If you’re talking about sheer numbers, let me be the first to say “duh.” But I didn’t think the comment I responded to had anything to do with the size of the society. People have always loved looking at tea leaves, it predates religion. They’re not doing it more because we’re in an increasingly secular society. They’re doing it differently. They believe in UFOs instead of angels.
It is not an either/or situation. I have described a scenario, I’m asking you if you can imagine that scenario. It is no different than if I had said “imagine the world as it is now, except grass is blue”, or “there are no chairs with more than three legs”. I am asking you whether you can imagine a world exactly the same as it is now, but without a deity. Considering you’ve now got the wrong end of the stick a second time, i’m close to concluding you can’t, as it appears the situation i’ve described has gone completely over your head.
Yes, I am - specifically, that it is purely biological. Can you imagine that?
Yes, in this reality. I’m asking you to imagine a new one - are you familiar with the term imagine? It involves coming up with a new, potentially non-existant reality, and it’s something most people can do.
It is both straightfoward and leaning - however, it is a hypothetical leaning. Let’s try one more time, and i’ll even explain it, too!;
Is it possible (do you have the ability) for you (the individual that you are) to imagine (posit, theories, create the situation in your mind) that the thing you call a “soul” is not a spiritual (deity/religion/magically based) part of you, but biologically (flesh, neurons, hormonally) based?
Bah. Theorize.
I revile anyone who would label me for something I don’t believe. Oh, you don’t believe in flying phonebooks that shop at Target and eat Taco Bell? Well you’re an ayellowbookist.
You (whoever) created the theory of God, not me; don't make me disprove it because I don't share the theory.
Now if flying phonebooks did exist (or at least the proof existed) and I didn't believe in them, that is a whole nutha topic.But I’m not trying to address how you can check whether two different people have the same religion, I’m just discussing how you can check whether they have religion at all. The guy in Ethiopia goes to church, has a community, has spiritual leaders, has beliefs, follows certain rituals in life, and follows certain prescribed morals. Thus, he is religious and the organization/belief system which causes all of the above is a religion. Whether it’s the same as yours is immaterial for this discussion. And, again, an atheist, even an obnoxious asshole “hard atheist” who is on some atheist mailing list, does NOT do any of the above (or at least, not most of the above).
Which part of that makes it a religion, precisely? The sharing a common belief about God? The being positive? The being positive despite their position being unproveable? The evangelizing? You mention all of these elements as if all of them, together, add up to being a religion, but there are certainly some atheists who, for instance, are positive about there being no God, but don’t evangelize and don’t feel superior about it. There are probably others who are positive about their being no God, AND who believe that they can prove that assertion. Etc.
Yes, it’s a specific member of the set of integers, one with some particularly interesting properties. Why?
Well, no, actually. But that’s neither here nor there 
I had a stick of sugarless gum. Interestingly, it was also cowless gum. It was also rusty-bits-of-glass-less gum. It was also angerless gum. It was also nonfictionless gum. The question is… is “the set of all conceivable things that are not gum” a type of gum?
OK, let me make my analogy better. Let’s define the word “fanbase”. A “fanbase” is the group of die-hard loyal fans of a sports team. Now, that’s obviously a useful and meaningful term. If one were a retailer, for instance, one might say “people in a fanbase are more likely than the population as a whole to spend money on the following types of products…” Or if you were a therapist, you might say “people in a fanbase are more likely to be susceptible to the following types of negative behavior patterns”. Thus, it makes sense to have the word “fanbase”. It’s a useful word.
So, what about the set of all people who aren’t die-hard fans of any particular sports team. Are they, collectively, a fanbase? What about all the people who actively hate sports? What about all the people who not only actively hate sports but spit on sports fans on the street and loudly proclaim in a condescending fashion how sports is just the opiate of the masses blah blah blah? Does it make any sense to describe them as a fanbase?
Now, clearly, we can define fanbase any way we choose. If we want to say "fanbase means ‘the group of all fans of a sports team’ OR ‘the group of people who really really hate sports and are rude about it’ " we can do so. Heck, it’s our word. But is that definition more clean, elegant and useful than ‘the group of all fans of a sports team’?
Similarly, we certainly can define “religion” such that atheism is a religion. Heck, we can say “a religion is a belief system which has the following characteristics… OR is atheism”. That’s a logically valid definition. It’s just not a useful one, nor does it correspond well with the way the word “religion” is used in everyday life. THAT is why I don’t believe atheism is a religion.
Note that this isn’t a value judgment of any sort. If someone is a dogmatic asshole atheist who is totally convinced that there is a 100% provable certainty that there is no god, and spits on Christian babies, the fact that atheism is not a religion doesn’t make that guy any less of an asshole.
Certainly, his belief system fits fewer of the criteria for a religion, and it makes less sense to say “that guy follows a religion”, than someone who was raised Christian, but at some point stopped believing in a supernatural God, and in fact is convinced that there is no God, but believes strongly in the moral teachings of the Christian church, believes that the Bible is an invaluable source of guidance, goes to Church regularly, etc. That person is technically an atheist, but is (I’d say) also still a Christian. Does that person then have two religions?
Bolding by me.
The key word here is small. “Thou shall not kill” has always been the case, as long as we’re talking about “WE, the True People”, whereas killing those heathens on the other side of the hill who don’t even jump three steps backwards before finishing their meals… well that’s a-ok.
Organized religion took center stage when human societies grew bigger and more complex. When we got villages, towns and cities, organized religion was there to tel us that “Thou shall not kill” is extended even to people we don’t know, and that we’ve never seen jump three steps backwards. The clergy took care of checking that, assuring us that everyone who was admitted into society as a full member, were indeed one of “WE, the True People”.
If was of course still a-ok to go kill people a little farther away.
Marley.
We’re agreeing. It’s just that I’m arguing piss poorly.
Geesh mswas, using tired old “I’m the only real individualist” arguments in threads where it’s barely relevant tells me you need to drop the teen angst a bit and grow up. Or put it in a journal or something.
Bad analogy. You both worship following the Order of the Roman Misssal of 1972 (as amended and in your respective languages). You both take liturgical and doctrinal direction from the national councils of bishops in your respective countries, who exercise a (now diminishing) collegiality with the bishops of other nations in conjunction with the various Congregations in the Vatican. You can, indeed, walk into an Ethiopian church and, despite barriers of language and some local custom, follow the Mass pretty closely. You follow the same rituals regarding the sacraments: Baptism, Matrimony, Reconcilition, etc. (Ethiopians may not do the Hokey Pokey or Proud Mary at the reception, but the essential rite is the same.)
You do share beliefs, certainly, but those beliefs are manifested and reinforced by common worship. If shared belief was all that was required for a religion, then Republicans, Yankee and Bosox fans, and devotees of Lost or General Hospital would be members of religions.
Gaspode, I think we’re probably in agreement. I agree that a great deal of our contemporary moral framework has its origins in religion. Even as an atheist I subscribe to a moral code that draws heavily on Christian tradition. I’m certainly willing to give credit where credit is due.
The point is that whatever the origin of these rules people follow them day-to-day not out of a rational cost-benifit analysis regarding the danger of damnation, but because they build upon our instinctual sense of right and wrong. It’s only because my Austrailopithecine brain tells me that cheating is wrong that my rational mind is willing to accept that the highly abstract work of the Securities and Exchange Commission is justified.
So, whatever the origin of one’s moral code, belief in a diety is not necessary for its enforcement.
You might want to read post #76.
Unfortunately, point #5, if you grant the non-existence of God, means that point #6 is meaningless. You have no empirical evidence that your innate human sense of anything is valid.
You’re begging the question. How do we know that justice, fairness, and decency constitute a valid moral code?
You don’t, you have to take it on faith.
Regards,
Shodan
I did. it provides a perfect example of your refusal to answer a direct question. I asked if you were making a positive assertion about the non-existence of Jupiter and you replied that the the existence of Jupiter had not been proven. It’s an easy question, answerable with a yes or no. Do you believe that Jupiter exists?
I have a few more, that you might have missed.
But isn’t that (point #6) true regardless of your answer to point #5.
If you grant the existence of God, you still have no empirical evidence that your innate human sense of anything is valid, right?
Beyond that as point #4 implies, all religions/beliefs in god(s) do not lead to the same set of moral precepts.
Is ritual human sacrifice moral or immoral? A worshiper of Huitzilopochtli, and a worshiper of Jesus will give you very different answers!
What’s your answer to your question?
Aren’t you relying on your innate human sense of right and wrong?
If Quetzalcoatl came back tomorrow (proving the truth of the Aztec religion), would your view of the morality of human sacrifice change?
You’re not following me. Different religions dictate contradictory moral codes. How are do you, personally, choose which to follow? Particularly since you seem to believe that you as a human being have no inherent moral sense. Do you flip a coin? What?
I think what’s throwing you is the idea that morality might be a human behavioral trait rather than a platonic absolute. There’s nothing inherently “good” about a concept like “loyalty” other than the fact that human brains are wired to value it.
Sure, maybe our core moral instincts are often wrong. Maybe they evolved in circumstances so different from our current situation that they often lead to make incorrect moral decisions … much as our hunter-gatherer cravings for sugar and fat lead us to make incorrect dietary decisions.
But what else do we have to work with, really? We have to make moral choices, even if our moral decision-making apparatus is creaky and outmoded. The whole point of my step-by-step argument is that everyone, theist and atheist alike, is dependent on the same creaky machinery to decide which moral code to follow. Believing in God doesn’t give you an edge, even if God is real.
Because humans universally believe in justice, fairness and decency. They express these instincts differently in different cultural contexts, but concepts like loyalty between comrades, respect for superiors, getting your fair share, protecting children from harm, and so on are universal. You can imagine constructing a theoretical moral code which didn’t include some or all of these features, but it wouldn’t be applicable to human beings with human brains.
It is also answerable with an accurate statement of my position, which is equally direct. Of course, it does not offer you the opportunity to back me into a rhetorical corner, but my answer is no less valid for that reason.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Only “yes” or “no” are acceptable answers.
There isn’t any, that’s my point. If you can’t supply any meta-ethical basis for believing in a moral code, then that moral code is invalid. Atheists cannot supply any meta-ethical basis for believing that the “innate sense of human justice, fairness, and decency” is valid, therefore your moral standard is invalid.
No, I am following you perfectly. I am pointing out that atheists are subject to exactly the same objections that you raise to using religion as a basis for morality. How do you, personally, as an atheist, choose which moral code to follow? You allege that they should follow a code of “human decency”, or however you phrase it. Why is that standard more valid than a religious one, or none?
Our human brains seem to be wired for a lot of things, including suspicion of strangers, adoration of leaders, and occasional fits of war and murder. Your argument has nothing useful to distinguish the Holocaust from any other action.
If you are arguing ad populum that “whatever the majority thinks is morally correct”, then things like slavery, a flat earth, and even religious belief are morally correct, since a substantial majority of humans seem to have held these as correct over the last hundred thousand years or so.
Nothing whatever. Because you are advocating a moral code based on nothing but faith.
If you are just arguing that correct morality is just how most people tend to feel, that is fine. The trouble comes when you discover that there is no way to convince anyone who doesn’t feel that way. Sociopaths, for instance, are just as morally correct as Mother Theresa.
And again, this is begging the question. On what basis do we decide that majority rule is a moral standard? “Just because” is an act of faith, which I thought atheists ruled out ab initio. If you want to argue “because it brings about some morally valid end” like the survival of society or altruism or whatever, then you need to find a rational basis for saying that survival of society or altruism is morally valid.
Regards,
Shodan
But it’s not a ‘rhetorical corner’ it simply points out the logic of your position. Your refusal to answer it reveals a double standard. As pointed out, your own logic means you’re calling yourself a dogmatic, fundemantelist atheist.
It’s not like asking if you still beat your wife, it’s taking your own claims and plugging the name of a different God into 'em. All your refusal to answer does is demonstrate what many in this thread have been claiming. Namely, that many theists are perfectly comfortable ignoring other religions as ‘myths’ and such, but when it comes to their own religion they say that anybody who discounts it as a myth is a dogmatic fundamentalist.
-
Theists can’t provide a meta-ethical basis for their morality any more than atheists. Your opinion that your religious morality is “valid” is still pulled completely from your ass. The decision that “God is right” is a decision based on nothing whatsoever but your own personal feelings of right and wrong. Socipaths can and do justify their religious morality based on aspects which conform to their preexisting hatreds. If a person hates fags and Christianity says to hate fags, then Christianity is “right.” Basing your morality on “faith” is still basing it on an arbitrary and autonomous decision about what is right or wrong because - pay attention now- YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY YOUR FAITH except in terms of how it conforms to your personal moral asthetic. This is true whether God exists or not.
-
The word “valid” has no application to morality. Morality is completely subjective. There is no such thing as a “valid” or “invalid” moral system any more than there can be a “valid” standard of beauty. If I think a chick is hot, she’s hot. If I think she’s not, she’s not. I am the only authority on the matter. It doesn’t matter what you think. If you don’t agree that she’s hot then you’re wrong and you’re wrong because I SAY so. It’s exactly the same with morality.
Even if God exists, that doesn’t make his morality any more valid than mine. He has his opinion, I have mine and if God’s morality doesn’t match mine, then God is WRONG. It’s just that simple. I make the decisions, not some sky fairy. The only thing that’s needed to make my morality “valid” is my own personal say so, and no one -not even God- has the authority to contradict me.
Another thing- isn’t it an article of Christian faith that all humans know the difference between right and wrong? Isn’t that what happened when Adam and Eve ate the fruit? They knew right from wrong?
If all humans know the difference between right and wrong then it ha to be acknowledged that atheists know it too, does it not? Knowledge of right and wrong does not depend on religious faith, even according to your own religious doctrine.
If you’re going to say that atheists don’t know the difference between right and wrong, then they also can’t have any moral culpability. If they don’t know right from wrong then they can’t be guilty of sin.
I’d really like to know how Shodan can get out of this box. Do all humans know right from wrong or don’t they? If they all do, then atheists do too, If they don’t, then Christian doctrine is wrong, no one can “sin” and Christian morality is invalidated. Heh.
and then God dissapeared in a puff of logic
Actually, you’ve got to the point here. The problem with the “have you stopped beating your wife” question is that it assumes you beat your wife. Hence, a yes or no answer is illogical.
However, in the case of “do you believe in Jupiter” you seem to think the assumption is “Jupiter exists”. This is not the case - there is no such assumption. Jupiter may, or may not, exist, and this has no bearing on whether or not you believe it exists.
“I am a person. I feel emotion. Some of those emotions make me feel bad, some make me feel good. I want to feel good emotions more than the bad. I also want other people to feel the good emotions, because them feeling the bad ones also makes me feel bad. Thus, I try to do things which will, on average, make people as a whole feel more good emotions.”
Is that ok? It’s not innate, but then I don’t believe we have an “innate sense of human justice, fairness, and decency” anyway.
In the religious case, the person may often follow the words of another. If that person were to be taken away, or removed, it seems possible (and even likely) to me that the religious person may think “Ah! Now I can do all the immoral things the I wanted to but wasn’t allowed to! Which way to the brothel?”. A bit of an extreme example, but to get to the point I mean that a religious person bases their morality outside of themselves, on another being or system, while an athiest (or some agnostics) places that morality inside themselves, as a factor of their being. I don’t claim that one way is right over the other; there are evil religious people and evil athiests. All i’m saying is, if i’m to live, feel, and think in a certain way, then i’d very much prefer that way to be dictated by myself, than by another outside of my being.
I say to you; why must there be an overarching moral system that all humans believe in, innately biologically based or religiously? What, about the universe, makes you say “Ah, there must be some kind of constant moral system - and it cannot be biological, because look at all the bad things biology results in!”. I say there is no moral system - I say people can rely either on themselves or others (including a deity) but that there is no fixed, moral compass we should all follow. What about the universe tells you there must be?
I can’t speak for Pochacco, but my moral code, for example, is based on empathy. I feel this, I assume others feel the same way, thus I act in a way towards others that I would like done to me. Yep, it’s christianity’s golden rule - damn fine principle, whether or not you believe in the ideas around it.
Yup, they are, internally. Externally, they are regarded as being morally bad - but it could, to support your argument, be the opposite way around too - say, one good person in a group of evil ones acts morally, and so is internally good and externally bad. What’s your point, here? That people have different moral standpoints? Shock horror. They do. Again, why is it that there must be a universal moral compass?
*Logical * people ruled it out. Some religious people are as equally annoyed with “just because” as any athiest - they believe they have good, valid reasons. Fine by me - I don’t believe in them, but I may be able to see why you have them. “Just because” is illogical from all standpoints.
I say no system is morally valid. Each person has their own morals, and while in general we share some basic moral values, these fluctuate wildly given different backgrounds, upbringing, and culture. A psychopath who kills is, in the grand scheme of things, no morally superior than, say, Mother Teresa. To me, MT is far the more moral of the two. To another person, the psychopath may be. Does the psychopath then have the same right to follow his moral code than MT? Yes, he does. I don’t agree with it, but he is no moral (universally speaking) than you or me. He is only immoral when compared, using an internally derived moral compass. What right do we have to arrest him? Laws, in fact, are the “majority rule” that we submit our standards to - we all compromise with society at large our personal moral standards so that, while some may be broken and we find ourselves immoral (for example, abortion, or the death penalty, could be supported by our government and that we do not agree with - yet we support them for other reasons, like gaining the ability to have a police force, or protection by armed forces) we, in general, get what we want - the psychopath is locked up, and there is much rejoicing.
DING! ROUND THREE
Shodan,
If Shodan is unable or unwilling to answer perhaps another self-professed Chritian can help me here. A re-phrasing might be in order.
Are you a Christian?
Is it not true that God said “thou shalt have no other gods before me”?
Is Christianity not a monotheistic religion?
Does this not amount to a positive assertion that God is the only god?
Is it then not necessarily, dogmatically true that no other gods, of any description, exist?
According to Shodans’s definition, isn’t it true that a postive assertion about the non-existence of god is a hallmark of the dogmatic, fundamentalist atheist?