Atheists....

[metal134]

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.

[Wintermute]

I am an agnosic atheist. I don't know and I also don't believe.

Is that ok?

Lol, yeah, everything is ok in my opinion. In one respect being an atheist implies that you do believe that no god exists.

[Redzeppelin]

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.

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.

[kilted exile]

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.

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?

[Redzeppelin]

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?

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.

[JGL57]

Lol, yeah, everything is ok in my opinion. In one respect being an atheist implies that you do believe that no god exists.

As I see it you are distinguishing between "not believing in the existence of a god" and "believing that no god exists".

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".

[JGL57]

...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.

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?

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?

[RobinHood3000]

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.

[metal134]

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.

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.l

[yingqiee]

JGL57: The metaphor you have used is flawed. You have already assumed God to be non-existent.

If you like metaphors, then: If frogs had pockets they could carry pistols to shoot snakes with. So what?

You cannot prove that God is non-existent.

[kilted exile]

You cannot prove that God is non-existent.

And you cant prove that I am unable to turn invisible when ever I feel like it. It doesnt mean that I can

[Wintermute]

As I see it you are distinguishing between "not believing in the existence of a god" and "believing that no god exists".

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".

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-)

[Redzeppelin]

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?

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.

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.

OK - but just because one doesn't "think" something "is ever going to happen" does not mean that it cannot or willnot.

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 litter consequence.

Only if you're correct.

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.

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?

Very entertaining - but you really didn't offer any substantial answer to my post. Could you address my argument, please?

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.l

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?

[ennison]

'What's so confusing about that?'
Pretty straightforward. Nothing confusing at all.

[bluevictim]

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.

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:

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.