The ultimate marketing con game.
Their product is the only product. It’s not a case of comparing and choosing the best one for your needs.
The company product in the company store in the company town.
Not only to they hate other “brands” but the generic stuff is just as nutritious, few calories and with no aftertaste. 
Simply because there is a secular part, that doesn’t mean that the religious part is valid social policy.
But the very fact that we agree on them shows that they do not depend on religion, and can be promoted without promoting religion.
For one thing, honest disagreement follows hearing the other person’s position. You have dismissed all morals of atheists without even hearing them. Furthermore, you have not simply had differeing views (disagreement), but have accused all atheists who have morals of being either ignorant or dishonest.
I think that the ability to agree with someone’s reasoning, without agreeing with their conculsion, is very important.
Many people have claimed this, but no one has shown it to be true.
Why not?
How does that follow?
You seem to be suffereing from some intellectual blindness which prevents you from seeing anything between the extremes of “everything in CHristianity is true” and “nothing in Christianity is true”.
[quote]
Often they say something is immoral because it violates what most people want. Why is “what most people want” a compelling principle? ]/quote]
Why is “what God wants” a compelling principle?
Atheists aren’t allowed to have faith? I suppose if anyone uses logic, they can’t be Christian :rolleyes:.
And what is Christianity is based on?
And that bothers you? People shouldn’t do the right thing unless they have a really good reason for it?
As opposed to being surrounded by people doing the right things only because their God told them to?
How can I trust people who base their morals on the voices they hear from magical invisible creatures, when I can’t hear the voices myself? What if the “voice” tells you that your beliefs will now change, but “Don’t tell that heathen the new rules, because he’s not one of us!”?
Actually, I have read several of them, and posted to some. In my opinion, the case has not been made adequately.
Of course, if the fact that many posters argue vehemently in favor of a position means that the position has been established, then there is a God after all and this whole thread is unnecessary.
It’s like Creationism threads. The undoubted fact that many people believe strongly in something and advocate it often, is not an indication that their ideas are well-founded.
I am not arguing that all religiously-based opinions are valid social policy. I am arguing that not all religiously-based opinions can be dismissed simply because of their basis.
Practically all the positions advocated by the religious right have an effect on secular policy. Those effects are what should be debated. To have one’s beliefs dismissed, and one’s favored social policies defeated, based on the fact that they are founded on a religious understanding, is a factor contributing to the defensiveness of the religous right.
It would be like the greater society quashing discussions on removing “under God” from the Pledge, because “everyone in favor of that is a godless atheist”. Discussions on whether or not removing the words is a good idea or not should be based on whether it is a good idea or not, not on the motivations of either side.
I have not.
The thread has taken an interesting turn. Not to be personal, but isn’t taking offense at being questioned something people rightly object to when it comes from the worst representatives of the religious right?
Interpreting the phrase “I disagree with your suppositions” as meaning “You are ignorant and dishonest” sounds awfully defensive to me. I imagine many members of the religious right feel much the same when they have their faith questioned. Perhaps what I said earlier about the similarities of the religious right and most other groups with an agenda is not as far off the mark as might be imagined.
I agree.
If short-term survival is the only available good, then such and such an action must be the only course, because it has the best chance of leading to short-term survival. I can agree that the conclusion follows from the premise, but then point out that the premise is mistaken or unfounded.
Because presuming such a principle contradicts atheism. If there is a transcendent principle above or apart from the universe, which would have validity even if the universe did not exist, this is what I would call one definition of God. If that is your position, I would not call you an atheist.
Well, if you are basing a morality on immortality of the soul, isn’t it up to you to demonstrate that such exists?
I believe some forms of Buddhism make this claim. If that is the position you are arguing, feel free to argue it. If you grant my premise, then the rest of the argument follows.
Possibly, although I don’t remember posting that all of Christianity is true. If you can provide the cite of where I said so, I would be glad to see it. God knows I would like to overcome any intellectual blindness I suffer from.
I suppose they can have faith. The logical follow up question is why their faith is any better or more valid than anyone else’s.
If acts of faith can be so purely arbitrary, then faith in morality, faith in God, and faith in the Illuminati are exactly morally equivalent. People who murder millions to bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat, people who murder themselves and others to bring about Armaggedon, and people who say their dog told them to shoot people because he is channeling Satan are all acting morally.
And then the religious right, with its faith in religiously based morality, and atheists, with their faith in morality based on whatever it might be, are also exactly equivalent. Hmmmm…
The problem comes if and when they realize that they have no good reason to do anything, and that there is no right thing, and no reasonable motivation to do it.
It also speaks to Czarcasm’s point, which is the anxiety people feel when people push an agenda without showing that it is well-founded. How do you deal with people when you don’t even agree on first principles, or even that first principles exist at all?
Certainly many atheists disagree with this idea. They have, I imagine, some reason for their beliefs, possibly a direct perception of the nature of moral principle. I would classify this as an experience of God, scary thought though that might be.
Perhaps the religious right needs to be less defensive than they are perceived as being. It strikes me that atheists who argue a morality have more experience of the reality of a transcendent, moral God than they care to admit!
Regards,
Shodan
Ryan, I’m shocked. I’m actually agreeing with most of your points!
Shodan, your points have been argued by theologians for hundreds of years. I have yet to find them convincing. (No, I haven’t been alive for hundreds of years, either.)
I’ll pose a hypothetical question to you. Other posters have hit this point: If you were shown irrefutable proof that God did not exist, would you then go out and kill someone simply because they infuriated you? Would you cheat on your spouse (if any)? Would you steal simply because you didn’t want to pay for something? I don’t think you would. I think you behave in a moral fashion because of empathy for others, a social conscience, or, at least, fear of consequences. I think you just explain your morality in terms of your religion, but your religion doesn’t define your entire morality.
So, murder is illegal. It is also wrong according to your religion and my morals. My morals are atheistic. My morals are based on empathy. God has nothing to do with them. You can argue that I “acknowledge” God by my morality, but you would be completely wrong. Murder is a crime because making it a crime serves a secular purpose. The fact that it coincides with your religious belief is a coincidence.
Having “under God” as a statutory part of the Pledge of Allegiance serves no purpose other than a religious one. Plus, it allows yahoos to question the patriotism of us heathens (witness the Senate making a big to-do with their recitation, and various other atheist-hating stunts after the relevant ruling).
I’m not an atheist, but that definition of “God” doesn’t necessarily hold. You’re arguing semantics, and ridiculous ones at that. God or gods in the traditional sense are typically sentient beings, usually having been directly involved in the creation of the universe for divine purpose. Saying that an atheist’s “God” is some derivation of non-sentient physical or “transcendental” laws is distracting and irrelevant to the discussion.
Besides, I’d argue morality comes from the nature of our universe, not the other way around.
It should logically follow that those who can imagine their faiths to be incorrect will be able to see more possibilities and thus will be better able to correct their errant beliefs. Those who rest their faith on a particular authority may be right, but those who question it are more likely to be.
Does that necessarily invalidate certain faiths by the very fact? No, but it’s a good indicator of who’s being intellectually honest and who is worthy of trust.
Why do we need to assume that if there’s a God, He is necessarily moral? If, as you seem to believe, one man having power over another does not automagically make his application of that power right and good, from what logic do you conclude that if there is a divine law of some sort that it must be moral? If God tells me to smite unbelievers, should I accept that mission as legitimate, or do you assume I am delusional simply because my instructions do not conform to what you personally believe God would have me do?
Furthermore, why do you presume that anyone who doubts the existence of God is being dishonest with themselves? Isn’t it just as possible that your “experience of God” is merely a construct within your own mind? Such assertions are uncalled for.
While I can understand the mentality of people who feel required to force their religious convictions on others or declare themselves right and others wrong based on divinity, that position fails simple logic. There is no way to demonstratably verify God’s wishes to the satisfaction of a disinterested observer; as such, it is obvious that various people have widely different opinions on His will. Thus any position that requires supernatural authority as a logical foundation is inherently flawed just as any position that rests entirely on human authority.
Does the lack of a logical defense make a position wrong? No, but it certainly doesn’t give me any reason to defend it more than any other position.
A man with one watch knows what the time is. A man with two watches showing different times knows that one must be wrong, and therefore begins to consider the possibility that both might be.
The religious right are exceedingly defensive about their religion, jealous of it’s special place in US society, and hostile to any suggestion of alternatives because they are standing on the very very thin ice of religious certainty, like the man with one watch.
The world is becoming increasingly rational and communications and cross cultural knowledge are expanding. This is leaving the religious right less and less room to pretend there are no other watches or to pretend that (to the extent their are other watches) it is logical to ignore them and go on believing in the infallability of their own.
The result is a fevered shutting out of the ticking of other watches, like a child holding its hands over its ears screaming to prevent its older sibling telling it something it does not want to know.
All that other crap about unbelievers going to hell etc is just a cover for the basic underlying psychology, in my entirely unqualified and heavily prejudiced opinion.
I think this is unfair. One does not necessarily adamantly support a thing simply in the place of personal certainty. The same sort of accusations are leveled at people who are anti-gay rights (homophobia comes from repressed homosexual urges). I disagree with them, just as I disagree with the Religious Right, but that doesn’t mean they are dishonest. It’s simply irrational to argue that other people who are the most aggressive supporters of something – anything – are dishonest. Would it be fair to say that the most ardent atheists, those who are the most against religion, are universally doubtful and on the edge of becoming believers? I really don’t think so.
**
I think there is a grain of truth in what you are saying. America and the West is, slowly, moving away from being wholly dominated by Christian belief. It still is, but less so than in the past. This is alarming to conservative Christians – not necessarily because they are threatened but because it signals that fewer and fewer people are saved (in their reckoning). Society becoming less Christian (and therefore, having more believers in incorrect faiths or nonbelievers) is bad, and therefore the push should be made to reverse the situation. However, the situation is backfiring. The Pledge and “In God We Trust” on currency isn’t converting anyone, but the Religious Right very much wants America to stay a ‘Christian nation’ as they imagine it always was. (I don’t agree, but as I said, the dominance of Christian belief is clearly currently on the decline.)
I think the same desires occur in the left, though (in my opinion) less so. I don’t think every argument against teaching creationism in schools is simply because of separation of church and state – it’s because (to some opposers) it is a backward, wrong way of thinking that shouldn’t be taught at all. Everyone has some degree of confidence in their own beliefs and everyone has types of belief or religious thought that disturbs or upsets them.
Saying that the Religious Right are not true believers is simply wrong. While there may be limited numbers of individuals who are not wholly confident in their faith, it is belittling to assume that all the members of a particular line of thinking are insincere. Having a strong opinion is not necessarily a sign of weakness or of lack of faith – on the contrary, it is often a sign of faith that is too strong and too unchallenged.
You have a higher opinion of me than perhaps you should.
If someone were able irrefutably to show that there is no God, it would mean that it makes absolutely no difference what I did or did not do. To say that I “should” refrain from stealing or killing is to make a statement that is, in the most exactly and literal sense, meaningless. The word “should” is just a noise, and doesn’t refer to anything in the real world.
If there is no God, and I steal, I am committing an action which, in the long run, has no consequences. If I refrain from stealing, and there is no God, this also has no consequences. What then is the distinction between them?
If you flip a coin, and nothing depends on it, how is it meaningful to say that the coin “should” come up heads?
Suppose you are correct, and if atheism were proven somehow I continued to do what I attempt to do now, which is act “morally”. Certainly the fact that people act illogically is not justification for their actions.
No offense, but I do really mean what I say. The only valid basis for any morality is, in my opinion, God and His will. In that sense, my religion does define my entire morality - and all morality in general.
If you want to try to use empathy or a social conscience as the basis for a rationally established morality, go ahead. As far as I can tell, this quickly runs into the same problems as using any other non-theistic principle as the basis for moral reasoning. Those problems being as I have stated above.
Hold on there! I did not say that God was either physical or non-sentient.
And I don’t think we can avoid arguing semantics if none of the aspects of God can be discussed except “in the traditional sense”. In particular, I don’t think you can derive the creative aspect of God from a discussion of the basis of morality.
If that is where you are headed, have at it. But I am not here attempting a proof of the existence of God. I am granting (for the purposes of discussion) that atheism is true. What conclusions can we draw from that?
I am arguing that atheists who claim a valid morality are mistaking a blip in the “random dance of atoms” (Democritus) for a meaningful phenomenon. Any other blip would do as well or as poorly for a morality in the absence of the Divine.
There is another thread here in Great Debates in which atheists are being asked “What is the meaning and purpose of life?” Almost unanimously, the atheist response seems to be “there isn’t any”.
Which is pretty much what I am arguing they should say.
Perhaps so. We just haven’t established yet whether any authority can be right when it comes to morality.
We may question the basis of morality, or of any area of thought. If, however, we conclude that there is no basis for it, we err if we use any of it as if it were valid.
If we compare differing moral systems in an effort to decide which is valid, we have a chance of finding one. If we conclude that none of them are valid, there is no chance of proving that any action is moral or immoral.
What is the nature of the Secret Society of the Illuminati? Are they a conspiracy of powerful men, or are they space aliens? We can compare the different models to see which is more accurate. If we conclude, however, that no such society exists, statements like “You should do this because the Secret Society wants you to” are meaningless.
If you are proposing some system of morals by which we can judge the actions even of God, feel free. I imagine the same objections can be applied as can be to systems with no God at all.
Not sure I see the relevance of this.
Certainly people can be wrong about moral choices. If God exists, they can be wrong about what God wills. If no God exists, everyone is wrong who believes that any action is legitimate (or illegitimate).
People can be wrong in valid areas of human thought, and their mistakes do not invalidate the whole area. Maybe I can’t balance my checkbook, but this does not mean that all of arithmetic is wrong.
I don’t think I said this.
I thought I was being clear when I stated that I was not accusing atheists of wrongdoing. Nor do I think they are necessarily being dishonest. I think, however, that they are mistaken. Honestly mistaken.
While I don’t necessarily agree that it is impossible to discern God’s will, and therefore to reason morally, this is also almost beside the point. If God exists, then some sort of morality can be valid, even if we don’t know what it is. If He does not, then none can be established.
Which is what I have been arguing all along.
As far as arguing how to discern the moral will of God, I think that is a discussion of the natural law. Another fascinating topic, but one for another thread.
Regards,
Shodan
This is simply preposterous. I am not exagerrating at all when I say that I literally can’t understand how someone can make this argument. The word “should” never has any meaning unless it is followed by a clause beginning with the word “because.” And, AFAIC, “because God exists” is a far less satisfactory clause for governing human behavior than “because it benefits everyone more for you not to do certain things.”
In the long run, as the saying famously goes, we’re all dead. While your primary concern may be with what happens to you after that, most people’s primary concern is with what their actions mean right now. Your stealing has immediate consequences, in that it deprives somebody else of something that was not yours to take. If everyone is simply permitted to take whatever they want from others with impunity, it makes everyone worse off.
One increases human misery. The other does not. Doesn’t matter whether it’s long term or short term.
It’s never meaningful to say the coin “should” come up heads unless one outcome is preferable to another. If the coin flip is to determine who gets to kick off first in an NFL game, or who gets the last donut, the “should” is the same from each party’s perspective. If the coin flip is to determine whether or not to kill or rape somebody the “should” is rather obviously not the same from each party’s perspective.
And I think theists are honestly deluded (which is to say that they came by their delusions honestly and believe them honestly, but are nonetheless deluded), so where does that leave us?
If there is no God, and you steal, there are very real consequences: You will know you have hurt someone through your theft, and will feel guilt/shame from this knowledge. I am assuming you have a moral conscience, like everyone else except for sociopaths. You may be caught and punished, and your reputation ruined. These aren’t eternal consequences, but they can make life suck.
I’m not sure I get you here. I’m talking about deliberate moral choice, not random chance.
I don’t see it as “illogical” for people to behave in a way that promotes trust and cooperation, that is: morally.
**
No offense taken.
We just see things in a different way.
But you did say you might define a “transcendent principle” as “God”. I’d say that believing in such a principle would not disqualify someone from being an atheist.
Let me try this again…
The point I was trying to make there was that it would be disingeuous to tell an atheist that because he holds a particular principle, even of transcendent origin, that principle is his “God” and therefore he’s not really an atheist.
Furthermore, I think it is presumptuous to infer that atheists must not believe there is any meaning to life–just because it is not the same as the conclusive, universal spiritual meaning a theist might define doesn’t mean there is a necessary lack of purpose for the atheist. To the contrary, the atheist could easily derive a constructed meaning of life based on what she finds value in… or what humanity in general finds value in.
Fine. But you were arguing the basis must be of divine nature–I see no compelling argument why we must conclude that.
Certainly. If, for example, God were to kill all the first-born of Egypt when he could have just killed the stupid Pharoh and spared the lived of innocents who had no say in the decision to free the Hebrews, I would personally view that God as acting as immorally as a terrorist who kills random civilians.
One inherent value of such a moral system that does not depend on God is that it does not depend on the existence of God (which is unverifiable either way).
The relevance of the quote you referred to is simple. A God-based morality is no more valid than a Dubya-based morality or a Stalin-based morality–even if we knew God’s will, there is nothing to indicate whether that will is right or wrong… unless morality is not dependent on God. In that case, even God’s actions could be deemed moral or immoral.
That’s not what I heard the first time around. You said, “It strikes me that atheists who argue a morality have more experience of the reality of a transcendent, moral God than they care to admit!” That certainly implied some degree of dishonesty.
Both of those are complete non sequiturs. How does the existence of God imply morality any more than the existence of aliens or black holes or pink dolphins implies morality? Where is the logic that automatically negates morality in the absence of a higher authority? To the contrary, the very fact that humans suffer or inflict suffering, are happy or promote happiness implies more in the way of visible moral yardstick than does any supernatural explanation.
But it’s the Religious Right that refuse to accept that idea. If they would just agree to restrict their argumnents to what is a good idea, and stop telling people to do things based on what they think God wants, we would listen to them.
You do not see how the following stement could be read that way?
I said “ignorant or dishonest”, and I never said it was “I disagree with your suppositions” that I intepreted that way.
There’s a huge difference between “you should consider the possiblity that you’re wrong” and “there’s simply no way you could be right”.
You can call it God all you; that does not make it God.
If I believe in several transcendent principles, would you call me a polytheist?
You’re the one making claims here.
I did not say that you had said it, only that you had created that impression.
If that’s what “morality” means, then why did humans go to the trouble of creating a separate word for it? And why do Christians have to convince people of it? Why not just state “morality is defined as being God’s will”? The fact that they go to so much trouble to convince people of the equivalence suggests that there is something in the word “morality” that people do not see in the phrase “God’s will”. Furthermore, once you see atheists use the word “morality”, even though they don’t believe in God, it must be obvious that they have some conception of “morality” which is different from simply being defined in terms of God’s will. So why do you insist on using the word “morality” in a way you know is different from what other people mean by it? And finally, if “morality” has no meaning beyond that of “God’s will”, why should we act morally?
No. Nor did I advance that broad proposition. One might support a thing simply in the place of personal certainty, although even ascribing that proposition to my last post would be oversimplifying
Agreed. Not of itself.
Correct. Just as well I didn’t say that, isn’t it?
Universally? No. But I was certainly a much more proselytising atheist in my teens, when the last vestiges of my family religious background were being thrown away. Likewise most religious people I know who have undergone a conversion, or a period of uncertainty about their religion.
We will just have to agree to disagree here. I have observed what I have observed, and I have made my judgement call. I think that the religious right’s actions go further than religiously motivated desire to save others, and have gone over into defensiveness based on a desire to circle the wagons around their own faith.
Certainly. Every religion needs a critical mass of persons all with the same watch. Otherwise, there is too much exposure to “incorrect faiths and nonbelievers” for which read people looking at other contradictory watches.
Agreed. But I don’t think that is a primary motivation. Creationism has much more to lose from the idea of evolution than the other way around.
Agreed. They are true believers. Maintaining a true edge on a knife is not something that occurs of itself, particularly in this hard and corrosive environment in which we live. So we oil our knives to keep out the outside world, and we sharpen them by rubbing them against something hard. And the crappier the blade the more of this we have to do to keep it true.
I assume I don’t need to spell out the analogy.
Indeed. And if we assume that the religious right would benefit from the faith of it’s flock being strong, they would presumably therefore wish that faith to remain unchallenged.
Circle the wagons, boys.
On thinking about my last post further, I realise there is one element of my views on religion that, if mentioned, perhaps helps resolve the apparent conflict between fluiddruid’s suggestion that I am calling the religious right dishonest, and my view that I am not.
I do think that all the “saving souls” stuff is crap, and a cover for the real reason for defensiveness and proselytising. But I don’t think that those espousing it necessarily do not believe in that stuff. I just think that the real reason for the existence of those concepts in the religion in the first place is to keep out the ticking of other watches, and to strengthen faith in the single watch that is religious faith.
Religions come and go, but those that do not have builit in elements that result in their continued existence do not last long.
Different elements of a religion get emphasised and de-emphasised at various times depending upon how those that practice it feel at any given time. We can all think of aspects of the Bible that are conveniently ignored at present because they do not fit current thinking.
At the moment, the Christian religion is under pressure in some ways as outlined in my first post. So those elements of the Christian religion that help in that situation come to the fore. That does not mean that those doing so are dishonest or insincere. It just means that they are taking those elements of their religion that they perceive will help with their current problem, and espousing them rigorously.
Ryan, more kudos from me for your last post!
Princhester, the last two were good!
Maybe we three should go bowling or fishing sometime.
:tinkling over, carry on:
Princhester, I apologize if I oversimplified your position. Let me respond to some specific points:
**
How interesting. My experience is opposite. I was far more comfortable proselytizing as a Christian when I was secure in my faith – when I was teetering on the edge of agnosticism, I was less likely to do so (but more likely to bring up religion generally). I suppose it is possible for the opposite to occur, but I don’t see it as necessarily more prevalent.
**
I wouldn’t disagree with you. However I think that the basis of the religious right’s actions in favor of government sponsorship is in desire to save and to spread their religion. I would not disagree that defensiveness is not part of it – I certainly agree (as I discussed how Christianity is less dominant and the effect of that).
I think my major disagreement was dispelled here:
In so long as we agree that there isn’t dishonesty or misrepresentation involved, I don’t really have a problem. I’m not sure if I completely agree that proselytizing is necessarily to drive out interest in other religious convictions amongst the faithful, though I am certain that this does occur. I think proselytizing can be born out of genuine concern and/or out of a desire to share with others something that is personally rewarding. Everyone wants to talk about things that are important to them and everyone wants. to a certain extent, other people to understand them and how they think and feel. I think proselytizing is often borne out of that need to share.
**
That’s true. However, that’s not necessarily why the individual believer passes it on. Of course, in the case of Christianity, I do believe that honest believers want other people to be Christian, for both the reason that Christianity should survive (as, to them, the one true faith) and to save souls.
You continue:
I think this is, to a certain extent, true. I don’t think it’s a good idea to (as I believe you have) present the Christian religion as homogenous, or somehow behaving as an entity. Individual believers have a lot of different motivations, often having very little to do with what the religion itself needs to thrive or survive (while this may, at times, occur). I do agree with your last sentence, however.
I’d have to say I do. I thought that it was a common euphemism that "there’s no one more fervent than a recent convert.
Anyhow, neither of us is suggesting that the position is entirely one way or the other, so there’s not much disagreement between us.
Agreed. I was talking about the religious right in particular. And I certainly agree that there would be major difference even within that denomination. It’s hard to avoid generalising when discussing such topics.
Ah, but is that necessarily because of a lack of surety? I can certainly see some other options – youthful exuberance, inexperience, the wish to stand out amongst one’s new peers, etc.
True enough. It’s just that to talk about the motivation behind proselytizing implies that you mean Christians as a whole, as Christianity is a religion in which proselytizing is (while not universal) very common and perceived by some as necessary.