The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[BilliardsBall]

Well, the God of the OT would make the worst human psychopath look like Mother Teresa, in comparison.

So, do you think you will turn into Jack the Ripper if you lose your faith tomorrow? If that is the case, then I suggest you keep believing whatever you believe. By all means.

Ciao

- viole

If by "Jack the Ripper" you meant, "God ensures that all humans die following the introduction of death via human free will and sin, and then judges them," I'd say, "Get ready."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Um no. Just no. I have said nothing about "absolute morals." That was all you. And I see that you've avoided answering the question. Again.

Perhaps you could explain why you think people need to believe in the existence of some God(s) as an absolute moral giver in order to exercise morality. I wonder why you think human beings are incapable of coming up with some kind of moral system on their own.

I say it's immoral to hurt another human being because I am a human being with empathy, and so I understand what it feels like to be hurt. I don't want anyone hurting me or my family and loved ones, so I don't think it's morally right to hurt other peoples' families and loved ones. I understand that this life I'm living may very well be the only one I get, and the same goes for the rest of the people that l share the planet with. I think that all human beings are born equal and should be treated as such. Children are especially vulnerable members of our society given that they depend on others for their care (same goes for the elderly and the disabled). Children grow up and become adults, which makes them the future of the human race. So harming them would be detrimental to the survival of the human race. I want my children and my relatives' children to carry on living and so I support the future of the human race.

These are just a few of the reasons why I think it's immoral to harm other people. And I don't need any God(s) to come to those conclusions.

I will leave you with a quote from Christopher Hitchens that I have always found enlightening:

"I incline in your direction, sir. Said it before—very suggestive thing that you just said: if there was no one in charge, how would we know how to act morally? This is indeed, this is a very profound observation. It's argued by Smerdyakov in The Brothers Karamazov, he said, "Without God anything is permissible." Some people believe that. Some people believe that without the fear of divine total surveillance and supervision everyone would do exactly as they wished and we would all be wolves to each other. I think there's an enormous amount of evidence that that's not the case, that morality is innate in us, that solidarity is part of our self-interest in society as well as our own interest and very much to argue the contrary that when you see something otherwise surprising to you, such as a good person acting in a wicked manner, it's very often because they believe they're under divine orders to do so. Steven Weinberg puts it very well, he says, "Left to themselves, evil people will do evil things and good people will try and do good things. If you want a good person to do a wicked thing, that takes religion." For example—I simply do not believe—I do not believe that my Palestinian friends I've known now for years, think that to blow yourself up outside an orphanage is a moral act—or inside one is a moral act, or an old person's home in Netanya is a moral action, that anything in their nature makes them think this, but their Mullahs tell them that there is, that a person doing this is a hero. I do not think that any person looking at a newborn baby would think, "How wonderful, what a gift and now let's just start sawing away at its genitalia with a sharp stone." Who would give them that idea were it not the godly? And what kind of argument from design is this? Babies are not born beautiful, they're born ugly, they need to be sawn a bit because the handywork of God is such garbage. Well honestly, this is what I mean when I say that those who think there's any connection between ethics and religion have all their work still ahead of them and after thousands of years, still have it all ahead of them more and more. There."

I agree with the quote in large part, Hitchens was a brilliant man. We all do have innate moral codes. These morals, which inform us, judge us. I personally have acted against my conscience, and have hurt another person because I wanted to, because it felt good to hurt them, despite my moral code/conscience that protested. Before you judge me, I'm sure you've done the same.

The Bible says One who never did the same is qualified to judge, and instead, intervened on our behalf.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The weird thing is that you seem to think theists are in a different boat. Christian morality has changed quite dramatically from the days of the Bible, wouldn't you say? I don't see any Christians in the Western World practicing slavery anymore (though I see some defending it), or stoning unruly children to death. So it would seem that theists (or at least Christian theists) "can certainly contrive whatever subjective moral code they feel suits the culture and the mood of the day."

How do you justify your morality with anything other than, "I'm supposed to do what I'm told, and some authoritarian deity told me that these actions are moral because he says so."

I have, like you, an innate moral code, and I find that the Bible harmonizes with it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nah, You simply can't put a valid syllogism together. Simply take a look at the one below---and, No, I won't tell you where you've gone awry.


So what's your program here, you construct a phony argument and then expect people to care about it?

Have a good day

.

I attempted to formalize what I was hearing. Skeptics believe firmly loving and omnipotent beings have no cosmic purpose for even a hangnail.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why is it an about face? It says right there in my profile that I am an atheist. Whether you could or could not convert me should have no bearing on whether or not you can demonstrate that the writers of the Gospels were honest and that the content is true. You believe it to be so. You place your own salvation on it. You should be able to list your evidence without having to think twice about it.

But you can't offer any evidence, you know it and I know it and I know you know it. So you play a silly game of "if I, would you". It's lame and it's transparent.

Actually, I'm following Jesus's instructions to be effective with my time. Consider that when I evangelize, I steer toward open, potential converts and avoid lengthy fruitless arguments.

I also don't waste my precious time showing people the writers are honest if they plan to tell me they were honestly stupid!

 

[viole]

How do you know slavery and genocide are okay or not okay? Social construct?

I did not make any hypothesis, since I am not a moral realist (believer that there is such a thing as moral absolutes).

The question is what you think, since you presumably believe in absolute morality (not depending on the mora of the time).

So, either

1) Slavery is acceptable
2) Slavery is not acceptable

It cannot be both, can it? Unless it is one or the other depending on the times and customs, which would bring you in the field of relativists.

So, what a believer in absolute morality would say?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

If by "Jack the Ripper" you meant, "God ensures that all humans die following the introduction of death via human free will and sin, and then judges them," I'd say, "Get ready."

That is not what I meant (ready for what, BTW, Allah judgement, or Apollos? Or some other mythological thing?).

What I meant is: if you lose your faith tomorrow, would you lose your moral compass? Would you start thinking that killing, stealing, raping, etc, is not so bad after all?

Ciao

- viole

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Thank you for your detailed response:

You wrote, "I feel they probably had to deny those specific biological/empathy-driven aspects I discussed . . . " which means you believe in objective morals. That's a great start.

I see where you might feel that those are "objective", but even from within the biological/empathetic framework I discussed these ideas are entirely specific to human beings - and not even all human beings (take psychopaths for example). Among the other animals of Earth, it has been seen time and time again that adults of one species can feel compassion and empathy for the young of an entirely different species. And yet, it has also been seen time and time again that some of those same species will specifically prey on the young, elderly or sick when they are in need of food. All of it subjective through and through.

You wrote, "GOD HIMSELF KILLED EGYPTIAN CHILDREN IN DROVES DURING THE PASSOVER," a complaint I've heard many times from skeptics--with the proviso that no skeptics ever say, "IN RESPONSE TO THE PRIOR SLAUGHTER OF THE ISRAELITE CHILDREN UNDER PHARAOH." The Bible says God's judgments are not only "right" but justified. And yes, God kills everyone. We must all face Him someday IMHO.

According to you, God gives people varying duration of life. God gives people varying circumstances. God gives people varying levels of strife. God sees to it that some children are born to abusive parents. There is a question of what is just in all of this. Is it just to send a child into a situation you know is going to be harrowing for them? How about into a situation which you know will not only be harrowing, but will ultimately end in the child's death at a very young age? All of these things have happened, and you would have to credit your God with them. Is this sort of activity just? Deciding the haves and have-nots before they even have a chance to prove themselves? Here on Earth, would you agree with a system instituted by humans that decides the career path that each individual will have before they are even born? Why or why not?

If what you wrote is true, and I appreciate what you wrote about abortion, that mothers shouldn't want to do so, then let's send them the best message possible, through legal, safe means, that abortion is wrong. For example, repealing Roe v. Wade. A true moral code is a consistent moral code. "Abortion is really, really wrong, but since I don't want to adopt children, I guess moms can . . . " is weak. Let's be morally strong together. I've put my time and money where my mouth is here.

And you think this wasn't attempted? Did you forget about or ignore what I said about consensus? You just need to accept that if you are on the losing side of consensus that you don't get to just "make change." Consensus would need to change - the majority would need to vote individuals into government who would pursue and execute that change. And that's what pro-lifers have been trying to get done ever since Roe vs. Wade, have they not? You see... you (and everyone else) are bound by the idea of consensus on morality whether you say God is on your side or not. Whether you agree with it or not. Whether you believe it or not.

If it is true that as you wrote, without a god, that "we are moral agents is really all that matters," the news is, NOTHING MATTERS. Your morals and the Romans and the pro-lifers and the pro-choice folks are wind.

You don't get to inform me of what does and doesn't matter. You would do well to remember that.

 

[sayak83]

I agree with the quote in large part, Hitchens was a brilliant man. We all do have innate moral codes. These morals, which inform us, judge us. I personally have acted against my conscience, and have hurt another person because I wanted to, because it felt good to hurt them, despite my moral code/conscience that protested. Before you judge me, I'm sure you've done the same.

The Bible says One who never did the same is qualified to judge, and instead, intervened on our behalf.

No. I at least never have. Never in my life till now have my actions contrary to my conscience.
Never have I felt the need or desire or inclination to judge others either. I don't judge the rain for falling or the sun for setting, what need then to judge people for acting according to their inclinations? One simply reacts to that through appropriate actions, like using an umbrella for rain, and getting a lantern for nightfall. Same for actions of people one interacts with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good point:

1. All loving, all-powerful beings, disallow all suffering
2. God is loving, all powerful
3. God must disallow all suffering

Your first premise is false—there are multiple reasons why some suffering is good in some instances. Atheists love to substitute X for suffering and come up with their complaint of the moment.

This is still a strawman argument. I like that you are trying to learn a bit of logical thinking, now see if you can identify your strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I invented the biblical God? Do you read what you write?

Every Christian invents their own version of God. That is why there are on the order of 40,000 sects of Christianity. Your version of God will be different from that of your friends, so let's correct your statement: You invented your version of the biblical God. You may have the mistaken belief that you get him from the Bible but then so do people in sects totally different from yours. The Roman Catholic and Jehovah's Witness, and the Southern Baptist, all with quite different beliefs of heaven and hell, right and wrong, will all believe that they believe in a "biblical God".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thank you for your detailed response:

You wrote, "I feel they probably had to deny those specific biological/empathy-driven aspects I discussed . . . " which means you believe in objective morals. That's a great start.

You wrote, "GOD HIMSELF KILLED EGYPTIAN CHILDREN IN DROVES DURING THE PASSOVER," a complaint I've heard many times from skeptics--with the proviso that no skeptics ever say, "IN RESPONSE TO THE PRIOR SLAUGHTER OF THE ISRAELITE CHILDREN UNDER PHARAOH." The Bible says God's judgments are not only "right" but justified. And yes, God kills everyone. We must all face Him someday IMHO.

If what you wrote is true, and I appreciate what you wrote about abortion, that mothers shouldn't want to do so, then let's send them the best message possible, through legal, safe means, that abortion is wrong. For example, repealing Roe v. Wade. A true moral code is a consistent moral code. "Abortion is really, really wrong, but since I don't want to adopt children, I guess moms can . . . " is weak. Let's be morally strong together. I've put my time and money where my mouth is here.

If it is true that as you wrote, without a god, that "we are moral agents is really all that matters," the news is, NOTHING MATTERS. Your morals and the Romans and the pro-lifers and the pro-choice folks are wind.

I asked before and I'll ask you again to elaborate. Why must we have a god to have morality?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree with the quote in large part, Hitchens was a brilliant man. We all do have innate moral codes. These morals, which inform us, judge us. I personally have acted against my conscience, and have hurt another person because I wanted to, because it felt good to hurt them, despite my moral code/conscience that protested. Before you judge me, I'm sure you've done the same.

The Bible says One who never did the same is qualified to judge, and instead, intervened on our behalf.

Yes, he was a brilliant man.

We've already had this discussion before. I'm more interested in addressing what we were talking about.

Perhaps you could explain why you think people need to believe in the existence of some God(s) as an absolute moral giver in order to exercise morality. I wonder why you think human beings are incapable of coming up with some kind of moral system on their own.

Also, how do you know God's moral code is moral at all? Just because the Bible says so? Do you think following orders is the same thing as exercising morality?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have, like you, an innate moral code, and I find that the Bible harmonizes with it.

Again, you have not addressed the point at all.

But since you say so, what part of your innate moral code tells you that owning human beings as property is acceptable, like the Bible says? Because I have to say, I don't have any innate moral code telling me that it's okay to enslave people or stone gay people to death.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I attempted to formalize what I was hearing. Skeptics believe firmly loving and omnipotent beings have no cosmic purpose for even a hangnail.

You know what would be awesome? If you spent more time talking about your own feelings in these discussions and less time trying to tell other people what they think.

Just a suggestion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No. I at least never have. Never in my life till now have my actions contrary to my conscience.
Never have I felt the need or desire or inclination to judge others either. I don't judge the rain for falling or the sun for setting, what need then to judge people for acting according to their inclinations? One simply reacts to that through appropriate actions, like using an umbrella for rain, and getting a lantern for nightfall. Same for actions of people one interacts with.

Me neither.
(I've said so to BB several times in these discussions already.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that Jesus died at 33 1/2 in 30 AD. You have no desire to attempt to harmonize the Bible, rather, you demonize it.

Trying to "harmonize" the Bible is quite often merely lying to oneself. Rather than acknowledging that errors exist and that the Bible is a work of man too many of them simply lie to themselves. And do you know why the date of Jesus is not sure? It is due largely to the varying tales of his death. The year 30 AD is not written in stone, nor is the age of Jesus at the time of his death. He may have died as early as the year 30 CE or as late as 33 CE. The time of his death during the day is not even consistent. Mark has him nailed up at nine AM and John has him still before Pontius Pilate at noon. Harmonizing the Bible is an impossible task due to the fact that it is far from being the "word of God".

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know slavery and genocide are okay or not okay? Social construct?

Jesus could have told you. It was one thing that he was quite correct about.

 

[sayak83]

Me neither.
(I've said so to BB several times in these discussions already.)

@BilliardsBall
Do you think that what we are claiming is humanly impossible?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Good point:

1. All loving, all-powerful beings, disallow all suffering
2. God is loving, all powerful
3. God must disallow all suffering

Your first premise is false—there are multiple reasons why some suffering is good in some instances.

Not when the world is governed by an all-powerful being who can make suffering unnecessary in any instance.

Once again, you miss the main point of the actual argument. Why would a loving, all-powerful being make suffering a necessary part of any creation?