if we can't determine there is a higher intelligence.....

[Quiddity]

One is forced to assume, then, that you read little. You might consider Confucius, for example. You could also read the Tao Te Ching. The pathetic arrogance of one who would denigrate the moral compass of entire cultures could only be based on such broad-based ignorance.

Assume what you want. Your typical rhetoric is but tiring.
Confucianism, Tao Te Ching, and you all drink from the same well.

~Victor

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It matters greatly to me. Because I can:

A)
1) Define "evil" in the first place

First of all, atheists can define "evil" just as anyone can. Nonbelief in a god does not = nonbelief in evil or anything else. Secondly, being a theist is no guarantee of having a consistent or desirable definition of "evil". Historically, theists have defined "evil" as anything from being homosexual to believing in more than one god to playing musical instruments. What a theist believes is "evil" is just as much a function of his/her individual religion, culture, and time period as what the nontheist believes is "evil".

[size=-1]

2) Have hope of eventual eschatological justice

Again, this is not true of atheists in general. You could in fact be an atheist (e.g. not believe in a god) and still believe that bad people go to hell and good people go to a (godless) heaven; or you could believe in karma, that bad people are reincarnated as a lower class, and good people reincarnated as a higher class.

However, this is true for me. No, I do not believe that god(s), angels, heavens or hells, or reincarnations will make things right after we die. It is entirely up to us to make things right, in this life, and if we fail to make things right, things will never be righted. Confronted with this reality (and I call it "reality" because, though it is a belief, I do not believe it because I prefer it to be true but because I honestly think it is true), one can either despair and give up all hope or do one's absolute best to make the world a better place. I choose the latter.

[/size] [size=-1]

3) Have an objective basis of condemning evil

You don't have an objective basis for condemning evil, you only think you do. You may believe your basis for condemning evil comes from god, but in fact, your "objective" basis is what you believe comes from god. Ultimately, what both of us consider evil comes from what we believe; the only difference is that I recognize that my beliefs come from a fallible source--myself--and thus I treat them with the skepticism they deserve. When theists talk of what god thinks/says/commands, they are simply projecting theirbeliefs onto an imaginary, infallible source.

[/size] [size=-1]

4) Have a belief in a heaven of everlasting bliss

Again, being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean not believing in an afterlife. But, it is probably true that most atheists do not believe in an afterlife.[/size]

[size=-1][/size]

[size=-1]B) Having an ultimately absolutely hopeless and[/size][size=-1] meaningless universe.[/size]

I believe the universe needs no meaning outside of itself, just as you believe god needs no meaning outside of Himself. I think our lives, however, do have meaning insofar as we give them meaning. Furthermore, I think that if there was a place of eternal happiness, this life would be absolutely worthless--why not just end this life now so we can all go to heaven and be happy? I value life because I don't believe in an afterlife.

I'll take A. You pick yours....

As Voltaire said: "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

 

[Quiddity]

For what, exactly?

You said:
"that the concept of eternal life cheapens the value of our mortal one."

"ultimate logical and practical means"?

I have confused you enough and any further explanation is long-winded. Leave it for another day.

Your theistic supposition of divinity has "practically" failed in many avenues;

Right, right, right. Can't get measured, it's subjective, blah blah blah.

the logic is internal and arbitrary

Internal yes. Arbitrary, I'm still waiting fo you to explain.

....outside of a catholic discussion, you can't really throw this one around that much, [size=-1]vic. [/size]

And why not?
[size=-1]

[size=-1]Your initial characterization of "secualr crap" (to loosely paraphrase) talks less of possible humanistic ethical formation (which in my view, you've dismissed as impossible and absurd) and definative necessity of "otherworldly" consequences for any type of enforceable order, sense of morality, or the possiblily of benevolence that isn't exceptional. I don't know how you've narrowed it down to this tidy conclusion; it's not as leggy as it sounds.[/size]

[/size]
Fair enough, but as I said, I haven't read a solution to this, only objections.

vic, if the fear of god is the only thing that keeps you in line, then sucks to be you. If the same such fear is the only way you can trust your fellow man, then be prepared to be scared.

Little do you know about me.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Assume what you want. Your typical rhetoric is but tiring. Confucianism, Tao Te Ching, and you all drink from the same well.

... a remarkable comment.

 

[mr.guy]

You said: "that the concept of eternal life cheapens the value of our mortal one."

Yup. just giving an example of half-assed "end-game" logic. Your "natural conclusion" of atheistic/secular thinking is about as worthy.

Internal yes. Arbitrary, I'm still waiting fo you to explain.

Again...me being facetious.

 

[Quiddity]

Yup. just giving an example of half-assed "end-game" logic. Your "natural conclusion" of atheistic/secular thinking is about as worthy.

I don't see how you can compare them and that is why I suggested opening another thread. Perhaps you feel more comfortable objecting then providing any real solutions. At least Deut. tried.

~Victor

 

[YmirGF]

Sufis have a great answer to this point.

They say: he who has "tasted" surely knows.

The Love of God is a strong feeling in the heart of believers.

The proof of the pudding, is in the eating.

All one must do is dust off their inner lens and the image resolves itself rather rapidly. What will you see? I won't say. You tell me.

 

[Quiddity]

First of all, atheists can define "evil" just as anyone can. Nonbelief in a god does not = nonbelief in evil or anything else.

On an individual level certainly this is done. But that wasn’t what I was talking about. As the group gets larger I can’t help but see that atheist begin to borrow from subjective realities of other faiths. Which is fine and dandy, but putting this into practice in a world full of atheist when most think “the buck stops here” is but an illusion.

Secondly, being a theist is no guarantee of having a consistent or desirable definition of "evil". Historically, theists have defined "evil" as anything from being homosexual to believing in more than one god to playing musical instruments. What a theist believes is "evil" is just as much a function of his/her individual religion, culture, and time period as what the nontheist believes is "evil".

I’m not going to pretend to explain it for other theist, but for the sake of the conversation let’s talk about Catholicism since that is what I know best. In which I would disagree with your conclusion.

Again, this is not true of atheists in general. You could in fact be an atheist (e.g. not believe in a god) and still believe that bad people go to hell and good people go to a (godless) heaven; or you could believe in karma, that bad people are reincarnated as a lower class, and good people reincarnated as a higher class.

How they manage to do this without getting into the same problems as theist is beyond me.

However, this is true for me. No, I do not believe that god(s), angels, heavens or hells, or reincarnations will make things right after we die. It is entirely up to us to make things right, in this life, and if we fail to make things right, things will never be righted.

Exactly….As I said, you have more faith in humanity reaching this then I do.

Confronted with this reality (and I call it "reality" because, though it is a belief, I do not believe it because I prefer it to be true but because I honestly think it is true), one can either despair and give up all hope or do one's absolute best to make the world a better place. I choose the latter.

So do I, but it’s pink elephants and Alice and wonder land to think we will accomplish this. Why? Because people will always be: emotional, bias, stubborn, etc. and a herd of other things that cause us to do stupid things. Again, I won’t hold my breath.

You don't have an objective basis for condemning evil, you only think you do. You may believe your basis for condemning evil comes from god, but in fact, your "objective" basis is what you believe comes from god.

Absolutely not. This is the beauty of being catholic. Everything is already there for you. It’s only the growth process that causes me come to understand it and either accept it or reject it.

Ultimately, what both of us consider evil comes from what we believe; the only difference is that I recognize that my beliefs come from a fallible source--myself--and thus I treat them with the skepticism they deserve. When theists talk of what god thinks/says/commands, they are simply projecting their beliefs onto an imaginary, infallible source.

Let’s see if I have this right:

A) You submit to subjective ideals, but yet you question other subjective ideals.

B) You submit to a fallible source and apparently think that being aware of such a truth makes an inch of a difference. It only means you are willing to swing with what you think is right, but yet it’s subjective and meaningless. Why even bother?



And once again, the morality I submit to is not of my doing.

Again, being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean not believing in an afterlife. But, it is probably true that most atheists do not believe in an afterlife.

Ditto…

I believe the universe needs no meaning outside of itself, just as you believe god needs no meaning outside of Himself.

Of course He’s got a meaning. TO LOVE…

I think our lives, however, do have meaning insofar as we give them meaning.

Relativism at it’s finest.

Furthermore, I think that if there was a place of eternal happiness, this life would be absolutely worthless--why not just end this life now so we can all go to heaven and be happy? I value life because I don't believe in an afterlife.

Because although we seek “happiness”, justice is what our will seeks even further. To have justice one needs a solution. The solution lies in the person of Christ, not in humanity alone.

As Voltaire said: "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

Voltaire is right. Doubt casts me into further satisfaction of this world. What an easy way out.



~Victor

 

[fromthe heart]

fromtheheart, is it really that you can't imagine a universe where death is absolute and there is no higher meaning? Or is it that you are deeply afraid that death is absolute and there is no higher meaning? You say your beliefs are from experiancing god around you and seeing insite in your dreams, but I suggest perhaps they are are derived from you desperately seeking meaning in the world around you and twisiting your dreams to fit in a reality they don't belong.

My dear friend? I'll presume I can call you friend...My dear friend...I don't fear death either way you may want to see it. I can tell you I twist nothing in seeing the works of God...but apparently you have never experienced a moment with God to just smile and shake your head as if you can see God showing off just a little in His magnificence...I'm smiling now because you don't know what you are missing...You can assume whatever you may like; God needs no defending by someone as human as I...and to defend MYSELF to someone who knows so little of the workings of God...well I'm so sorry I just don't have the inscurities that deem that necessary...think of me how you shall...matters to me how? I sincerely wish I could show you something that would explain better but since I can't pop something God did in your face which when in denial you wouldn't be able to see anyway there is little for me to say. Have a good evening...:162:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

On an individual level certainly this is done. But that wasn’t what I was talking about. As the group gets larger I can’t help but see that atheist begin to borrow from subjective realities of other faiths. Which is fine and dandy, but putting this into practice in a world full of atheist when most think “the buck stops here” is but an illusion.

So, are you saying atheists can't define "evil"? That would be like saying that theists can't define "pizza"....it makes absolutely no sense.

I’m not going to pretend to explain it for other theist, but for the sake of the conversation let’s talk about Catholicism since that is what I know best. In which I would disagree with your conclusion.

No, we can't just talk about Catholicism. You said that being a theist enables you to define "evil". My point was that being a theist does not guarantee a consistent or desirable definition of "evil" because the various beliefs theists hold about evil are as different as night and day, and many are absurd (e.g. the belief that polytheism is evil).

How they manage to do this without getting into the same problems as theist is beyond me.

I don't understand what this means.

Exactly….As I said, you have more faith in humanity reaching this then I do.

No, go back and re-examine what I said. I said nothing about humanity "reaching" anything. I assume when you say "humanity reaching this" you mean humanity reaching perfect justice--e.g., going back and punishing all the people who got away with murder, rewarding all the people who went unrewarded, etc. In fact, I believe that humanity will never reach that. But I do believe we should try to make things as just as we can.

So do I, but it’s pink elephants and Alice and wonder land to think we will accomplish this. Why? Because people will always be: emotional, bias, stubborn, etc. and a herd of other things that cause us to do stupid things. Again, I won’t hold my breath.

Neither will I. I won't hold my breath that any of the gods conjured up in the human imagination will bring justice, either.

Absolutely not. This is the beauty of being catholic. Everything is already there for you. It’s only the growth process that causes me come to understand it and either accept it or reject it.

I said you don't have an objective basis for condemning evil. On what "objective" basis do you /did you conclude that all the dogmas of Catholicism are true?

Let’s see if I have this right:

A) You submit to subjective ideals, but yet you question other subjective ideals.

What I question is that what you, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, etc. believe about morality really comes from a divine authority figure. I'm of the impression that, like the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, etc., you simply project your morality onto said (imagined) authority figure. After all, people will listen to what Allah, YHWH, Rah, or Thor say. But who cares what Victor or Mr Spinkles say? That's why whenever I speak in public, I tell people that I'm not stating my opinions....no, Allah is stating his opinions through me. That gets people to listen.

B) You submit to a fallible source and apparently think that being aware of such a truth makes an inch of a difference. It only means you are willing to swing with what you think is right, but yet it’s subjective and meaningless. Why even bother?

Because it means I'm able to question what society says is right and wrong, and have the potential to come to more mature, rational views of morality. During the Middle Ages, people "knew" that it was God's will to go kill the infidels, that torturing Jews and heathens was righteous (since it has the potential to convert them and save them from eternal hellfire), that witches were evil and must burn. Only decades ago, many people "knew" that it was disgusting and immoral for people of different races to have children together. Certainty is nice, but I'd rather be uncertain than be stuck in a set of moral paradigms which are backward and irrational.

And once again, the morality I submit to is not of my doing.

Okay, fair enough: you didn't create Catholic morality any more than an individual Muslim created the sharia. But you didn't have to submit to Catholicism; you could have submitted to literally thousands of other moral codes--not all of them theistic, even. The fact remains that you have no "objective" basis on which to choose Catholicism over Islam, Confucianism, etc. You had to go with your personal belief. And when it comes to morality, I too go with my personal (and hopefully informed) belief. Saying your morality isn't your doing would be like saying that flying to San Francisco isn't your doing because you didn't fly there...you simply chose to get on that plane and it took you there. Ultimately you are the one who made the decision to go to SanFran (not the plane) and you are the one responsible for your moral beliefs (not god/the Church).

Of course He’s got a meaning. TO LOVE…

Fair enough. The point was that both of us believe in something where there is no "further" meaning. I believe that meaning ceases to exist outside of our minds. You (apparently) believe that God's meaning is "TO LOVE". But then, where does "LOVE" get its meaning from? It doesn't need to get meaning from anywhere else, does it? That's how I feel about Nature.

Relativism at it’s finest.

I call it relativism. You would probably call it "progressive revelation with the help of the Holy Spirit". Same thing.

Because although we seek “happiness”, justice is what our will seeks even further. To have justice one needs a solution. The solution lies in the person of Christ, not in humanity alone.

I don't believe there is a solution. I believe we can make things better than they are though.

Voltaire is right. Doubt casts me into further satisfaction of this world. What an easy way out.

No, projecting one's beliefs onto divine authority is the easy way out. Recognizing our human fallibility and working with it as best as possible is much more difficult.

 

[Cordoba]

The proof of the pudding, is in the eating.

Exactly.

All one must do is dust off their inner lens and the image resolves itself rather rapidly.

Yes, the inner lens of the heart need to be dusted in order to "see" the Truth that all this universe could not have possibly come into existence without a Creator.

It's a very logical conclusion to reach.

 

[Quiddity]

So, are you saying atheists can't define "evil"? That would be like saying that theists can't define "pizza"....it makes absolutely no sense.

What I’m saying is that atheist has this sense [moral law], put there by God, just as believers do, whether they acknowledge it or not (though it can, of course, be unlearned by intellectual conditioning or surroundings). And their behavior proves it.That's why (in our opinion) they are usually as moral and upright as agroup as any other group of people. But to the extent that they are moral and good, I argue that this is inevitably in conflict with their ultimate ground of ethics (if one manages to get established in a world of atheist only), however it is spelled-out, insofar as it excludes God. Without God it will always be relative and arbitrary and usually unable to been forced except by brute force. Atheists act far better than their ethics(in their ultimate reduction). That is why I think they would struggle in defining evil without it meaning the complete opposite.

No, we can't just talk about Catholicism. You said that being a theist enables you to define "evil". My point was that being a theist does not guarantee a consistent or desirable definition of "evil" because the various beliefs theists hold about evil are as different as night and day, and many are absurd (e.g. the belief that polytheism is evil).

Fine, my argument still holds water either way. I was only trying to avoid a red-herring if happen to come my way. By you saying something like “well you guys have the same problem”. Which I would obviously challenge. But if you want to say that theist have the same problem by pointing to different denominations then I wouldn’t even argue that. But I would say that any of those denominations on it’s own would have a better chance of working simply because it includes God.

I don't understand what this means.

I see why. When I think atheism I often think of “strong atheist” while forgetting the broad definition: Atheism, broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. An atheist believing in the supernatural just seems odd to me.

No, go back and re-examine what I said.

I said nothing about humanity "reaching" anything. I assume when you say "humanity reaching this" you mean humanity reaching perfect justice--e.g., going back and punishing all the people who got away with murder, rewarding all the people who went unrewarded, etc. In fact, I believe that humanity will never reach that. But I do believe we should try to make things as just as we can.

I stand corrected. I see what you mean now.

Neither will I. I won't hold my breath that any of the gods conjured up in the human imagination will bring justice, either.

No need to hold your breath to something that doesn’t exist. I’ll keep my trust on God. Since you are the “measure of all things” I guess you can trust yourself.

I said you don't have an objective basis for condemning evil. On what "objective" basis do you /did you conclude that all the dogmas of Catholicism are true?

From your perspective I can see none. From mine I try using reason, logic, in both subjective and objective. But it’s mostly subjective. It’s subjectivism played out by objectivism in the world. It’s about at least being open to this and then taking a step further through examining other faiths as best as you can.

 

[Quiddity]

What I question is that what you, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, etc. believe about morality really comes from a divine authority figure. I'm of the impression that, like the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, etc., you simply project your morality onto said (imagined) authority figure. After all, people will listen to what Allah, YHWH, Rah, or Thor say. But who cares what Victor or Mr Spinkles say? That's why whenever I speak in public, I tell people that I'm not stating my opinions....no, Allah is stating his opinions through me. That gets people to listen.

I can see why you would say that but that really wasn’t the case for me. I did not project “my” morality onto an imagined figure. If I was to do that I would most likely be worshipping some other more hedonistic god that fit me better. Or even better, I’d make myself a god.

Because it means I'm able to question what society says is right and wrong, and have the potential to come to more mature, rational views of morality. During the Middle Ages, people "knew" that it was God's will to go kill the infidels, that torturing Jews and heathens was righteous (since it has the potential to convert them and save them from eternal hellfire), that witches were evil and must burn. Only decades ago, many people "knew" that it was disgusting and immoral for people of different races to have children together. Certainty is nice, but I'd rather be uncertain than be stuck in a set of moral paradigms which are backward and irrational.

Obviously I would contend that those people who “knew” did not go to the appropriate authorities/well of truth. People still do this now, and I’m sure they’ll continue. Just out of curiosity,if you found a religion with a rational set of moral paradigms would you then submit? I would assume not because you don’t like being “stuck” or bound to something that doesn’t move. I really do hope I’m wrong.

Okay, fair enough: you didn't create Catholic morality any more than an individual Muslim created the sharia. But you didn't have to submit to Catholicism; you could have submitted to literally thousands of other moral codes--not all of them theistic, even. The fact remains that you have no "objective" basis on which to choose Catholicism over Islam, Confucianism, etc. You had to go with your personal belief. And when it comes to morality, I too go with my personal (and hopefully informed) belief. Saying your morality isn't your doing would be like saying that flying to San Francisco isn't your doing because you didn't fly there...you simply chose to get on that plane and it took you there. Ultimately you are the one who made the decision to go to SanFran (not the plane) and you are the one responsible for your moral beliefs (not god/the Church).

If you limit logic and reason only to what is objective then you are right. But if you allow the definition to extend to subjective ideals that even you follow then we have a playing field in which one can slowly begin to start knocking off certain beliefs/gods. This is a long-winded and life long task. If there is a God then he knows what you’re up to and how you tried. Only He knows why you and millions of others don’t take that extra step.

I call it relativism. You would probably call it "progressive revelation with the help of the Holy Spirit". Same thing.

I don’t believe in progressive revelation MS.

I don't believe there is a solution. I believe we can make things better than they are though.

I believe there is, but it will require that people step out of themselves and leave it in the hands of the One who knows better.

No, projecting one's beliefs onto divine authority is the easy way out. Recognizing our human fallibility and working with it as best as possible is much more difficult.

As I said above, I don’t project “my beliefs” onto divine authority. Christianity is all about recognizing our human fallibility and working with it as best as possible. You’ve been watching too much of Jessie Ventura.



Peace be with you

~Victor

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What I’m saying is that atheist has this sense [moral law], put there by God, just as believers do, whether they acknowledge it or not (though it can, of course, be unlearned by intellectual conditioning or surroundings).

I agree we have a basic sense of right and wrong and empathy for others. I disagree that it was put there by God(s).

But to the extent that they are moral and good, I argue that this is inevitably in conflict with their ultimate ground of ethics (if one manages to get established in a world of atheist only), however it is spelled-out, insofar as it excludes God. Without God it will always be relative and arbitrary and usually unable to been forced except by brute force. Atheists act far better than their ethics(in their ultimate reduction). That is why I think they would struggle in defining evil without it meaning the complete opposite.

I see no inherent conflict between the way I conduct myself and what I believe. I believe I should treat others how I would want to be treated. Many people throughout history have believed the same thing, including Confucius (who came long before Jesus). I believe I should do this whether or not gods/scriptures/prophets/Popes say so. I believe there is no reason "why" I should do this, I just should, just as you believe there is no reason "why" we should obey (your conception of) God (or the Church), we just should. You and I both base our ethics on axioms. Where's the conflict?

Fine, my argument still holds water either way. I was only trying to avoid a red-herring if happen to come my way. By you saying something like “well you guys have the same problem”. Which I would obviously challenge. But if you want to say that theist have the same problem by pointing to different denominations then I wouldn’t even argue that. But I would say that any of those denominations on it’s own would have a better chance of working simply because it includes God.

I don't quite know what to make of this. What does it mean for a denomination to "work" and why would belief in any conception of God help a denomination "work"?

I see why. When I think atheism I often think of “strong atheist” while forgetting the broad definition: Atheism, broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. An atheist believing in the supernatural just seems odd to me.

Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists...

No need to hold your breath to something that doesn’t exist. I’ll keep my trust on God. Since you are the “measure of all things” I guess you can trust yourself.

But, Victor, you can't trust in God unless you first trust in yourself to be able to select an accurate conception of God (or, perhaps, to select an authority which can accurately relate things to you about God). If you're betting at a horse race, you're not just putting trust in the horse you selected....you're also putting your trust in your ability to select a good horse in the first place.

I do not trust my ability to discern the authoritativeness of the Torah and Rabbinic teaching from that of the Catholic Church from that of the Orthodox Church from that of the Hindu upanishads from that of Zoroastrian scripture from that of the Qu'ran from that of any other "authority" on god(s). All of these authorities have complex ethical beliefs and all of them (i.m.o.) have some good ones and some bad ones.

From your perspective I can see none. From mine I try using reason, logic, in both subjective and objective. But it’s mostly subjective. It’s subjectivism played out by objectivism in the world. It’s about at least being open to this and then taking a step further through examining other faiths as best as you can.

I do the same thing.

 

[michel]

What I’m saying is that atheist has this sense [moral law], put there by God, just as believers do, whether they acknowledge it or not (though it can, of course, be unlearned by intellectual conditioning or surroundings). And their behavior proves it.That's why (in our opinion) they are usually as moral and upright as agroup as any other group of people. But to the extent that they are moral and good, I argue that this is inevitably in conflict with their ultimate ground of ethics (if one manages to get established in a world of atheist only), however it is spelled-out, insofar as it excludes God. Without God it will always be relative and arbitrary and usually unable to been forced except by brute force. Atheists act far better than their ethics(in their ultimate reduction).

What I’m saying is that atheist has this sense [moral law], put there by God

Is there something specific that makes you feel that Victor, or any scriptures that point to this ?

Atheists act far better than their ethics(in their ultimate reduction)

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making; would you explain ?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I can see why you would say that but that really wasn’t the case for me. I did not project “my” morality onto an imagined figure. If I was to do that I would most likely be worshipping some other more hedonistic god that fit me better. Or even better, I’d make myself a god.

I didn't say you personally project your morality onto an imagined figure per se....but I would suggest that you listen to those who project their morality onto imagined figure(s). But I never said that the morality which is projected onto imagined figures is always a bad morality. Honestly,I don't think you give yourself enough credit. When you say "hedonistic" I assume you mean a lifestyle of nothing but drugs, sex, and sloth. But is that really YOUR morality? Is that all you are? Is your kindness and selflessness really a false exterior which is only put on to appease a powerful God? I certainly don't think so. You would say that I believe in being kind to others because God put that belief in me. But I would say that you believe in a God who says we should be kind to others because YOU believe we should be kind to others. I'd be willing to bet if the Bible said we should be cruel to others and totallly selfish, and if the Pope came out tomorrow and said that, you would reject it in an instant.

You certainly don't have to agree, but do you at least understand what I'm saying here?

Obviously I would contend that those people who “knew” did not go to the appropriate authorities/well of truth. People still do this now, and I’m sure they’ll continue. Just out of curiosity,if you found a religion with a rational set of moral paradigms would you then submit? I would assume not because you don’t like being “stuck” or bound to something that doesn’t move. I really do hope I’m wrong.

I wouldn't submit to all of a religion's ethical teachings merely because some of them are good. It's not a matter of not having any respect for authority. Sometimes I don't agree with my Dad, but I take his advice anyway, because he usually knows better. I think anyone who has spent a long time thinking about ethical questions--whether it is a Rabbi or a priest or a secular humanist--should be considered an authority. But I'm not going to say "I'm Jewish" and stop eating pork just because I agree with many other Jewish ethics.

Is that a bad thing?

If you limit logic and reason only to what is objective then you are right. But if you allow the definition to extend to subjective ideals that even you follow then we have a playing field in which one can slowly begin to start knocking off certain beliefs/gods. This is a long-winded and life long task. If there is a God then he knows what you’re up to and how you tried. Only He knows why you and millions of others don’t take that extra step.

Thank you for implying that my lack of belief in Roman Catholicism is due to me "not taking an extra step". :sarcastic I guess I shouldn't take it personally, since you apparently were referring to all the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, and people of all the other faiths as well. I wonder why devout Jews won't just take that "extra step" and convert to Roman Catholicism? Stubbornness? :tsk:

I don’t believe in progressive revelation MS.

Really? So all that stuff the Bible says before Jesus about stoning adulterers and killing homosexuals and avoiding pork...oh, but that was "back then", right? No, that's not moral relativism. Not at all.

I believe there is, but it will require that people step out of themselves and leave it in the hands of the One who knows better.

I'll do that just as soon the One who knows better speaks to me Him/Her/Itself, rather than through fallible representatives.

As I said above, I don’t project “my beliefs” onto divine authority. Christianity is all about recognizing our human fallibility and working with it as best as possible. You’ve been watching too much of Jessie Ventura.

You do too. Deep down, you're a kind, caring person, and that's why you believe in a kind, caring god. That's my opinion, anyway. : )

Peace be with you

And also with you.

 

[Quiddity]

I see no inherent conflict between the way I conduct myself and what I believe. I believe I should treat others how I would want to be treated. Many people throughout history have believed the same thing, including Confucius (who came long before Jesus). I believe I should do this whether or not gods/scriptures/prophets/Popes say so. I believe there is no reason "why" I should do this, I just should, just as you believe there is no reason "why" we should obey (your conception of) God (or the Church), we just should. You and I both base our ethics on axioms. Where's the conflict?

The way you personally conduct yourself and what your personal axiomatic ethics are but of little difference in atheistic collective [assuming this is reached] ethical system. The system, codes of ethics of the collective is what matters and that is what I was talking about. It will be a populace of atheist who must agree on a ethical system [if this can be done] and how to enforce it without falling into the same problems as religious authorities/dogmas. And I already know you personally don't think this is possible. But I'm not just arguing that's it's impossible but also that you have to play the game just like religious folks. Submitting to things that are not objective and using them in your daily life. Why? To question and grow. Why the need for growth? If you think about MS, you are drinking from the subjective well of morality (just made that up ) only to satisfy something else that is also subjective. I can't wrap my mind around why you use it, need it grow, etc. But can't answer it's source to something objective necessarily and then perhaps see the concept of God as looney. I suppose you may feel more at ease to have science answer this if it happens to head in that direction.

I don't quite know what to make of this. What does it mean for a denomination to "work" and why would belief in any conception of God help a denomination "work"? Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists...

It "works" because the source [that being whatever god they worship] is what they submit to and this brings something else into the equation that enhances or builds upon reason. If they know/believe they can never get away with it, it makes the moral system much more effective. It's the "submisson" part that makes a world of difference. But it only works if that is done by the believers.

But, Victor, you can't trust in God unless you first trust in yourself to be able to select an accurate conception of God (or, perhaps, to select an authority which can accurately relate things to you about God). If you're betting at a horse race, you're not just putting trust in the horse you selected....you're also putting your trust in your ability to select a good horse in the first place.

Faith is about the only ability that is needed to start. And even that ability is assisted by the divine. The major difference lies in the fact that our system is not dependant upon entirely on our abilities. If it was, then it would be no different then an atheistic system. We admit that there are other powers at work that our beyond the objective world. And we tap into it thru subjective means which then become objective thru us. Sorry, I don't mean to sound preachy I'm just trying to explain..

I do not trust my ability to discern the authoritativeness of the Torah and Rabbinic teaching from that of the Catholic Church from that of the Orthodox Church from that of the Hindu upanishads from that of Zoroastrian scripture from that of the Qu'ran from that of any other "authority" on god(s). All of these authorities have complex ethical beliefs and all of them (i.m.o.) have some good ones and some bad ones.

Absolutely agree with you. It is a task that is simply overwhelming. That's why I firmly believe that if God does exist and is involved with his people that a system would be setup to deal with different types of people who grow at different rates and whatever other factors that may stop someone from enjoying God's graces would be a non-issue. Faith does just that. I mean who has time to comprehend, discover, analyze, etc. all the wonders of the world? Nobody.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

I didn't say you personally project your morality onto an imagined figure per se....but I would suggest that you listen to those who project their morality onto imagined figure(s). But I never said that the morality which is projected onto imagined figures is always a bad morality.

I wasn't taking it that way anyways.And Christ isn't exactly imagined by the way. But I see your point. No matter how I slice it, I have put my trust on men. Guilty as charged.

Honestly,I don't think you give yourself enough credit. When you say "hedonistic" I assume you mean a lifestyle of nothing but drugs, sex, and sloth. But is that really YOUR morality? Is that all you are?

Honestly, yes. 50 cent aint got nothing on me ...I'm as ghetto as they come. Not something I'm proud of though. But yeah I lived a violent and hedonistic life. And no that is not all I was. I'm sure I had some good in me. But so did Hitler.

Is your kindness and selflessness really a false exterior which is only put on to appease a powerful God?

Not at all. I started straightening out even before I ventured into a deep spiritual journey.

I certainly don't think so. You would say that I believe in being kind to others because God put that belief in me. But I would say that you believe in a God who says we should be kind to others because YOU believe we should be kind to others. I'd be willing to bet if the Bible said we should be cruel to others and totallly selfish, and if the Pope came out tomorrow and said that, you would reject it in an instant.

I certainly would. But as you know, I don't believe something like that would ever become official in the Church. So it's not something I ponder over often.

You certainly don't have to agree, but do you at least understand what I'm saying here?

Absolutely. Your lack of belief is well thought out.

I wouldn't submit to all of a religion's ethical teachings merely because some of them are good. It's not a matter of not having any respect for authority. Sometimes I don't agree with my Dad, but I take his advice anyway, because he usually knows better. I think anyone who has spent a long time thinking about ethical questions--whether it is a Rabbi or a priest or a secular humanist--should be considered an authority. But I'm not going to say "I'm Jewish" and stop eating pork just because I agree with many other Jewish ethics.

Is that a bad thing?

I was just curious, that's all. But I'm glad you used your dad as way to explain because that's exactly how it is in my faith. It's a relationship (call it imaginary or what have you). And any relationship comes with conditions. This isn't to be confused with unconditional Love. I can Love someone and not want them around me because of their destructive ways. I'm sure you understand that.

Thank you for implying that my lack of belief in Roman Catholicism is due to me "not taking an extra step". I guess I shouldn't take it personally, since you apparently were referring to all the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, and people of all the other faiths as well. I wonder why devout Jews won't just take that "extra step" and convert to Roman Catholicism? Stubbornness?

I'm sorry I didn't mean to direct it at you specifically. I have no idea why you and millions of others don't believe. And I'm speaking in broad terms of atheist and theist here. I suppose it may be something different for everybody.

Really? So all that stuff the Bible says before Jesus about stoning adulterers and killing homosexuals and avoiding pork...oh, but that was "back then", right? No, that's not moral relativism. Not at all.

Sorry MS, I don't use the "but that was back then" response. If it says it and it's been understood as such then it's true back then and it's true now. But of course we would have to take it on a case by case basis.

I'll do that just as soon the One who knows better speaks to me Him/Her/Itself, rather than through fallible representatives.

Good to hear you would atleast submit if He came in person and proved it to you. I wonder what you would ask him to do?

You do too. Deep down, you're a kind, caring person, and that's why you believe in a kind, caring god. That's my opinion, anyway. : )

Even if you are right about me MS, mankind is an odd/interesting bunch of people who are random and unpredictable. Nothing binds them. I think thats extremely problematic when trying to accomplish a moral code. That's my opinion anyway..

~Victor

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The way you personally conduct yourself and what your personal axiomatic ethics are but of little difference in atheistic collective [assuming this is reached] ethical system. The system, codes of ethics of the collective is what matters and that is what I was talking about. It will be a populace of atheist who must agree on a ethical system [if this can be done] and how to enforce it without falling into the same problems as religious authorities/dogmas.

Sure, any ethical system is in some sense religious. But you said atheists can't define evil. Furthermore, you said you have an "objective" basis on which to condemn evil. Plato was an atheist, and yet his work The Republic outlines in some detail a complex ethical/political system. Some of the founding fathers of the United States were atheists--most of the rest were deists, who did not believe god plays an active, personal role in the affairs of the world. Confucius and Buddha were atheists, and their thinking has spawned complex ethical systems that many Confucians and Buddhists (who are atheists as well) follow. There are also many religious/secular humanists out there who have a set of beliefs regarding ethics. I agree that people tend to follow things that come from a "higher source", but I see no reason that "higher source" must be a god or gods; for many people, it can just as easily be "Nature's laws", "righteousness", "the will of the people", "the common good", etc.

And I already know you personally don't think this is possible. But I'm not just arguing that's it's impossible but also that you have to play the game just like religious folks. Submitting to things that are not objective and using them in your daily life. Why? To question and grow. Why the need for growth? If you think about MS, you are drinking from the subjective well of morality (just made that up ) only to satisfy something else that is also subjective.

I see what you're saying, except I don't think attempts to be a good person constitute satisfying something subjective any more than eating is an attempt to satisfy something subjective. It's human nature, conditioned over millions of years of biological and cultural evolution.

It "works" because the source [that being whatever god they worship] is what they submit to and this brings something else into the equation that enhances or builds upon reason. If they know/believe they can never get away with it, it makes the moral system much more effective.

That's true. On the other hand, a system in which moral certainty is absolute tends to be more likely to produce fanatical zealots. Though I'm sure many inquisitors and crusaders and islamic terrorists were/are extremely devout, it may have been better if they had not had so much confidence in their moral codes.

Faith is about the only ability that is needed to start. And even that ability is assisted by the divine. The major difference lies in the fact that our system is not dependant upon entirely on our abilities. If it was, then it would be no different then an atheistic system.

I see what you're trying to say, Victor, but you're totally bastardizing the word "atheist". I see zero difference between "atheistic system" and "theistic system" other than that one includes a god somewhere. Nor do nontheist moral codes--like those of Confucianism and Buddhism--rely solely on the opinion of the individual. Here's an outline of some of the moral philosophy behind Confucianism, for example.

We admit that there are other powers at work that our beyond the objective world. And we tap into it thru subjective means which then become objective thru us. Sorry, I don't mean to sound preachy I'm just trying to explain..

No problem.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I wasn't taking it that way anyways.And Christ isn't exactly imagined by the way. But I see your point. No matter how I slice it, I have put my trust on men. Guilty as charged.

Me too, I'm afraid.

Not at all. I started straightening out even before I ventured into a deep spiritual journey.

Atheists can have deep spiritual journeys too, ya know.

I was just curious, that's all. But I'm glad you used your dad as way to explain because that's exactly how it is in my faith. It's a relationship (call it imaginary or what have you). And any relationship comes with conditions. This isn't to be confused with unconditional Love. I can Love someone and not want them around me because of their destructive ways. I'm sure you understand that.

Sure, I understand. Check out the link in my previous post on Confucianism. Relationships are a big part of it.

I'm sorry I didn't mean to direct it at you specifically. I have no idea why you and millions of others don't believe. And I'm speaking in broad terms of atheist and theist here. I suppose it may be something different for everybody.

Why don't you and millions of others believe in Hinduism?

Sorry MS, I don't use the "but that was back then" response. If it says it and it's been understood as such then it's true back then and it's true now. But of course we would have to take it on a case by case basis.

Okay then...

32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

34And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

35And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

36And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Is it right or wrong to stone people for gathering sticks on the sabbath?

Good to hear you would atleast submit if He came in person and proved it to you. I wonder what you would ask him to do?

It's more likely that I would ask him what he wants me to do.

Even if you are right about me MS, mankind is an odd/interesting bunch of people who are random and unpredictable. Nothing binds them.

Unpredictable to an extent, yes...but then, many animals can be unpredictable. We're predictable at least somewhat, I'm sure you'd agree....otherwise psychologists and sociologists and historians wouldn't have jobs.

I think thats extremely problematic when trying to accomplish a moral code. That's my opinion anyway..

I totally agree with you there.