List of Evidence Potent Enough to Convince Atheists of the Veracity of a Religion.

[JBI]

AS for the stole from me, yes you are right, I would be angry, but would you? No, you would probably be happy. That's the point. The act effects us differently. I am angry, you are happy. The one who steals the loaf of bred to survive may be happy, the baker may be angry. How do we measure these things?

I think the closest anyone has come to an actual practical moral equation were the utilitarianists. But their hypothesis ran into troubles to, when deciding what the factor of utility should be, and how to accurately measure things, and whether or not such a thing can be measured objectively, which I think it eventually became rejected as just another subjective form.

To say there are clear rights and wrongs is to say that only your rights and wrongs, as you see them are right and wrong. That is simple egotism.

[JBI]

As much as I disagree with religion, I think its a good thing they exist. Because I don't see many people giving a care about right/wrong without somekind of mystic instigation.

The mystical experience, to some extent, doesn't need a God. If I, for instance, go hiking in the woods, and see something beautiful, and I am moved, that isn't necessarily because of a God, but more because of a natural occurrence. In that sense, one can be mystified in seeing that which is, without looking to scriptures which claim to tell the truth, and without coughing up money to some religious leader, so he can build the biggest church, or whatever.


On that notion, one can give to charity without believing in God. Sweden has one of the highest HDIs in the world, yet is the least religious country. I think it is safe to say morality is better off fluctuating with society, as other factors change, than having some stupid book written thousands of years ago saying "kill he who does this" or "this is wrong, and that is right."

[Joreads]

[QUOTE=JBI;648527] The one who steals the loaf of bred to survive may be happy, the baker may be angry. How do we measure these things?


,QUOTE]

JBI I had never thought of it that way you make a really interesting point. Thou shall not kill - simple enough to understand. But what if I kill someone with my car in an accident have I still committed a sin? I will have to give this a little more thought I think.

[JBI]

[QUOTE=Joreads;648533]

The one who steals the loaf of bred to survive may be happy, the baker may be angry. How do we measure these things?


,QUOTE]

JBI I had never thought of it that way you make a really interesting point. Thou shall not kill - simple enough to understand. But what if I kill someone with my car in an accident have I still committed a sin? I will have to give this a little more thought I think.

Technically, that is a mistranslation of the commandment. It reads more like Thou shall not murder, using the verb Harog. Either way though, murder isn't necessarily bad, that's where the problem comes from when trying to establish a general rule, which I argue cannot be established.

[PierreGringoire]

The mystical experience, to some extent, doesn't need a God. If I, for instance, go hiking in the woods, and see something beautiful, and I am moved, that isn't necessarily because of a God, but more because of a natural occurrence. In that sense, one can be mystified in seeing that which is, without looking to scriptures which claim to tell the truth, and without coughing up money to some religious leader, so he can build the biggest church, or whatever.


On that notion, one can give to charity without believing in God. Sweden has one of the highest HDIs in the world, yet is the least religious country. I think it is safe to say morality is better off fluctuating with society, as other factors change, than having some stupid book written thousands of years ago saying "kill he who does this" or "this is wrong, and that is right."

You are right. But its malevolent to try and disprove older people who seem to live a peaceful life with their given religion -- I think the withdrawal of that belief would be like 90 percent more devestating than when I discovered Santa Clause wasn't real. Some people believe in religion in a responsible way, others do not.

I cannot put my philosophy in a superior position to that of a right-hearted religious person. Because in the end-- I'm really just guessing what reality is myself

Debating things like contents (the ten commandments) of a certain holy book in a philosophical exchange is just as easily misinterpreted as the contents themselves. Person A keeps throwing wood to try and form a dam on to person's B side of the river in attempt to make a bridge, while person B keeps digging ditches on their side, thwarting a common ground.

I think if you really want to make someone "see the light" things can only be understood by History. Those theists who come onto forums like these can withstand a real challenge of their beliefs. And perhaps a common ground would be found.

[NikolaiI]

erm...nevermind, sorry.

[The Atheist]

The one who steals the loaf of bred to survive may be happy, the baker may be angry. How do we measure these things?

Just a little aside on this subject. 110 years ago, my great uncle was caught stealing a pie to feed his family with - we've always been a poor family! - and he was whipped at the post for his sins, being marked with scars he carried until death.

Morality's a funny old thing.

[Petronius]

Oh my, this thread evolved quite a bit. I salute you JBI for your eloquent and educated posts. If those are deemed incomprehensible, I doubt I'll be more successfull in making my points accepted, but here I go anyway...

Red, allow me to borrow one of your techniques and say you have no way of knowing wether I, or JBI, were ever betrayed in a relationship or if either of us witnessed the effects of divorce. I hope you haven't, given the way you seem prone to react.

Now, why do we dislike being cheated so much? Because of fear; fear of abandonment, fear of loss, which is a bit twisted because, again, no matter the depth of the relationship we do not own another's body, and fear of humility - the other is better, society will laugh at us, and will laugh even more if we don't victimize. I'd say the former is the most legit, but the less likely, while the latter is pure social fabrication.

Please don't bring the bonding chemicals again; we do not mark eachother for life during sex. When we talk about sexual bonding, the context refers to "something that brings closer" (temporarily) rather than "creation of an engagement" or "shackling".

You are only correct if our feelings and emotional responses are nothing more than social conditioning. By your reasoning, our reactions to murder, rape, torture and theft could also be a mere by-product of social conditioning - right?

They are. One who is in the social context of a soldier at war, especially when very young and bereft of previously inoculated moral views, will value life a lot less than I do right now... including his own to some extent.

To open up morality to personal definition is to make it meaningless. If the word "dog" can mean a rock, pencil, car, tree, star, or dog - it really has become a meaningless word. Morality is no different.

Your establishment of happiness as the highest good is disturbing to say the least - personal happiness is used as a justification to break-up marriages, abandon children, abort children, and all manner of selfish decisions. Those who have chosen to serve our country in the military did not choose to do so because it makes them "happy" - and they do not face death daily because it makes them "happy."

Unfettered freedom - freedom without the morals of scripture is not freedom - it is simply bondage to the vice of your choice. Few who embrace such freedom are truly happy.

First of all, words have meaning because we give them meaning. If we all start refering to rocks as "dogs", this definition will end up being added to the dictionary. Words, and moral perception, are not more valuable than reality and they can all crumble to dust when the latter demands it. You can't waver some ancient, written comandments from some invisible, silent entity in front of a woman, when she only experiences pleasure from double penetration.

And to me, it is disturbing that you would deny humans the freedom to seek happiness, in the name of religion and propriety. Since you are happy being a christian, and others claim not to be, is it not a selfish act to judge from the light that suits you?
I will refrain from commenting on the brave soldiers who chose to serve your country in its mighty wars.

[NikolaiI]

Oh my, this thread evolved quite a bit. I salute you JBI for your eloquent and educated posts.

Wait-- "You're so closeminded" is now eloquent and educated?

[Redzeppelin]

Honestly, I'm just going to avoid that rubbish you posted, and slap you with one wrong - what is the tenth commandment - is it not against jealousy? Or perhaps you can come up with a better translation of Loh Tach Modd. Thou shalt not covet seems the standard, but to not covet would imply not to be jealous.

Covetousness: the great desire for another's possessions.
Jealousy:resentful of rivalry in love; envious; fiercely protective

The difference between the two is that coveting is the desire for that which I have no right to desire; jealousy may be a response to someone I do have a "right" to (my wife) behaving flirtatiously with another man - which would be her giving to another what is rightfully (by our marriage vows) mine. The difference may be subtle, but it's there nonetheless.

Either way, you are unable to, as you stated, understand what I am saying. Perhaps the sun doesn't rise for you. Bam! irony.

Perhaps you are right. And yet, someone, I soldier on doggedly...

AS for the stole from me, yes you are right, I would be angry, but would you? No, you would probably be happy. That's the point. The act effects us differently. I am angry, you are happy. The one who steals the loaf of bred to survive may be happy, the baker may be angry. How do we measure these things?

Clever, but the thief's happiness does not change the fact that he too would be angry if another thief came and stole from him. The point is that the minute you take issue with the behavior/actions of another, you are suggesting that there is some standard that both you and the other should acknowledge. If I pull a gun on you and you are truly a relativist (believe that morality is self-defined) then all you can do is smile and happily hand me your wallet and commend me to living the authentic moral life that I've chosen for myself. To argue with me, resist me, or condemn my actions would be to suggest that there's something wrong with my self-defined morality - and what gives you the right to judge that?

To say there are clear rights and wrongs is to say that only your rights and wrongs, as you see them are right and wrong. That is simple egotism.

They're not MY "rights" and "wrongs" - they are the rights and wrongs that both natural law and the Bible recognize. Throughout the world, throughout history, certain values have always been consistent - murder, rape, cowardice, selfishness, betrayal, and such have never been admired by any culture; as well, things such as love, loyalty, generosity, compassion, mercy, charity, courage, self-sacrifice for a worthy cause - all these have been admired. The fact that those things are consistend throughout history and throughout the world suggest a stable ground for right and wrong.

Oh my, this thread evolved quite a bit. I salute you JBI for your eloquent and educated posts. If those are deemed incomprehensible, I doubt I'll be more successfull in making my points accepted, but here I go anyway...

Make your arguments clearer with better support (instead of shifting ground or giving unsound arguments) and perhaps I'll make better progress.

Red, allow me to borrow one of your techniques and say you have no way of knowing wether I, or JBI, were ever betrayed in a relationship or if either of us witnessed the effects of divorce. I hope you haven't, given the way you seem prone to react.

You're right - I don't know - that's why I qualified my statements (here's what I said about divorce: "Spoken again by someone who assumedly has never experienced divorce either as an adult or child.") So feel free to correct me and tell me that you both have gone through such an experience (I have been through both - divorce as a child and as an adult, and I have had an unfaithful partner).

And spare me your shuddering concern over how I "react" - you know next to nothing about how I react to the circumstances of life. Rather than unfounded assumptions, I'd prefer you stick to a real argument.

Now, why do we dislike being cheated so much? Because of fear; fear of abandonment, fear of loss, which is a bit twisted because, again, no matter the depth of the relationship we do not own another's body, and fear of humility - the other is better, society will laugh at us, and will laugh even more if we don't victimize. I'd say the former is the most legit, but the less likely, while the latter is pure social fabrication.

Betrayal hurts us because it is a violation of a relationship - and a relationship is more than just some social arrangement by which we agreeably pass the time. Our hearts, our feelings, our very sense of who we are is wrapped up in our romantic relationships. We will probably not agree as to what relationships are, how they are formulated, and how they function - but anybody who has been in one understands the pain of no longer being the object of your lover's love.

Please don't bring the bonding chemicals again; we do not mark eachother for life during sex. When we talk about sexual bonding, the context refers to "something that brings closer" (temporarily) rather than "creation of an engagement" or "shackling".

I did not suggest anything like "marked for life" by sex - I suggested that things happen during the sex act that raise it above a simple merging of "plumbing" - that psychological/emotional things happen during it as well, and these things contribute to the bonding of the couple thusly engaged.

They are. One who is in the social context of a soldier at war, especially when very young and bereft of previously inoculated moral views, will value life a lot less than I do right now... including his own to some extent.

Like JBI you fabricate an argument based on a special exception in order to disprove the general rule I suggest. Won't work. War puts killing in a different context than civil homocide. That some individuals can be trained to see life as less valuable does not mean that our reaction to murder is simple social conditioning. You'll need a better argument than that, my friend.

First of all, words have meaning because we give them meaning. If we all start refering to rocks as "dogs", this definition will end up being added to the dictionary. Words, and moral perception, are not more valuable than reality and they can all crumble to dust when the latter demands it. You can't waver some ancient, written comandments from some invisible, silent entity in front of a woman, when she only experiences pleasure from double penetration.

But the point wasn't changing the definition of "dog" - it was the idea that if everybody had his/her own definition for the word "dog" that it would cease to have any meaning as a word. The reason it is meaningful is that we all understand that "dog" has a certain, unalterable meaning. I don't understand the difference you draw between words, morality, and reality; words are what we use to describe reality; morality is the "ought" of how we behave in reality. In reality, there are conflicts that are bound to occur between people - specifically in the areas of equality, liberty, and justice; morality helps us navigate those conflicts by either a) preventing them, or b) helping us adjudicate them.

That individuals can take pleasure from an act does not necessarily mean that the act is good for the person to be engaged in. Your hypothetical woman is free to enjoy herself as she sees fit, and she need not bow to any particular moral law she doesn't wish to. I don't understand why you're bringing such an image into this conversation?

And to me, it is disturbing that you would deny humans the freedom to seek happiness, in the name of religion and propriety. Since you are happy being a christian, and others claim not to be, is it not a selfish act to judge from the light that suits you?
I will refrain from commenting on the brave soldiers who chose to serve your country in its mighty wars.

I'm not denying anybody their "happiness" - I simply said that making "happiness" the highest value creates a self-centered society that pursues its "happiness" at the expense of more important things. Mothers or fathers who weren't happy in their marriages left to get their romantic needs fulfilled, yet their children suffer terribly - that kind of thing is often excused because the spouse who leaves felt entitled to "happiness."

Who am I judging? Point out where I've laid judgment on anybody? Unless you can come up with an example, I'd say you have no valid point here.

[JBI]

You are arguing over me, who understands the hebrew word. I say it means don't be jealous. Feel free to take whatever meaning you want, but the subtext where it goes over things like your neighbor's house, his wife, et al. prove me right. Sorry, but Tach Modd translates the way I say, if you are claiming the book as the true text, than my book is a more true text, being the original.

[JBI]

They're not MY "rights" and "wrongs" - they are the rights and wrongs that both natural law and the Bible recognize. Throughout the world, throughout history, certain values have always been consistent - murder, rape, cowardice, selfishness, betrayal, and such have never been admired by any culture; as well, things such as love, loyalty, generosity, compassion, mercy, charity, courage, self-sacrifice for a worthy cause - all these have been admired. The fact that those things are consistend throughout history and throughout the world suggest a stable ground for right and wrong.

An example please, of a law that has been constant throughout all cultures in all time periods? Do not steal? Nope. Do not kill (murder)? Nope. Do not commit adultery? Nope. Believe in God? Nope. Believe in only him? Nope. Honor your mother and father? Nope. Keep the sabbath? Nope. Do not make Idols? Nope.

That's just ten, I could have a field day with the other 601 from the old testament, and the rest in the New. The point is, history proves these wrong. This natural law you speak of doesn't exist. And either way, if it did, we wouldn't need religion to tell us so, would we? Since it already exists, the book is somewhat pointless, it being a "natural law" to begin with. But either way, history has shown natural law to be wrong. I don't know many legal scholars who support it now - perhaps a few neo-cons, but most agree with, ironically, Aquinas, who laid out that laws between (wo)men are relative.

[Petronius]

You're right - I don't know - that's why I qualified my statements (here's what I said about divorce: "Spoken again by someone who assumedly has never experienced divorce either as an adult or child.") So feel free to correct me and tell me that you both have gone through such an experience (I have been through both - divorce as a child and as an adult, and I have had an unfaithful partner).

And spare me your shuddering concern over how I "react" - you know next to nothing about how I react to the circumstances of life. Rather than unfounded assumptions, I'd prefer you stick to a real argument.

Betrayal hurts us because it is a violation of a relationship - and a relationship is more than just some social arrangement by which we agreeably pass the time. Our hearts, our feelings, our very sense of who we are is wrapped up in our romantic relationships. We will probably not agree as to what relationships are, how they are formulated, and how they function - but anybody who has been in one understands the pain of no longer being the object of your lover's love.

I have been betrayed in a relationship (it wasn't marriage though), at a time when I had no idea how to deal with it and my dreams of a perfect love were at the highest. And I did find my own blame in my egocentricity. Love is obsession for another and it tends to build its own mythos wether it's truly shared or not. The more that happens, the less likely one is to accept that the person they love has wants of their own, and that they may not coincide to what you expect - a mirroring of your own. That a foolish girl cared for me enough to indulge my relentless passion and enter a relationship with me once, years ago, does not mean she was imune to experience for another what I experienced for her. I did not ask her before I fell in love, and no one asked me if I want that to happen either, and I would have been heart-broken had she refused me just as well.
I understand the pain you're talking about, but love can't be conditioned. If our lover doesn't love us anymore, we can't force them to pretend for us. It's cruel, artificial, and in most cases all it leads to is further suffering. What I've learned is that if we lower our demands and increase our awareness for what our partener wants (yes, including a fling), we will have a better understanding of the relationship, less delusional suffering, and more human love.

As far as parental divorce goes, I did not go through it myself but a number of my close friends experienced it at ages from early childhood to highschool and what I've observed was something akin to what JBI said: reaction was directly linked to the child's awareness of family values and their cleverness (or maturity, but not in an age-related way). This is talking about marginally functional families, mind you. I don't think you'd argue divorce is worse than an abusing parent.

Now, I am sorry I stirred some bad memories for you. I won't demand you continue on this matter, but if you do I would plead that you try to limit biases.

I did not suggest anything like "marked for life" by sex - I suggested that things happen during the sex act that raise it above a simple merging of "plumbing" - that psychological/emotional things happen during it as well, and these things contribute to the bonding of the couple thusly engaged.

Yes, but I have emotional reactions to a play, a song, a painting, a walk through the forest and a carrousel ride. My point is, emotions are not intrinsically billateral. When I like a person I do so by mental association, not by a tangible spiritual link. Thus, while my intellectual reaction to sex may be falling in love, my partner's can very well be "Geez, this guy sucks in bed". That's why I believe that, while sex should be freely practiced for pleasure, caution must be exercised in forming deep bonds around it.

But the point wasn't changing the definition of "dog" - it was the idea that if everybody had his/her own definition for the word "dog" that it would cease to have any meaning as a word. The reason it is meaningful is that we all understand that "dog" has a certain, unalterable meaning. I don't understand the difference you draw between words, morality, and reality; words are what we use to describe reality; morality is the "ought" of how we behave in reality. In reality, there are conflicts that are bound to occur between people - specifically in the areas of equality, liberty, and justice; morality helps us navigate those conflicts by either a) preventing them, or b) helping us adjudicate them.

That individuals can take pleasure from an act does not necessarily mean that the act is good for the person to be engaged in. Your hypothetical woman is free to enjoy herself as she sees fit, and she need not bow to any particular moral law she doesn't wish to. I don't understand why you're bringing such an image into this conversation?

Social fabric changes in time... it may be harder for you to understand if you prefer static design to evolution. We keep claiming liberties that had been unconcievable before and must learn how to deal with them: democracy, eradication of slavery, woman emancipation, childrens' rights, to name just some that may be close to you.
Who could have vouched for democracy in the middle ages, when people had no education and could be easily manipulated? Putting choice in the hands of plebeans would have been unthinkable.
Eradicate slavery? would have said the 18th century plantation lord. That would crumble the economy.
Women are better off if they just listen to their men, was the norm just a hundred years ago.
Children can do with a good beating, some still say today.
Are you saying we won't be able to deal with more sexual liberties?

As far as linguistic changes go, I belive JBI would have more accurate things to say than me, but words' meanings fluctuate constantly, and even if they remain relatively accurate for longer periods of time, they are certainly not unalterable. Their form changes, their meaning widens. For example "insect" will expand to include any new species that gets discovered. With this in mind, return to your comparison with morals.

I'm not denying anybody their "happiness" - I simply said that making "happiness" the highest value creates a self-centered society that pursues its "happiness" at the expense of more important things.

Hedonism, as I see it at least, abhors causing the suffering of others. However, some people cause their own suffering. If the mother wants her child to be a doctor, and he wants to be a painter, is the child to blame for following his dream inspite of her suffering? Or is that suffering (and the child's guilt on top) her own fault, because she replaced reality with her own expectations?

[JBI]

Honestly - I know couples who have gotten divorced, with kids involved mind you, with both parents remaining good friends. Their reason for divorce, was simply they wanted to have sex/ enter relationships with other people. where's the problem in that?

[JBI]

On the subject of meanings of words - there are no real natural meanings of words, according to many prominent linguists and scholars. The meaning of the word is created in a trace. Meaning I take a word house, and when I think of it, I create my definition by forming the meaning in abstract terms in my mind. A house itself has more than one meaning, therefore we rely on additional words, and additional traces to create meanings.

The term Dog meaning something else has no problem. If Dog was taken to mean Cat, the trace would simply lead to a perspective of a Cat. If the opposite was true, the trace would lead in another direction.

For instance, Marriage in the United States has a different meaning than in Canada. In The U.S. it is the union by law of a man and a woman. In Canada, gender isn't specified, and same sex marriages exist. The term still has a meaning, but the meaning is relative to the society that creates it.

The law works the same way - Jurisprudence, the philosophy and rational of the law, is relative, therefore laws are relative to the place, time, and case. Punishments themselves vary in severity, and in seriousness.

What is the law is not constant. What is right and wrong is not constant. In fact, very little is, if anything.