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

[Redzeppelin]

Red, I think JBI has come up with nothing but good points and I don't understand your penelopean attempts at dismissing them. You started by claiming the commandments are natural, universal laws, and that I believe was proven wrong.

No: I did not claim the 10 commandments were universal laws; I asked what was negative about them and how they didn't benefit society. Then I asserted that morality cannot be "relative" or self-defined because that way madness lies: behavior becomes undefinable in terms of its moral content because we can all then justify atrocious behavior based upon the claim that "it's my morality." I then asserted that some values, some behaviors were universal in their acceptance and rejection by the cultures of history and the world. All cultures have admired bravery, compassion, justice, love, loyalty; all cultures have rejected theft, lying, adultery, murder, betrayal as destructive things. That there are exceptional circumstances where a culture might engage in some of the negatives I've listed does not mean that the culture in general embraced those behaviors as virtuous, desirable and praiseworthy. All JBI's examples deal with exceptions that disqualify them from countering the argument I'm making.

Are you now changing your premises in retrospect so you can challenge his examples? If these principles are now only to apply among "equal members", am I to believe that, as far as your natural laws are concerned, it's ok to steal from, lie to, betray or murder someone as long as you don't like them very much?

No: my argument has been consistent. I keep trying to reword it to see if he'll understand what I'm looking for, because he (she - sorry?) keeps giving examples that contain an exceptional flaw within them - a circumstance that clearly explains the culture's support of a negative social behavior. I need a culture where the negative social behavior is viewed as good not on an exceptional basis, but as an accepted and praised cultural norm outside of special influences (religion, war, "marginalized cultural members" and such). I dare say neither of you will be able to do that.

To add my own example, I invite you to read this article on human sacrifice in the Aztec culture.
The Aztecs believed the Universe is sustained by ongoing sacrifice, in which they felt it was their obligation to partake. This included self-flagelation, bloodletting and death.
Human sacrifice was pretty common and wide in scope, and it did not only include prisoners, but also willing (or indoctrinated) members of the society, the latter of which were revered by their peers. These people obviously thought ritual murder is an important part of their society, even a spiritual necessity. By what reasoning would you deny the imperatives of their culture?

Now there's a good example. Far better than any JBI has offered - but like the Jonestown example, it relies upon the misuse of religious belief to manipulate people. And even then, the people believed that their sacrifice did something positive for society. If their sacrifice was willing, then they believed they were contributing positively to their society; if they were sacrificed against their will, well that supports my position in that the society's members did not completely embrace the practice. You get one point for the ritual murder - but the fact that it is a part of religious ceremony taints it in my view because I'm seeking community values that are not from exceptional sources. You see, the culture didn't embrace the random murder of people by just anybody in the culture; there were specific rules about it, and it was done only by certain people, in certain ways, on certain days. It's a good example, but it's still shy of what I'm looking for.

[andave_ya]

Nope, only physics.

Remember, the full phrase is "every action has an equal and opposite reaction".

I suppose you could argue that the zebra dies and the reaction to that is lion eating, but it blows your karmic hopes out of the water.

. Okay. I've seen the law apply in more than just physics, but I suppose it depends at how one looks at it.

[blp]

Now there's a good example. Far better than any JBI has offered - but like the Jonestown example, it relies upon the misuse of religious belief to manipulate people. And even then, the people believed that their sacrifice did something positive for society. If their sacrifice was willing, then they believed they were contributing positively to their society; if they were sacrificed against their will, well that supports my position in that the society's members did not completely embrace the practice. You get one point for the ritual murder - but the fact that it is a part of religious ceremony taints it in my view because I'm seeking community values that are not from exceptional sources. You see, the culture didn't embrace the random murder of people by just anybody in the culture; there were specific rules about it, and it was done only by certain people, in certain ways, on certain days. It's a good example, but it's still shy of what I'm looking for.

So, are you saying that murder still fits a sort of universal notion of morality as long as its ritualised? Is that why Aztec human sacrifice is not a good enough example? Because it still contains enough of the moral values we recognise as our own? I mean, sure, at least some of the people involved thought they were contributing positively to their society, but isn't that almost an a priori given in the context of different values? They have a different sense of what constitutes a positive contribution to society, ergo, a different sense of value. And you say it constitutes a misuse of religion. Well, according to you and I it does, but not them. Different values, see.

[Petronius]

Then you have to realize that the way values are interpreted in traditionally monotheistic cultures are also exceptional and may differ from what people would arrive at if they didn't believe. The reason we tend to agree on banning theft and murder from our social groups is an instinct of self-preservation (and preservation of our possesions in some, now dominant, cases). We simply agree not to apply the "survival of the fittest" law among eachother as an ensurance in case of weakness, but it's a rational conclusion we arrived at during our evolution, and one that doesn't apply on every case and scale. It's simply a more educated form of pack animals working together - but once killing eachother becomes an imperative for survival we would end up having little remorse doing it.

My main problem has been, however, with sexuality, given that christian principles tend to be prude, ascetic and patriarchal. I give you this little morsel on sexual equality in Sparta, from wikipedia:

"Women, being more independent than in other Greek societies, were able to negotiate with their husbands to bring their lovers into their homes. According to Plutarch in his Life of Lycurgus, men both allowed and encouraged their wives to bear the children of other men, due to the general communal ethos which made it more important to bear many progeny for the good of the city, than to be jealously concerned with one's own family unit. However, some historians argue that this 'wife sharing' was only reserved for elder males who had not yet produced an heir"

Proof of a society where adultery was allowed or even encouraged, depending on interpretation, and jealousy condemned. Something much easier to balance one's principles with than mass murder. As far as special influences are concerned, on both my examples, I would argue that they would have to be consolidated within the culture in any case, otherwise there would be constant unrest and the society wouldn't last as long as both the aztecs and spartans did. In my orthodox country, there are many religion-linked traditions that are strongly valued, although their proponents understand little or nothing at all about their original spiritual symbolism.

[JBI]

Actually, the Sparta example doesn't rely on anything religious, but on society. The social norms of society created the wife-sharing trends, not the Divine Law. Either way, there was nothing wrong with my examples, except that you needed too specific a thing, like asking for the impossible and pretending to be right because that doesn't exist in history.

[Saladin]

JBI

Are you familiar with compatibilism?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

[JBI]

JBI

Are you familiar with compatibilism?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Yes, but that is a light form of determinism. In truth, it essentially means, though pre-determined, people still make choices, which I agree, but it still asserts the outcome of the choice is pre-determined, reducing everything to a linear time plot again.

[NikolaiI]

Yes, but that is a light form of determinism. In truth, it essentially means, though pre-determined, people still make choices, which I agree, but it still asserts the outcome of the choice is pre-determined, reducing everything to a linear time plot again.

Yes, even if everything is pre-determined though, that doesn't end all thought of the matter. Even if free will is illusion; it is still the most gripping illusion that exists. There are causes for why I do what I do, and so my actions are dependent on all those causes. Yet everything I see, think, hear, and say are also causes. The fact that you and I are having this dicussion is part of the whole matter. The idea of pre-determinism is part of the causes, and whether it makes one act or not act is a part of it; and whether we believe in pre-determinism is a part of it, as well as what this makes us do then.

What I am saying is the "illusion" of free will is so important, that by all standards of observation, it still appears that one thinks, one considers, and then one acts or not. Thus one thinks and considers and comes to a decision of whether to act or not. Those causes you mentioned which you say make everything pre-determined are part of it; but it's also vital what we think of this and how we react to it. So you might say that all of the past, and all of the future is pre-determined, but this doesn't mean much since just saying it doesn't change the way things actually are; or that, by all appearances, everything known or thought of free will exists and is legitimate.

[JBI]

The way I see the argument, is from a rather stranger perspective. Compatibilism seems to be the optimistic one, allowing humans to seem to have somewhat of a control of their lives, whereas incompatibilism seems to be a more dreary understanding, which ties in with the notion of meaninglessness, and other nihilistic thoughts. They both though, argue in a sense against free will as seen in Christian dogma. One merely says everything is but a pawn, being pushed around by the forces of time, whereas the other one says yes, that's true, but on a daily basis, one can still choose the chicken or the fish. The free will comes from a creation of personal meanings, rather than an actual ability to have a "free choice", in the sense of compatibilism. Either way though, they all essentially equal the same thing.

All these thoughts are rhetoric driven constructs, and arguments over semantics more than actual arguments, I find. Either way though, determinism isn't shaken off one way or another. The best argument I can think of against it is also agreeing with it, in that the future is not determined, but is on a linear line. That concept again disregards free will, but goes off to say that the actual plot isn't written yet.

[Delta40]

I would rather be happy than right. I am happy. I guess that means your point view has no bearing on my beliefs.

[weltanschauung]

Of course they can be obeyed - perhaps not consistently, but God does not ask us for what we cannot do - especially if we ask Him to help us do them. The question is whether or not we wish to obey them. The discussion wasn't how feasible the Bible's injunctions are - it's about questioning the moral value of the things the Bible commands us to do. They're all feasible because many people manage to follow them - not perfectly, but a willing heart is what pleases God - not perfect moral performance.



That all people wouldn't obey the scriptural guidelines doesn't negate their value - that's like saying if nobody wanted to eat vegetables that they wouldn't be healthy food. The thing has value whether or not people choose to think so.

You're shifting ground here; the assertion was made that churches merely attempt to "manipulate" the flock, but I asked if the moral precepts of the Bible are not worth following; now you've changed the position to say that the moral precepts aren't valid because people won't follow them. That's a different argument. How is it manipulation to tell people that behaving in "x" ways will benefit the world around them? If the statement is true, how is it manipulation?

If you think the church's message is just a manipulative tool, then tell me what it should be preaching that you would approve of.

I'm sorry - but I couldn't understand your third sentence above.




A stunningly arrogant statement - one that can only be made by one who assumes his/her clarity to be beyond question. Might you condescend to make yourself clear instead of assuming that you are - since there is a chance [if only a slight one] that you think you're clear and really aren't?




A cynical assertion that sounds poetic and visionary but is merely cynicism. All rules are not arbitrary. All societies the world around accept certain values (courage, loyalty, generosity, love) and reject others (murder, lying, cowardice, rape). Laws are only arbitrary if they are based upon nothing higher than human will.

Saying all rules are arbitrary simply means that no law has any meaning whatsoever. Sounds cooly nihilist, but essentially such statements themselves become meaningless.




Believe as you wish; there is not much historical precedence to support the idea that living without guidelines, rules, or laws have benefitted humanity much. Societies/communities cannot function properly without rules and laws because unfettered freedom involves me stepping on others in the act of living out my freedom - the only way to guarantee the freedom of all is for all of us to limit our freedom enough so that others can live as freely as I without being oppressed by my use of freedom. That's basic political theory - something I'm sure you understand.

"i cant wait for this act to be over, cause i have a roll of lifesavers in my pocket and pineapple is next"

[Pendragon]

I seem to forget, is this thread on dogma, commandments, or trying to help someone who is non-religious see a different point of view? The topic jumps around a lot. If someone doesn't even see God in nature, how can one convince that person of a God? That hurdle is shocking hard to get through to those who cannot conceive what "Faith" really is.

[JBI]

Or perhaps it is the believer who cannot conceive of what faith really is.

[NikolaiI]

The way I see the argument, is from a rather stranger perspective. Compatibilism seems to be the optimistic one, allowing humans to seem to have somewhat of a control of their lives, whereas incompatibilism seems to be a more dreary understanding, which ties in with the notion of meaninglessness, and other nihilistic thoughts. They both though, argue in a sense against free will as seen in Christian dogma. One merely says everything is but a pawn, being pushed around by the forces of time, whereas the other one says yes, that's true, but on a daily basis, one can still choose the chicken or the fish. The free will comes from a creation of personal meanings, rather than an actual ability to have a "free choice", in the sense of compatibilism. Either way though, they all essentially equal the same thing.

All these thoughts are rhetoric driven constructs, and arguments over semantics more than actual arguments, I find. Either way though, determinism isn't shaken off one way or another. The best argument I can think of against it is also agreeing with it, in that the future is not determined, but is on a linear line. That concept again disregards free will, but goes off to say that the actual plot isn't written yet.

This is interesting... I believe there's something to that, but again it doesn't change the way things are. If I cannot distinguish or perceive the "illusion" of free will. That is, with all my faculties at their clearest and most sober, if by all my reasoning I cannot tell that my free will does not exist, then I must assume it does, or that the fact that it doesn't does not mean very much. I mean it's the issue of "You can't fool fate," right? Whatever happens, happens. And once it happens it can't be taken back; but then if you really consider, it must have happened anyway and it is pre-determined. There is the question then of how this affects us. Whether it makes us sad, or if we recognize it doesn't change things at all. The worst mistake anyone could make is to think that this matters, that it affects things. It may be true but it's also not true. If someone thinks that fate is guiding all his actions, then he becomes very dangerous. It's not fate guiding his actions but the fact that he has resigned himself to it. Then he might think his actions don't matter, but then he could really mess up his life or the lives of others. Let's say, he goes on a robbing spree, and then gets locked up for many years. All because of his reaction to what he thought was fate.

Basically one thinking that fate is guiding all his actions is about as bad as thinking God is guiding all of one's actions. Then one surrenders responsibility. If one does this, and then commits atrocious actions, they might think they are not responsible for their actions-- but they are responsible; their mind and heart are responsible for their actions. It's their mind thinking that fate is controlling them that controls them, and this is why they're dangerous. They are responsible- no one made them do their actions. And the power of both negative and positive thoughts, beliefs and faith is very great. It can completely paralyze someone if they think they cannot act, they cannot change things, and it can also give one strength if they have faith and are sure that they can. Often we don't realize how our thoughts are limiting us; thoughts which are nothing more than habits.

You said - I believe it was you - you disliked how movies and stories followed unbelievable plot lines. But don't forget about people who do things under the influence of some kind of thinking, and then sort of wake up from it later in shock and repulsion at what they'd done. I've dealt with people who are like this. For instance if someone is paranoid and thinks that everyone is wanting to kill them. They are suffering very greatly although it is their own choice to repeatedly reinforce this fantasy. They are trapped by their thinking until they can break out of it and realize it was only in their head. They are mistaking the rope for the snake.

[Petronius]

I think the best way to portray the free will vs determinism problem is by bringing the former into statistics - if free will existed and there was nothing to guide it but the individual's spiritual ego, then any number of occurances deriving from free choices would have assigned a probability to them. Such, interactions of humans in society would have the makings of a stochastic process, such as the Brownian motion, with individuals being the particles and the world the body of water.

However, wether we consider the Brownian motion model stochastic or deterministic is a matter of the observer's perspective. The phenomenon consists of the "seemingly random movement of particles suspended in a liquid or gas".
It says seemingly because if we have complete information/control on the forces involved between the moving particles and the particles in the body of liquid/gas, then we can predict/repeat the patterns within physical law. The process becomes stochastic through perception; the ordinary observer knows nothing of these infinitesimal forces at work, or if they do they have no interest in measuring them, and by convention dismiss the deterministic equations and, in the name of a wider scope, analyze the process as being random. However, there is no process to date that is purely random; chance exists only in the perception of observers who lack information.

From personal perspective, we will never have complete information, because everything us humans percieve and process goes through our brains. Thought process can not totally step out and analyze itself (even when you think of yourself thinking there is a lag, a loop of unprocessed information), just like the eye can't see inside itself. This gives, in a wild chase around one's own tail, the appearance of a mind outside the body, or a soul outside the mind. It also gives the illusion of "freedom of choice" because we can't dose our body's propreties at the same time they reach a decision - we suffer from a latency that blocks from our minds the simulatenous percieving of its own commands.

From a universal perspective though, just like the full-information Brownian motion, an ecuation (a very complex one at that) can define the course of entire existence, and an entire human life as part of it. But any attempt to change this would be pre-determined as well, but in flux not as end results (you can't say that no matter what you do fate will push you to a certain end for example). Of course it is pointless to assume that God or fate control our lives, because even the process of thinking that and our response to it is source of linear influence.