
If this is a response to something I said, I wasn't clear. My comments were not about this thread so much as society in general in reference to postmodernism. If you take even a quick look at the news or media publications, you'll see that there seems to be a push to tolerate all systems of belief - whether that be Islam, Buddhism, etc - but bashing Christianity seems to be OK. Nobody seems that worried about offending Christians - but boy, watch out if you do something that seems to disrespect another belief system. That was what I was referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Funny, I see exactly the opposite. Perhaps one's perspective is driven by one's preconceptions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
All right moving on from the respect/disrespect issue, it's a sidebar and will get us nowhere.
I have a question for anyone who believes in the necessity for a divine law to add weight to our criticism of what we find to be unethical:
If you were criticised for a practice which another culture found to be unethical, would you be willing to change that practice if the critics argued that it went against the teachings of their religion (however this is not a religion you follow)?
I'm sorry, I just don't see it. The problem as I see it, and I have personally run into this many times, if you say something like; "I don't believe that Jesus Christ was anything more than a man", Christians take that at bashing Christianity. Since most of the overwhelmin majority of people are Christians, they don't find dismissal of other religions beliefs offensive. But I have seen many, many a Chritian become persoanlly offended by dismissal of a Chiristian belief and percieve it as oppression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
That is just screwy reasoning, by any reasonable standard. Would it help if I said I have an utter lack of belief in the existence of a god, just like I have an utter lack of belief in the existence of Santa Claus or leprechauns or fire-breathing dragons on Neptune?Quote:
Originally Posted by yingqiee
I have no burden to prove the reasonableness of my disbelief. YOU, OTOH, if you aver that a god or a leprechaun or a fire-breathing dragon DO have a burden of proof. The ancient shibboleth, rather rudely put, it "put up or shut up.".
My disbelief in the three claimed supernatural entities mentioned about DOES NOT constitute a belief - disbelief is disbelief, it is not belief. I can explain and explain and even explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you. You are going to have to do that yourself.
As for your god/brain analogy, it fails on this point: If I ask you to produce your god, or even some indirect evidence for its existence, I doubt you could do it (could you?). However, if you doubt the existence of your brain, I can remove it and show it to you before you then die - ditto your heart, liver, etc.
IOW, there is no analogy between material objects and ridiculous imaginary immaterial invisible allegedly existing supernatural entities, be they called gods, angels, ghosts, demons, fire-breathing dragons, nymphs, succubuses, incubuses, human vampires changing into bats, a race of giant ants living on Pluto, etc., etc.
IOW, yingqiee, let your imagination run wild - just don't expect me to take you seriously.
I live in Mississippi. I can verify through several decades of personal experience that you are correct, sir. With few exceptions, most people here react emotionally to any questioning of the doctrines of fundamentalist christianity as if you had just called their mother a whore.Quote:
Originally Posted by metal134
I would like to ask you, though, how do you think we came about, without a God...evoloution is faulty and the simple existence of our being seems a little far fetched.....Do you actually think we just came about by chance?Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
THink about this: The parts of a sports car may be floating around the Galaxy, but without someone there to put them together how could they come about? Not simply by chance and hope that they will, in time, be put together.
And the simple fact that there are Athiest's does not disprove the existence of God, actually quite the contrary.
"If there were no God there would be no Athiest's"
G.K CHesterton 1922
I live in Georgia and agree with both of you. To suggest that the bible may not be entirely accurate is to invite ridicule and disdain. To vocalize the notion that the christian god might simply be myth of human origin feels dangerous. Sometimes I'm uncomfortable even posting in forums like this because it's entirely plausible that some religious (or atheist) zealot my come to power and use internet trails to hunt down and 'reeducate' so folks--a digital inquisition if you will. But then I think, well, if it goes that far do I really want to play anymore?Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
Hi Domer,Quote:
Originally Posted by Domer121
As an agnostic, this is easy to answer: I dunno.
I'm sure this has been pointed out a gazillion times in this and other forums, but the same could be said about God, no? How did God come about? Was it really just sitting in a vacuum for infinity, then 13 billion years ago decided to create a universe? Seems a little hokey to me. What created God? Who was Jesus' grandfather?
The fact that the universe appears to exist is an amazing thing. By my simple logic, there should be nothing, nada, zip. Yet here we are. Something amazing is going on. What it is I don't have a clue, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't care if I eat meat on Fridays or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
There are, no doubt, plenty of Christians who do this (sad to say); however, I have often encountered in these forums atheists whose language reveals a clear disdain for beliefs that are profound and meaningful to Christians. Questioning is fine - believers should be prepared for questioning. What we get tired of is snide, dismissive language that implies the silliness, meaninglessness or absurdity of our position. There's a difference between reasonable, respectful debate and condescending language geared to trivialize the opponent's position. That is always unacceptable - at least in educated discussion - whether one is Christian or atheist.
But see, the only reason this is percieve as targeting Chritianity is because it is really THE religion that is prevelent in this country; I can't say that I've had religious debates with Muslims or Jews because, quite frankly, it's almost all Christians to be found. And to be quite frank, I am dismissive of ALL organize religion because I feel very, very strongly that it is illogical. That doesn't mean I am atheist; I am open to the possibilty of a Supreme Being, heck, I even think it's probable. But I on't pretned to know. As someone said before, the burden of proof is on religion. People say, well you can disprove this or that about religious matters, but I don't get that logic. I'm more concerned with whether it can be proven than disproven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
As far as the dismissive factor; why shouldn't people be dismissive? We should all respect a person's right to have a different belief, but the belief itself is open to scrutiny. Because the fact of the matter is, with all the hundreds, nay, thousands of different belief systems on the nature of divinity and the universe, only one can be right. And naturally, if I think mine is right of course I'm going to think that everyone elses is wrong because if I am right, then everyone else IS wrong, and it goes back the other way as well.