Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

looksee

Dionysius2 wrote: »

Meanwhile back at the ranch...../
What understandable reason can be offered for the suffering of all those countless millions and millions of people who are born handicapped into lives of endless pain and affliction where they have been cast by an omniscient being who could cure everything but chooses not to do so and in so doing commits utterly innocent beings to lives of unending suffering ? Is there any theologian to come on here and give us the rationale for that ? Please...I'd just love to hear it as would many others no doubt.

I'm with Dionysius, lets move on, we are not going to get any answers on the moral issue.

RikuoAmero

"The reason why HWB must be a component of one's morality model is that without it one's morality-model would be destructive"

FTFY

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

Supposing God to exist, I can point to my best efforts to understand and apply the Absolute Moral Standard as being all I can achieve.

My efforts, judgeable against what was possible for me to achieve, imbues my effort with objective value.

That another Christian theist ploughs a different furrow to me isn't relevant to me: I'll stand before my Maker on the basis of what I did or didn't do. And all will be objectively and individually assessed.

From my perspective (as work in progress) my morality has objective value and I have valid reason to strive to achieve.

The atheist can have no such objective framework. Everything he attempts to attach his morality lacks firm ground. That is to say: the atheist has no mechanism for supposing firm ground under his feet.

-

Whether or not God exists isn't the issue. My moral compass can have objective value ( all it takes is for God to exist). The atheists moral compass can have no objective value.

Which is the difference.

Which is no difference .

The atheist can have his own external moral code just like you do . In fact his is even on firmer ground as it can be grounded in society whereas your varies from person to person.

silverharp

antiskeptic wrote: »

A fixed point is something which stands outside that which is variable and changing and subject to time passing and fashion.



The transfer of value downstream doesn't in itself add value, so by pointing to parents you've shifted my question onto them. Dead end there..

But you add in the notion 'utility'. That which is found to work. But that's not a basis for morality since what works for one society (putting all their Jews in gas chambers) might not work for another.

Utility is very much in the eye of the beholder.



I've ignored the rest of your post since it doesn't deal with the question being asked: how the atheist deals with the floating-point nature of their morality.

But I have stated that modern society believe that individuals have value so that would reduce Nazism to abuse of power and therefore unacceptable as a political model for human society. Utility is your word I didnt say it and it would be wrong , I meant that we know as parents that you pass on a morality to our kids as its the basis for them being accepted into society and for them to be successful as adults so be it a work ethic , being honest in their dealing with other people etc. no religion required there.
Using Religion in my view can be dangerous in child rearing if your reasoning as to why your kids shouldnt steal is because "it will make Jesus cry", when such a kid grows up and dumps religion one of his reasons for not stealing for example are removed

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Just humour me. What happens to a person's actions, if their moral system doesn't have HWB as a component?

Other people get hurt. So what.

Humour me, quit diverting and address the problem you face.

antiskeptic

looksee wrote: »

I'm with Dionysius, lets move on, we are not going to get any answers on the moral issue.

I've concluded that much. You can have a moral system without God you say. You just can't say how..

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

The atheist can have his own external moral code just like you do . In fact his is even on firmer ground as it can be grounded in society whereas your varies from person to person.

Did you get the last line of what I wrote?

"My moral compass can have objective value ( all it takes is for God to exist). The atheists moral compass can have no objective value*."

The key is objective. The atheist system doesn't allow him an objective locus in any shape or form. "Society" is merely a collective of subjectives.

The theist system, to the degree it harmonises with the objective reference point will be an objective morality. Yes, the degree of harmony (and thus objectivity) will vary from theist to theist* but there is objectivity in there be it 2%,10%, 50% alignment with the fixed reference point.

*IF God exists AND all are made in his image and likeness whether they believe or not THEN everyone's moral system will be objective to the degree it happens to harmonize with the fixed reference point. In other words: your hatred of true selfishness (for example) would have objective value if God exists, even though you don't believe God exists. The athiest's morality would have objective value despite, rather than because of atheism.

antiskeptic

silverharp wrote: »

But I have stated that modern society believe that individuals have value so that would reduce Nazism to abuse of power and therefore unacceptable as a political model for human society. Utility is your word I didnt say it and it would be wrong , I meant that we know as parents that you pass on a morality to our kids as its the basis for them being accepted into society and for them to be successful as adults so be it a work ethic , being honest in their dealing with other people etc. no religion required there.

No religion is required to pass on those notions. But we're not interested in what's passed on here, we're interested in how one suppose what is being passed on constitutes good or bad morality.

Nazism was modern society at one point and an acceptable political model for human society. Now it isn't modern just as our society will one day be old hat. At some point in the future Nazism, or something like it, will be considered acceptable by societies (just as at points in the distant past, something not unlike it was considered acceptable).

Your problem is how to support one particular view (you seem to think the present view best) is moral whereas other views in times past (and in time future) are less moral.

If you've no fixed, immovable standard to compare a system to, how can you say whether the system falls short or meets the standard for good morality?

-

Practical example:

If a Nazi disagrees with you and says extermination of (he considers to be) lesser beings is a moral thing to do, in that it betters society (utility view) how are you going to argue your case? They don't agree that all have equal value and you've no absolute standard to point them to to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that even if you did believe in an absolute standard it would win over the Nazi. The problem for you is that you've no argument convincing to even yourself.

looksee

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you've no fixed, immovable standard to compare a system to, how can you say whether the system falls short or meets the standard for good morality?

You keep telling the atheists that they have a problem. The atheists do not think they have a problem. So just humour us, explain the quote above.

You have said that god is the fixed immovable standard, but that you do not know god's mind so you cannot define that standard. If you cannot define it how can you compare it?

God's fixed immovable standard seems to have changed over time to allow for a different attitude towards slavery, racial superiority, and the desirability of killing people who did not acknowledge him, etc. How is this fixed and immovable?

RikuoAmero

Antiskeptic, this is what is happening to your arguments of objective morality when you said you don't know what they are (you don't know what God's mind is on them)

Like the others here have said, this means your "objective" morality is as subjective as ours. You're throwing stones at a glass ceiling, trying to find fault with everyone else's morality, all the while pretending your morality system has no flaws, or is somehow better than everyone else's. From where we stand, yours is incredibly weak and ill-defined.
You even said it

Other people get hurt. So what.

How come you don't realize that this is why I have HWB as my moral system? I am not the only person in the world, I am not the only intelligent mind in the world (as far as I know, since of course, I have no way to defeat hard solipsism). In order to live a peaceful life, I am forced by necessity to adopt HWB.
Your morality system is weak, since you base it on a perfect system that you have admitted you have no clue about, other than general principles. You've said you'll stick by your system until you die and you get judged - what if when you die, you see the big guy and he says "You were extremely judgemental, and (can't remember if you are of this stance but roll with it for the sake of this argument) against allowing homosexuals to marry, citing me as your justification. However, you didn't know me, so all you did was end up hurting other people in a vain attempt to show me that you were a good little boy who always followed God's rules"

looksee

I think the phrase 'Other people get hurt. So what' is the final confirmation that this is not a serious argument. It is not possible to say that and claim superior morality. Well, you can claim it but it is meaningless.

It could be an interesting discussion but at the moment the Christian or theist angle is being mocked by the 'arguments' being put forward on their behalf.

I have no wish to mock theists - I might dispute their beliefs but I accept that they are entitled to those beliefs. In this current discussion though it is the theist who is making a mock of the theist beliefs.

silverharp

antiskeptic wrote: »

No religion is required to pass on those notions. But we're not interested in what's passed on here, we're interested in how one suppose what is being passed on constitutes good or bad morality.

Nazism was modern society at one point and an acceptable political model for human society. Now it isn't modern just as our society will one day be old hat. At some point in the future Nazism, or something like it, will be considered acceptable by societies (just as at points in the distant past, something not unlike it was considered acceptable).

Your problem is how to support one particular view (you seem to think the present view best) is moral whereas other views in times past (and in time future) are less moral.

If you've no fixed, immovable standard to compare a system to, how can you say whether the system falls short or meets the standard for good morality?

-

Practical example:

If a Nazi disagrees with you and says extermination of (he considers to be) lesser beings is a moral thing to do, in that it betters society (utility view) how are you going to argue your case? They don't agree that all have equal value and you've no absolute standard to point them to to argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that even if you did believe in an absolute standard it would win over the Nazi. The problem for you is that you've no argument convincing to even yourself.

so you are more interested in the "morality" of political systems than individuals , ok that fine. Its absolutely possible that a society could vote themselves into a nazi or communist state , all I would argue is that to prevent such outcomes that the vast majority would reject most of the time because its not "moral", that you have a legal system and political system that has breaks and control to stop this from happening, if the population are stuck on stupid then move somewhere else.
Need I mention that Christian morality supported all the political systems from the Roman empire to kings so was absolutely no help in guiding how states are run. It took the Enlightenment to break Europe out of its christian rut. It was also a Christian mindset that setup much of the antisemitic stress in Germany before Hitler came to power with other strands of nonsense coming from paganism as well.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

Did you get the last line of what I wrote?

"My moral compass can have objective value ( all it takes is for God to exist). The atheists moral compass can have no objective value*."

The key is objective. The atheist system doesn't allow him an objective locus in any shape or form. "Society" is merely a collective of subjectives.

The theist system, to the degree it harmonises with the objective reference point will be an objective morality. Yes, the degree of harmony (and thus objectivity) will vary from theist to theist* but there is objectivity in there be it 2%,10%, 50% alignment with the fixed reference point.

*IF God exists AND all are made in his image and likeness whether they believe or not THEN everyone's moral system will be objective to the degree it happens to harmonize with the fixed reference point. In other words: your hatred of true selfishness (for example) would have objective value if God exists, even though you don't believe God exists. The athiest's morality would have objective value despite, rather than because of atheism.

Of course I read what you wrote, I just don't agree with what you wrote.

Your 'objective' moral value is meaningless if it differs from person to person and from age to age .

RikuoAmero

marienbad wrote: »

Of course I read what you wrote, I just don't agree with what you wrote.

Your 'objective' moral value is meaningless if it differs from person to person and from age to age .

To add to that, Antiskeptic is just flat out incorrect when he says "My moral compass can have objective value ( all it takes is for God to exist)."
No, it not only needs your god to exist, but you also need to be able to understand and interpret that god and his moral structure. Thing is, anti has previously stated he doesn't know this. He acknowledges that there are christians who have different interpretations than he does...but for some reason that doesn't matter. His moral structure is objective and henceforth superior to our own, all because his compass is pointed to a god that he says he doesn't understand and cannot understand, the same god whose moral structure is interpreted subjectively by millions of christians? How does that make sense?

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

No, it not only needs your god to exist, but you also need to be able to understand and interpret that god and his moral structure. Thing is, anti has previously stated he doesn't know this.

I haven't said that. I have said that I understand general principles which can then be applied everyday. But would acknowledge not I nor anyone else has the full picture.

Whereas your own system offers no hope of any objectivity

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

Of course I read what you wrote, I just don't agree with what you wrote.

Your 'objective' moral value is meaningless if it differs from person to person and from age to age .

That no two Christians have exactly the same viewpoint doesn't mean their moralities have no elements of objectivity. They are both objective in so far as they track the absolute.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

That no two Christians have exactly the same viewpoint doesn't mean their moralities have no elements of objectivity. They are both objective in so far as they track the absolute.

Absolute what ? If no one can agree on it how can it be absolute ?

RikuoAmero

antiskeptic wrote: »

That no two Christians have exactly the same viewpoint doesn't mean their moralities have no elements of objectivity. They are both objective in so far as they track the absolute.

And of course with this statement, you completely ignore the problem of being able to determine which of these christians (if any) actually are tracking correctly. No, with you it's just "Go with the christian morality, whatever the hell it is, I don't know for s*its and giggles!"

antiskeptic

silverharp wrote: »

so you are more interested in the "morality" of political systems than individuals , ok that fine.

I'm interested in answers to questions asked. And I'm not getting them so little point in talking past each other.

looksee

It does work both ways Antiskeptic, this is a discussion board, we all both ask and answer questions. You have not done a great deal of answering, so you are right there is not much point in just us answering you, especially when you evidently don't attempt to understand the answers.

indioblack

RikuoAmero wrote: »

And of course with this statement, you completely ignore the problem of being able to determine which of these christians (if any) actually are tracking correctly. No, with you it's just "Go with the christian morality, whatever the hell it is, I don't know for s*its and giggles!"

I read "Jesus on Mars" about thirty years ago. This Jesus claimed he was the original one, and had powers that seemed to back up this claim. In the story, those earth people who met him struggled with the unreality of what he was claiming - and their own beliefs and lost beliefs.
As I recall, at the end of the book, after deaths and some resurrections, this Jesus was asked "Are you really Jesus?" - to which he replied "Does it matter?"
My problem in this thread has been my inability to comprehend the notion of the omnipotent God.
As I've said before, my opinion is that most Christians have a basic image of God - probably not much different from the one they were given as children.
I'd say there's little thinking by them about our existence in an obviously imperfect world created by a perfect God.
When my mother was dying some years ago, and knew she was, she said she hoped it was true - the religion she had all her life - and life after death.
She didn't say she knew it was true, she hoped it was true.
If I'm told that someone believes it's true - and is prepared to act as if it were true - I would find that preferable to someone telling me they know it's true.

RikuoAmero

As I recall, at the end of the book, after deaths and some resurrections, this Jesus was asked "Are you really Jesus?" - to which he replied "Does it matter?"

My reply to that is "Yes, it does matter". If there is/was a god in the flesh, with a perfect moral system and teachings that humans should follow in order to experience a happy life, obviously it would then be in our best interests to determine if he actually is the real Slim Shady.
Of course, in the world you described there, such a task is apparently impossible, so I would ignore the question and move on with living my life according to HWB.

My problem in this thread has been my inability to comprehend the notion of the omnipotent God.

Mine has been the logical paradoxes of the God claim - not just omnipotent, but all knowing and omnibenevolent as well.

If I'm told that someone believes it's true - and is prepared to act as if it were true - I would find that preferable to someone telling me they know it's true.

You mean like Anti here has been saying? Yes, I find it preferable too, but this way has its own problems. For starters, it's arrogant, idiotic and lazy. It's arrogant in that the person adopting it says that their morality is objective; idiotic in that they admit they don't know what the moral system apart from a few general principles; and lazy in that they don't bother trying to find out (at least Anti hasn't said anything about trying to find this objective morality: as far as I can tell from what he writes, he seemingly just picked a christian system of morality and went with it, with no in-depth examination, and all seemingly with no regard as to HWB).

indioblack

RikuoAmero wrote: »

My reply to that is "Yes, it does matter". If there is/was a god in the flesh, with a perfect moral system and teachings that humans should follow in order to experience a happy life, obviously it would then be in our best interests to determine if he actually is the real Slim Shady.
Of course, in the world you described there, such a task is apparently impossible, so I would ignore the question and move on with living my life according to HWB.


Mine has been the logical paradoxes of the God claim - not just omnipotent, but all knowing and omnibenevolent as well.


You mean like Anti here has been saying? Yes, I find it preferable too, but this way has its own problems. For starters, it's arrogant, idiotic and lazy. It's arrogant in that the person adopting it says that their morality is objective; idiotic in that they admit they don't know what the moral system apart from a few general principles; and lazy in that they don't bother trying to find out (at least Anti hasn't said anything about trying to find this objective morality: as far as I can tell from what he writes, he seemingly just picked a christian system of morality and went with it, with no in-depth examination, and all seemingly with no regard as to HWB).

Food for thought. When I was a churchgoer decades ago, I seldom looked deeply into what I was proclaiming by my attendance - that was a gradual process.
If someone is unwilling, or unable, to face the contradictions such as has been highlighted in this thread - that may suit them, as long as they don't force their beliefs onto others. A generalised Christian attitude to life - subjective, of course - is not difficult to understand, and is probably a mainly positive attitude in life.
But if the genie of doubt has emerged from the bottle I think it would need a complete re-evaluation of people's perspective of - well, just about everything.
That's assuming they want to acknowledge the illogicality of God in this world.
And if a creator is to be retained in peoples thinking, that would surely demand a fundamental change as regards what people think god actually is.

RikuoAmero

indioblack wrote: »

Food for thought. When I was a churchgoer decades ago, I seldom looked deeply into what I was proclaiming by my attendance - that was a gradual process.
If someone is unwilling, or unable, to face the contradictions such as has been highlighted in this thread - that may suit them, as long as they don't force their beliefs onto others. A generalised Christian attitude to life - subjective, of course - is not difficult to understand, and is probably a mainly positive attitude in life.
But if the genie of doubt has emerged from the bottle I think it would need a complete re-evaluation of people's perspective of - well, just about everything.
That's assuming they want to acknowledge the illogicality of God in this world.
And if a creator is to be retained in peoples thinking, that would surely demand a fundamental change as regards what people think god actually is.

Fair enough. It just annoys me, is all, when someone claims an objective truth and can't be bothered backing it up.

indioblack

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Fair enough. It just annoys me, is all, when someone claims an objective truth and can't be bothered backing it up.

I was thinking of Ricky Gervais who said "If there is a God, why did he make me an atheist?"
My experience has been that believers, individually, in small sects or in the big churches, start from an assumption of belief and go from there.
It might be instructive for them if they went back from that point and attempted to explain the origin of their belief.
And yet there are undoubtedly scholars within organised religion who must be aware of the contradictions in what they believe and teach.

looksee

Following a faith system has many advantages to the individual. It gives them a sense of community, a warm feeling of being taken care of, a structure to their life and a pattern to live by. The cost is belief, that is the repayment for the above benefits. If they challenge their own belief as they have too much to lose, and since it all hinges on a totally nebulous thing called faith it is quite possible to continue to believe, it can only be disproved if the believer wants it to be disproved.

RikuoAmero

looksee wrote: »

Following a faith system has many advantages to the individual. It gives them a sense of community, a warm feeling of being taken care of, a structure to their life and a pattern to live by. The cost is belief, that is the repayment for the above benefits. If they challenge their own belief as they have too much to lose, and since it all hinges on a totally nebulous thing called faith it is quite possible to continue to believe, it can only be disproved if the believer wants it to be disproved.

It has disadvantages too. It makes you far more susceptible to the possibility of believing other things that are false and that have no evidence supporting them.

looksee

But as a believer that is not going to be a problem to you.

Peregrinus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

It has disadvantages too. It makes you far more susceptible to the possibility of believing other things that are false and that have no evidence supporting them.

Umm. I dunno.

I suspect the capacity to believe in things that are unevidenced is inherent to the human condition.

I question - pending the convincing peer-reviewed evidence which you are no doubt about to present - the claim that religious believers have a greater capacity for this, or are more susceptible to it. One of the things I noticed when moving from a more conventionally religiously observant country (Ireland) to a less conventionally religiously observant country (Australia) is a huge increase in the visibility of spacey new-age believers who embrace unevidenced but non-religious convictions. And we can look at a society like China which has high levels of atheism combined with high levels of belief in chance, luck, destiny and the variety of ways in which we can supposedly influence it in a way that will improve our lives. Even the most convinced Dawkinsite atheists - even on this very board - can display firm convictions over unevidenced and unevidenceable propositions, such as the propositions of philosophical materialism.

I don't think the great divide is between those who hold unevidenced beliefs and those who don't. I think it's probably between those who recognise that they hold unevidenced beliefs and those who don't recognise it.

RikuoAmero

I question - pending the convincing peer-reviewed evidence which you are no doubt about to present

You got me there, lol. I don't have any. I would say that logically, someone who believes the died-and-rose-from-the-dead claim with nothing but eyewitness accounts supporting it is more likely to believe the same claim from other sources...but that would require the believer to be consistent with their own internal logic. Take the example of the pregnant nun who claimed to still be a virgin - her sisters are part of a religion that believes that just such a birth happened in the past (and thus is possible)...and yet they didn't believe her.