How dangerous is the thought that there may be that you must outright dismiss it?
How would it effect your sense of the world, if you found out that they do exist?
I’m sure you would question your sanity, as is a common reply of a non-spiritual atheist (or even a non-spiritual theist). Which puts into question your ability to determine anything as you can’t trust your very mind, which is what you depend on to define your world.
But if they really exist, as many people both today and in the past know to exist, it removes the possibility of a faulty mind and helps you learn what is really influencing human behavior.
Given the history of such beliefs? Extremely dangerous. It’s the person who believes in spirits who will kill limitless numbers of people because he doesn’t really think he’s killing them, just sending their spirits on. It’s the person who believes in spirits who’ll torture people for their own good to keep them from going to hell. It’s the person who believes in spirits who’ll root for the end of the world because that means he gets to go to paradise. It’s the person who believes in spirits who hands over his life savings to con-artists in order to talk to their dead relatives.
Mysticism of all kinds has always been a force for evil in the world.
That’s what I’ve been trying to tell them. But no other atheist here seems to believe the logical consequences of their beliefs.
Remember that imaginary conversation I created where the Being told me I was wrong “here, and here,” and in a “thousand other places?” I’m admitting that I don’t have the exact right ethos. But by first accepting that there is a right thing to do, I can then go searching for what the will of a benevolent god would be. And I try to determine what his purpose would be based on the world being as it is.
But, when you start from a position that states, as Diogenes admits, that there is no right thing, any ethical standard you choose is just your own whim, and you can’t take credit for trying to do the right thing. If you convinced yourself you were doing the right thing, you made a serious logical error and your decision process can’t be trusted. Even if you happened to have the right answers.
Notice how the atheists say they are demonstrably as good as others, but the best example they give for a logically derived ethic is: “keep the relatives of those you kill from killing you, and also not to run afoul of secular police authority.” Do you notice that what they are pushing as good isn’t even the average standard I’ve been suggesting. It’s worse* than that. Not doing anything that would get you arrested and removed from society is the **absolute minimum **we ask to let you live in society.
worse being used in the traditional, believing in right and wrong sense, since if the only objective standard they can set is average, there is also no way to determine which direction away from average is better; they are both worse.
The reason God’s will isn’t subjective is because it takes into account every relevent factor. That is objective. (and that’s what we ask judges to do, even though humans can’t know every factor, or completely keep their emotion out of it.) Also, when a Being creates a universe with his purpose in mind for it, then his purpose is the only one that matters. And if the purpose involves us and is intended to be a benefit to us, that is just a kindness. It isn’t necessary for him to take us in to account for that Being’s will to be the only relevant factor.
Entertaining, sure. But logical? I had to get to the word “logical” to guess which side of the argument you were coming down on.
So, you are willing to tie your idea of logic to the statements he made and have your reputation stand or fall based on it? Let’s look at the statements again:
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:44, topic:544237”]
Then at that point you’ve screwed up because reality is what it is regardless of what you “choose to believe”.
No, it doesn’t “logically demand” that; once you start talking about “choose to believe” and “it doesn’t matter if its true” you’ve thrown logic out the window.
Dismiss it as what? The question doesn’t make any sense. What do you mean “dangerous”?
Are you trying to ask me if there are things I won’t do, because of a moral or ethical reason? Of course there are. How could there not be?
You are sure I would question my sanity? Sure of that? 100%? You know it to be a fact, not a supposition, that I would, definitely, no question, no way around it, question my sanity?
How do you know that?
And you can’t trust your god, since we’ve shown that it is his say-so if something is good or bad, not an inherent quality of the thing itself. Even according to your way of looking at the world, the notions that you’re talking about are subjective, only the subject is your god, not you.
There is no inherently right thing in the universe. As we’ve shown you, what you are calling an objective standard is not: it is the subjective standard of your god. There is no such thing as being “inherently right”. You keep trying to argue from this perspective, but it’s an a priori concept cannot be supported.
Did you build that strawman yourself, or did you have to get help?
That’s a complete bunch of bullshit there. Nothing factual at all in the whole paragraph, AFAICT.
Have you got a cite for that “best example”, or did you make it up yourself (to bear false witness against others)?
Who decides what is relevant? God? Then it’s subjective. In fact, the use of the words “relevant” puts paid to the lie you keep trying to push: relevant means that there are relationships, therefore priorities, therefore judgement, therefore it’s subjective.
You can try and define the words differently, but the fact is that you yourself just argued that your god must pick and choose and make priorities. You just trounced your own argument. Grats.
Tell me then, what basis are you using for one group to reject the ideas of others when deciding what we all agree to? If one person says, “I don’t agree to that,” then we don’t all agree to it.
Funny, but Judaism and Christianity don’t say that is the point of the story. When this is supposed to have happened, the bible wasn’t written; there wasn’t a codifed set of rules. God was speaking to Abraham, and telling him about his will and purpose, and had promised to bless Abraham and the world through Abraham’s son. But Abraham came out of a culture where human sacrifice existed.
Then, after promising Abraham his son would make a great nation, God asked him to sacrifice Isaac. (the quotes are not in the text, just an interpretation.) “Now, do you trust that I can do what I promised, even after you kill him?” Then, when Abraham said, “yes, I trust you,” God said, “Good, but, I will show you I am not like the gods of the nations around you. I don’t seek human sacrifice.” And then, since then, He has codified what he expected of us. So, I don’t think many Jews or Christians believe that God would ever do this again. And if it goes against everything that has been said since, it wouldn’t be a sending from God.
The bible tells us to test every spirit to see if what it says comes from God. Since everything tells me God wouldn’t do this again, it would be almost impossible for anything to convince me… The only way I can think of to convince me otherwise would be if I had gone insane and was hearing voices.
We judge the moral rules of others through a variety of criteria. Are they consistent? Are they grounded in reality? Are they workable in practice? Do they sit comfortably with our moral instincts?
Say I meet someone who comes from a community that believes that it’s moral to cut off the external genitalia of little girls. I wouldn’t merely say “Well, you all believe it, so that makes it okay.” It’s clearly in conflict with MY morality and the morality of the community I belong to. If they want me to accept their morality, they need to convince me that their moral calculus somehow makes sense – that their rules are consistent and realistic and lead to desirable outcomes. So I’d want to know why they do such an awful thing, and how they justify it. And if they can’t justify it, if they can’t convince me that their way of doing things is right and good, then it becomes my moral duty to work against them.
LOL … so you get your morality from God … unless what God says happens to conflict with your moral instincts. It sounds like you’re a moral relativist just like us atheists. You just don’t want to admit it.
I want to go all the way back to the second post of the thread. Not that this point hasn’t been restated since, but I think there’s a certain clarity in that post that makes it easier to answer.
Here’s your problem: that’s not ethics, by any normal definition of the word. According to that definition the user’s guide for a lawnmower is an handbook of ethics. This is simply not correct - it’s a completely incorrect usage of the word.
From this error springs the entire “religion is ethical” argument, which by extension is similarly wrong. “What god wants” is not synonymous with “ethics” by any reasonable definition of the word. Most theists at some level know this, which is why they resist announcing that slavery is ethical, despite the fact that it is very clear that the biblical God approves of it. Of course if they pretend that “What god wants” = “ethical” that allows them to pretend that they’re more ethical than everyone else, which is why they keep saying it, but they are flatly and obviously wrong.
In actual fact, as best I can tell, the correct word for their “ethics” is actually “obedience”. And as best I can tell, to the degree that one hews to obedience, they are ignoring real ethics. If their obedience results in behavior that is ethical by other more-normal standards that’s spiffy and all, but it’s hardly a guaranteed outcome; obedience to an arbirtarily selected standard as often turns down dark paths.
Not to say that all religious people hew exclusively to obedience; many of them grew up in civilized cultures and absorbed or learned some of the fundaments of secular ethics too, and employ them. (A blazingly bright and shining example are the people who say “I wouldn’t get an abortion because my religion says not to, but what other people do is their own business.”) But when religious people act only on religious obedience, those people are the most unethical people I know. They literally have no moral compass; only an obedience one.
Excellent summary, begbert. I think that’s where I was trying to get to, but by a more lengthy route, by pointing out that any god’s will is just as subjective as any person’s will.
In other words, I reject as the definition of “objective”, “that which is a god’s will”. It’s inherently contradictory, after all.
Exactly. There is no simple set of moral rules. Instead what we have are moral *heuristics *-- rough rules of thumb that define a general framework for thinking our way through moral challenges.
So … it’s wrong to steal. Unless you need to steal to save a life. But what if the life you’re trying to save is the life of a convicted mass murderer? Is it moral to steal a million dollars to stop the execution of a mass murderer?
There are no clear and simple answers when it comes to morality. Being a good person isn’t just a matter of following God’s rules. It’s about thinking and feeling your way through moral quandaries. If all you do is follow the rules, you’re sooner or later going to apply those rules in a way that produces some monstrous outcome.
I will also say that I believe that a semi-objective moral standard can be deduced - through subjective empirical observation of society. That is, I believe that if one were to define “good” in their ethical code as “those actions and behaviors which maximizes the people’s collective happiness, taking into account factors such as long-term effects, diminishing utility, and potential for reciprocity”, you’d get something closely approximating what most people think of as ethical behavior. That is, slavery is (almost) objectively bad, because under virtually all imaginable circumstances the enslavement does more harm to the person enslaved than it does benefit for the people doing the enslavement - and there are alternative models (like, say, hiring the person) which would achieve a greater happiness overall, on average.
I think that societies have a natural tendency to gradually veer toward ethics over long periods of time, because societies dominated by unethical behavior would, by definition, be very unpleasant to live in for the large majority of people. This means that when people catch wind of a ‘better way’, they will tend to wish to adopt it for their own benefits, and such wishes become normalized into the mindset of society by people being raised into them. This, not religion, is why most societies eventually gave up on slavery, and why they’ve been gradually enfranchising women and giving rights to gays as well. This progression can be slow and spotty, of course, because it can take time for a populace to decide that a change to their societal ethical code is necessary for maximizing general happiness, and sometimes there is overt resistance towards the acceptance of a more ethical societal standard.
One obvious example of resistance is when one group is benefiting at the expense of another, and those so benefitted have the ability to maintain this imbalance due to their advantaged circumstances. In this case those in power can declare that an unethical system like slavery is ethical, because it serves their own happiness and because those enslaved are in no position to say otherwise.
Another example is when religion has taken hold of a society. Religion is good at nothing so much as maintaining a fixed standard of codes of belief and behavior, often prioritizing persistence and consistency above reasoned change. Thus when the religious have a significant voice in the society they can declare that an unethical system is ethical, because they hace conflated obedience with ethics, and are not prepared to consder that their beliefs on the matter are poorly sourced.
That’s ridiculous. By that logic a universe designed for no other purpose than to create the maximum amount of suffering would be “moral” just because your god designed it that way. You are making an argument for the rejection of God, not one for using him as the basis for morality. What does it matter if your God “takes every factor into account” if he is uncaring or malignant?
Exactly, Der. If your god’s purpose in the universe is to cause me pain and suffering, he can go fuck himself. I ain’t helpin’ him.
And, if I can pretend to think like a religious type, why would your god punish a creation for not doing his will? Isn’t that how the all-powerful creator made him to be?
Sending their spirit on!?!, you realize that over 1/3 of women in the US have been deceived into ‘sending the spirit on’ of their very own unborn child through abortion, and IIRC most women who have had a abortion is ‘likely’ to have at least another (not really sure of the phrasing). Could it be said that perhaps 1/2 the US population has been exterminated by abortion? More then any war I’m aware of, and the killing of the most innocent, and most spiritual or religious practices are not exactly for, but science is.
In general it is those who believe in religion (man made simulated spirituality), not those who are spiritual (connecting with higher spiritual beings)
Again this is religion, not spirituality big difference.
Again this is trust in man (not spirits) thereby religion not a personal connection to spiritual beings.
I would have agreed at one time, but search for truth and Love will take one to the spiritual, the force for evil is those who stand opposed to it.
And there you go. It is your assumption that people inherently want this on some level. But there’s no reason it’s necessarily true for anyone else. If you just claim to want everyone to be good ebcause a rising tide floats your boat a bit, too, then fine. But don’t claim that it’s rational or innately right. You’ve chosen a certain survival strategy. But it has no innate claim on anyone else.
It’s funny really. You spend so much time trying to convince people it’s in their best interest to make your life better, without realizing that the same logic lends itself just as easily to enslaving you and killing and eating your family.
Then don’t. You can go the utter nihilist way and still be consistent with your principles. But if you do, then you can’t claim anyone else is wrong about anything. Ever.
Hardly; the whole point of this kind of argument is to convince people that they need to believe in God to be moral and that people who don’t believe in God are demonically evil.
[/QUOTE]
Wow. Epic Logic Fail. Epic Fail to even remotely read what I just wrote.
Except for being more effective. So yes, it’s rational.
The nihilist here is you. You are the one who appears convinced that insane, indiscriminate predatory behavior is somehow superior. No, the same logic doesn’t lead to everyone trying to kill each other because people who live like that tend to end up dead.
Of course, you fail to even attempt to actually show where I’m wrong.