: julieb  April 27, 2006, 07:09:28 PM

My apologies SPH, but I'm have trouble understanding any of the points you are trying to make.

I'm trying to establish that a belief in a difference between good and bad ultimately implies the existence of God.  Not some humanistic God as the Old Testament tends to illustrate when interpreted literally... but certainly an underlying truth to all existence, a difference between good and evil, which is God.  And, if this is the case, there must be more to life than just a physical mortal existence, for if after death we become the same nothing that we were before we were born, then "good" would be merely a meaningless psychological illusion.

Much smarter people than me have been working on this for a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#State_of_nature_.26_social_contract

It happens that acting in a purely selfish way is not always in one's self interest. There are many times when the help of the community is needed to acheive a personal goal. If one has acted antisocial then they will not have the backing of the community and not achieve their goal. There is no reason to say that all good things come from a higher power. If you believe it fine. I don't think that it is neccesary to have an invisible power dictating what is good and what isn't. Unless of course it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Peace

It happens that acting in a purely selfish way is not always in one's self interest. There are many times when the help of the community is needed to acheive a personal goal.

If one is helping the community in order to ultimately acheive a personal goal, then it is still selfish.  However, I've never claimed that selfishness is inherently evil anyway.

There is no reason to say that all good things come from a higher power. If you believe it fine. I don't think that it is neccesary to have an invisible power dictating what is good and what isn't.

I don't agree with your use of the word "dictating"... it makes it sound humanistic, as if there were some separate entity like some omnipotent consciousness in the sky deciding what will be right and wrong, what will be good and bad.  These things are not decided or created, they are truths that exist independently of time and physical location.  And this is God.  This is truth.

If you are unwilling to say that goodness comes from a "higher power"... then where does it come from?  Or does it just exist?  For if it just exists, then it's much like God anyway.

Unless of course it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Now that's good stuff...  I was touched by his noodly appendage. 

: Jezcoe  April 27, 2006, 08:01:50 PM

It happens that acting in a purely selfish way is not always in one's self interest. There are many times when the help of the community is needed to acheive a personal goal.

If one is helping the community in order to ultimately acheive a personal goal, then it is still selfish.  However, I've never claimed that selfishness is inherently evil anyway.

: Jezcoe  April 27, 2006, 08:01:50 PM

There is no reason to say that all good things come from a higher power. If you believe it fine. I don't think that it is neccesary to have an invisible power dictating what is good and what isn't.

I don't agree with your use of the word "dictating"... it makes it sound humanistic, as if there were some separate entity like some omnipotent consciousness in the sky deciding what will be right and wrong, what will be good and bad.  These things are not decided or created, they are truths that exist independently of time and physical location.  And this is God.  This is truth.

If you are unwilling to say that goodness comes from a "higher power"... then where does it come from?  Or does it just exist?  For if it just exists, then it's much like God anyway.

: Jezcoe  April 27, 2006, 08:01:50 PM

Unless of course it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Now that's good stuff...  I was touched by his noodly appendage. 

I think it was a good use of the word dictating. How is a list of 10 rules that must be obeyed not dictating?

Your perspective on morality and religion scares me. Are you saying that if you had not been taught religion by your parents them you would tend toward criminal behavior? What if you where taught a different religion. How do you feel about religions other than yours? Is everyone going to hell except for your religions small percentage of the population?

As a side note. Do you know how to change the religion of an entire culture? It's not by convincing anyone to change their minds. It's by killing them and teaching it to their remaining children. Point is that you can make children believe anything.

God is the ultimate source of what is good/moral. He sets the standard and is the embodiment of what is good, right, and just.

child is wrong, stealing is wrong, helping those sick or hurt is right, etc. You don't need to be taught those things - you "just know" because that's how God made us.

This sort of nullifies the purpose of a debate does it not? Using god and the bible as factual references when that is in essence the point of the debate. Saying god created people with a base knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong is one of the things atheists consider BS. I could easily use SPH's twisted logic and ask why god made this action good and that action evil.

You won't find many non-theists making statements like "you just know". People raised under the influence of religion may just know but the rest of us need to use our heads.

: Zeppelin  April 27, 2006, 03:27:08 PM

Reason is a rational motive for a belief or action.

...

An antheist is not interested in being rewarded for being good. Living peacefully, happily and advancing in life is enough of a reward.

First of all, you say "an atheist is not interested in being rewarded" and then you name a reward...  

I know what the definition of "reason" is... I am asking what are the specific reasons an atheist should do good?  And what exactly determines what actions are "good"?  What is the reason a thing is good?

If I were an atheist, could you convince me to be good?  Or is it just some kind of an instinct, a feeling you have to be born with?  If you could get away with murder, would a feeling of guilt affect you afterward?

I having difficulty following your logic and purpose. The act of being good in society is a method of coexistence. In other words it prevents you from getting your ass kicked by doing evil against others. You are asking for a definition of good and evil. Maybe that is up to the individual as there is plenty of evidence of people, who without conscience, have no concept of right from wrong. There are still tribes in Africa that have not been influenced by god concepts of any kind that know the difference between right and wrong. How did they learn that? By observation. What  motivates them? Fear of reprisal if caught. If there is any conscience involved it's because they can envision being harmed (there are many kinds of harm) themselves and realise how it would make them feel.

I think it was a good use of the word dictating. How is a list of 10 rules that must be obeyed not dictating?

That is dictating, but it's using a different definition of the word.  I'm simply trying to point out that what is right and wrong is not decided, like the way we decide what we'll eat for breakfast or what we'll do on Friday night.  What is right and wrong does not change.

Your perspective on morality and religion scares me.

You have morality too, for you believe in a difference between right and wrong.  However, you have given no answer as to where you believe morality comes from.

Are you saying that if you had not been taught religion by your parents them you would tend toward criminal behavior?

I don't believe so.  I believe all humans are born with an innate sense of faith, a knowledge that there is a difference between right and wrong.  Had my parents taught me to ignore that sense, then I would tend toward criminal behavior.

What if you where taught a different religion.

I don't know.  There's really no way to find out either.

How do you feel about religions other than yours? Is everyone going to hell except for your religions small percentage of the population?

Of course not.  How am I to know what exactly happens after death?  There must be something, but no one can say what it will be like for someone else... there's no way to know.

As a side note. Do you know how to change the religion of an entire culture? It's not by convincing anyone to change their minds. It's by killing them and teaching it to their remaining children. Point is that you can make children believe anything.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind.  If someone is going to change their mind, they will do it themselves.  Unfortunately, yes, children are very gullible and can easily be led away from truth.  That is why it is good to question religion and faith.  It is something that should be encouraged.  Blind faith is hardly faith.

You are asking for a definition of good and evil. Maybe that is up to the individual as there is plenty of evidence of people, who without conscience, have no concept of right from wrong.

I'm asking for reason behind what you believe is good and evil.  Is it just some cultural thing, decided by your parents, and you are taught it?  Why use the word "maybe"?  Are you unsure of what you believe?

I could easily use SPH's twisted logic and ask why god made this action good and that action evil.

You won't find many non-theists making statements like "you just know". People raised under the influence of religion may just know but the rest of us need to use our heads.

I'm not trying to say that the existence of good and evil implies that there must be a God that created them.  That's dumb.  I'm saying that the belief in a difference between good and evil implies an eternal truth and the existence of reason, and this is God.  God didn't create good and evil.  God is the very essence that makes them separate.

Sph, in your last post replace the word God with any random noun.

"I'm not trying to say that the existence of good and evil implies that there must be a Soap that created them.  That's dumb.  I'm saying that the belief in a difference between good and evil implies an eternal truth and the existence of reason, and this is Soap.  Soap didn't create good and evil.  Soap is the very essence that makes them separate."

The argument makes no sense. I the case that God is the "belief in a difference between good and evil" then we are the ultimate creators of God and of Soap. "God is the very essence that makes them separate." And he can get our whites whiter. Sorry to make fun but by saying God is simply the separation of good and evil takes away the act of Creation and therefore It is not the master of the universe, then what is it? I don't understand what your concept is. The line between good and evil doesn't need to be supernatural.

peace

Excuse me, but at what point was this thread supposed to demonstrate that I was or was not a good person? Is it just me, or did this thread derail at some point?

I think SPH nailed a point a couple of posts back that is invariably the crux of all theological debate; faith. To me, the subject summarizes in the form of a simple logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignoratum, which I would qualify as I introduce this in a literal sense and not for the purpose of cheap insult. Literally, the fallacy I refer to translates as "the argument from ignorance" (and please, bear with me, I'm going somewhere with this).

Christianity inherently depends upon faith, not proof. This is well and fine, but it is also solely a personal choice. On the other hand, when something cannot be disproved, it does not automatically validate the opposing argument. To the contrary, the only argument that CAN be disproved is one that attempts to provide proof to support it in the first place.

But then, again, there is no recourse but to return to the subject of faith, which is why I found SPH's remark interesting.

I believe all humans are born with an innate sense of faith, a knowledge that there is a difference between right and wrong.

Leave aside the issue of whether or not God, by whatever definition is intrinsic to a concept of right and wrong, and consider; by making this statement, you have also assumed that I cannot make the following statement truthfully:

"I have no faith."

The closest I get is that I am willing to accept that some propositions may be true respective of the fact that I have not validated them empirically. Certainly, there's a great deal I accept as true without needing specific proof, trusting that, were I to go looking for it, I'd find it (or, alternately, failing, and merely demonstrating that I lacked particular knowledge or understanding of a specific subject).

And the problem I have with the subject as is posited by most Christians is that I've already long since given the subject its due, but by extension, it is simultaneously impossible to acknowledge this as true as it tends to be defined by conventional Christian wisdom. I approached the subject with an open mind, an open heart and a reasonable amount of thought and study. There's nothing like trying to explain atheism to Christians if one wants to develop a decent grasp of the Bible from an academic standpoint. But my experience has been much the same as one would expect were they to attempt to levitate by really thinking about levitating. Certainly there are folks who believe such is possible and accounts where, supposedly, witnesses have claimed to have seen it done.

And for my own part, I simply waited for a change of any kind, no matter how minute. After a sense? To experience whatever it was compelled those I knew who claimed to have faith.

And in the end, there is no way to account for my experience without invalidating it altogether. That I did so for the wrong reasons, that I was subject to an outside influence that prevented me from accomplishing my goal, that I was not intended to have the kind of experience I sought until a later time, that I was simply lying about it, outright. And yes, I do not see any indication that this will change, simply because there's never been any barrier in the first place.

On the other hand, this is just one of the simplest of my objections to Christianity (and pretty much every other religion for that matter) -- at its heart, it is predicated on simply denying anything that disagrees with it.

And should anyone think to raise the point, allow me to save you the trouble -- I wouldn't claim that anyone else's faith is invalid simply because I've never had a similar experience, only that the difference between myself and such a person is the starting point where non-Christians begin to see contradiction where Christians simply deny that it exists.

And to return to the original topic of this thread (and address the latter half of SPH's remark), the fundamental tenet of Christianity has nothing to do with morality; it is acceptance of Christ, indeed, part and parcel of doing so is considered an acknowledgment that his death meant that we were forgiven.

Supposedly doing so, in itself, provides an impetus to behave in a more moral fashion, as exemplified in the ten commandments or, say, the sermon on the mount. Certainly meditating on the sacrifice of a martyr whose death was considered to embody the theme of unworthiness and redemption might have that effect, practiced in earnest.

That said, no, simply to take the ten commandments as an example, the only ones not as easily ascribed to social contract involve obedience. The reason not to murder people is not that we might be caught and punished, but because a personal ethos that condones murder for personal gain or any other reason would be to condone a world where we might as likely be murdered under the same pretext.

A Christian is no more moral or ethical because they do not steal or bear false witness against their neighbors than an atheist who doesn't, either. Nor does an atheist have less impetus to do so or necessarily even a different impetus; a Christian who steals, for example, simply creates a world where they are more likely to be stolen from. Is social contract, as a philosophical construct, inherently selfish? While, like SPH, I don't attach any particularly negative value judgment to selfishness (which is commonly misused as synonymous with greed), in practice, the reality is that people remain as unethical as they've ever been, and the reality of social contract is not that its recognition guarantees that we will avoid being treated unethically, only that we do not wish to contribute to it.

So, to conclude my point about SPH's remark, while I would agree that, in spite of being wholly subjective abstractions, moral right and wrong have an absolute definition, at best, the only way I could associate God with them even hypothetically is to acknowledge that they have been emphasized in addition to worshiping God. In other words, the moral definitions in question are not a quality dependent on the existence of God, indeed, they would continue to be moral even if God did not exist.

And to at last return to the original topic of this post, while a great many atheists take their ethical beliefs from the same, general definitions of altruism as found in the Judeo/Christian tradition, it would also be as much a mistake to think that atheists conform to a single set of beliefs as it would to suggest that they're simply made up out of thin air. If, hypothetically, the ten commandments cited in the opening post could be considered a standard for assessing moral character, then, as intended in the original parables that made use of it, we should all fall short.

In which case, the envious would be put to death along with those who violated the Sabbath or committed murder with all the attendant issues of recidivism. While it makes for an imbalanced and grossly exaggerated example, the notion that there is some equality in acknowledging that nobody in such a context could deny their own failings. Regardless of whether or not anyone accepts the idea of original sin, I personally feel that any suggestion of equality is actually counter productive where it attempts to do more than encourage empathy.

I do not disregard my personal failings as predetermined by my nature; the idea is incompatible with the concept of free will. I do not judge myself favorably because I have attempted to achieve an ideal that was never possible to me and failed. I also judge myself based on how hard I have worked towards making the kind of world I want to live in.

And yes, I'm a good person in light of the standards I believe in and, incidentally, some of the more general values found in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I'm also no more Christian than I am Buddhist or even Satanist (even though Old Hob becomes an increasingly endearing literary figure as time wears on). If that means I wind up spending eternity in flames or not existing or whatever other form it takes, I have no problem with it.

But the most salient point is that whatever the outcome, I did so of my own free will and not out of ignorance. Those unsaved, if one accepts this is necessary, for want of knowledge are few and far between. As often as its been said that God doesn't believe in atheists, he must have, else there wouldn't be much to redeem.

On the other hand, I have never met a Christian, even among the most agreeable of them, who could actually get their head around the idea. It always seems like there is some key, some unanswered question, some unacknowledged insecurity, some self-knowledge unknown to the atheist, that, once identified, will make a convert of them. This tendency to be unpersuaded also tends to make it very difficult for atheists to believe in Christians.

(Yes, this was a long post; these were not simple ideas.)

Christianity inherently depends upon faith, not proof.

And this is the crucial fallibility of any faith: it can be wrong. For instance, Christians had faith that the Sun travelled around the Earth. They were wrong. People thought the Earth was flat. They had faith that it was so. They were wrong. It took brave men to go against faith to prove or disprove the notion of that faith. Men like Galileo, Columbus, The Founding Fathers of America and Einstein. So to have faith is to be ignorant. That is fine but people should not say they have faith in God, but rather, ignorance in God. When you were a child you had faith that there was a Santa Claus. You grew out of that. Having faith in something is basically admitting childishness. 2000 years ago Religion was the cutting edge of knowledge accessible to most people. You cannot blame them for having faith. However, today there is no excuse for being ignorant. Is science today the cutting edge of Reality? Yes, but a thousand years from now scientists will look back like we look back a thousand years ago and see how "advanced" we are.

MAX BELL FOR TEH WIN!

*Blushes* Thank you, Julie -- this probably got posted because you were making it look like too much fun.

And David, I want to make another distinction; what people accept as "proof" can be wrong just as easily. From a broad perspective, it was once considered scientifically proven that leaving corn and old coats in dark closets resulted in mice. That the experiment provided reproducible results that resulted in inductively demonstratively "proof" was mistaken for fact because the premises were wrong.

What very few people recognize is that any conclusion, even if made about a purely abstract concept like truth, is arrived at by validating the premises' that support it. Too frequently, the insistence on attempting to arrive at agreements based on secular terms is perceived as bias. Stripped of allegory and supernatural explanations, however, the Bible is just as dependent on this rudimentary philosophical concept. The entirety of the Bible need not be taken on the basis of faith for the same reason most would not argue the traits described in the ten commandments are, in fact, the defining characteristics of evil. If the underlying premises are not correct, many people tend to believe they are.

That said, while I'd also agree that compartmentalizing truths accepted on the basis of proof and truths accepted on the basis of supernatural authority (or worse, the assumption that we're incapable of understanding them) does lend itself to encouraging ignorance, particularly as frequently as that authority has been abused in the interest of squelching inconvenient inquiry. But neither does Christianity make anyone ignorant in and of itself, any more than being an atheist precludes someone from being ignorant.

Then again? The nice thing about being an atheist is that you don't have to convert anyone and while I'm not at all without criticism of Christianity as it is practiced quite often, none of it is the result of anyone choosing to BE a Christian. But, given that there is no atheist agenda (shut up, Dana Carvey, that was not your cue), neither would I allow anyone to suggest that the increase in their numbers should be interpreted as the conspiracy or intent to diminish Christianity. Rather, the problem is a function solely of what either amounts to a lack of desire to be self-policing or a lack of ability to be self-policing. Maybe there are supposed to be more Pharisees than Christians and maybe being Christian by nature makes one incapable of acknowledging Pharisees or taking action against them beyond attempting to demonstrate how a Christian should behave.

But if ol' Lucifer's pulling anybody's strings, he's not wasting any time with actual satanists, much less those who don't have any desire to worship anyone. He's having a lot better luck with those whose spare time is devoted to outlawing the sale of vibrators or agitating for war in the interest of kick-starting Armageddon.

 When you were a child you had faith that there was a Santa Claus. You grew out of that. Having faith in something is basically admitting childishness. 2000 years ago Religion was the cutting edge of knowledge accessible to most people. You cannot blame them for having faith. However, today there is no excuse for being ignorant. Is science today the cutting edge of Reality? Yes, but a thousand years from now scientists will look back like we look back a thousand years ago and see how "advanced" we are.

Very profound, david.  2000 years ago people were not looking for faith. They, as today, were looking for answers and understanding. They were told the answers only came with the faith.

I have said many times that science find its faith in the truth and religions find truth in their faith. The point is that if you believe strongly enough, for you it becomes true. Whether it is Peter Pan, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Great Pumpkin. If you believe in them, they exist. Until you grow to the point where the answers don't add up and you loose your faith.

Another point is asking someone to disprove God, is making them prove a negative. Prove there is something I don't believe exists. As Julie pointed out earlier, there is a $1,000,000 reward for anyone that can prove God's existence.

My thought about math would be that it always existed. Until Man discovered it though, it didn't matter. The same argument would be "If a tree fell in the woods and no one was around to hear it, would it make a sound?" Who cares if the tree makes any noise? it wouldn't bother any one anyway.

*NEWS BREAK*

Larry Laprise passed away Tuesday. He was best known for having written the song, Hokey Pokey At his funeral today, they had quite a difficult time with the coffin. It appears when putting Mr LaPrise in the coffin, they put his left leg in...

The Pastor was not amused, but he had faith

That said, no, simply to take the ten commandments as an example, the only ones not as easily ascribed to social contract involve obedience. The reason not to murder people is not that we might be caught and punished, but because a personal ethos that condones murder for personal gain or any other reason would be to condone a world where we might as likely be murdered under the same pretext.

A Christian is no more moral or ethical because they do not steal or bear false witness against their neighbors than an atheist who doesn't, either. Nor does an atheist have less impetus to do so or necessarily even a different impetus; a Christian who steals, for example, simply creates a world where they are more likely to be stolen from. Is social contract, as a philosophical construct, inherently selfish? While, like SPH, I don't attach any particularly negative value judgment to selfishness (which is commonly misused as synonymous with greed), in practice, the reality is that people remain as unethical as they've ever been, and the reality of social contract is not that its recognition guarantees that we will avoid being treated unethically, only that we do not wish to contribute to it.

This is so utterly true that it should hurt a christian's mind to read it.

Religion is NOT the source of moral values nor is it required. Like I said before, humans will one day evolve beyond religion. Thanks again Max Bell.