Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity is Morally Bankrupt
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 196 of 652 (695025)
04-01-2013 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Tangle
04-01-2013 5:32 PM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
Tangle writes:
I suspect that you know that the evidence you accept is a bit less than inconclusive.
It may be inconclusive but I suggest that the atheistic position is a great deal more inconclusive than the theistic one.
Instead of showing where the evidence is faulty you just dismiss it and don't provide any evidence for the atheistic position. What evidence do you have for atheism?
Tangle writes:
From what you say, you went looking for an answer and, not surprisingly, you found one.
I was looking for truth, knowing that it becomes belief in the end as does everyone else. Certainly nobody starts out with a completely blank slate.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2013 5:32 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2013 1:05 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 200 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2013 3:51 AM GDR has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 197 of 652 (695030)
04-01-2013 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by purpledawn
04-01-2013 6:57 PM


Re: Christianity Today
An that's where you said that some of you feel these ideas are destructive. That deals with action, but you won't address the actions.
You asked about a definition so I linked back to where I gave one.
Now you ask about when I addressed actions and so I will also link back to where I dealt with that....in a reply.... to you.
Message 186
Jazzns previously to PD writes:
Regarding the notion that those beliefs can be destructive, a destructive belief could simply cause a person to wallow in ignorance and live their entire life with unnecessary guilt and anxiety. It doesn't have to cause them to do a damn thing. It certainly could and likely does, but I did not join this conversation to talk about the evil actions of people and how they are motivated or not by religion.
I don't feel you and Tangle are really interested in the value. I feel the attempt is to cry immoral and lump beliefs together, but not really address the value the beliefs have for Christians.
I have barely had a chance to discuss the issues of the morality of ideas. The one main point I have made thus far regarding agency and intent seems to me like a fruitful foil for discussion. That is a far cry from the trivialization you are applying in attempt to diminish criticism. I for one have not tried to lump beliefs together, just because I believe the term "Christianity" can mean something in a proper context without needing to be sliced to death with caveats doesn't mean I don't realize that there are exceptions including the people who have joined this thread such as you, GDR, and jar. I have even said as much (Message 184).
Just as you squawked because you felt I was too literal about moral bankruptcy, your side may be viewing the doctrines (when we can discern real doctrine out of that mess) too literally.
And that is a fine criticism to make of Tangle's argument! Welcome to the debate about the ideas!
As Christians try to explain the value, the opposition just cries immoral, useless, imaginary, myth, etc.
Well no. Tangle did not just say the ideas were immoral for no reason. He gives a reason involving the circumstances of someone's birth. Its right there in his words that you decided to quote. That is the exact opposite of what you are claiming, once again.
Take God as real to cry immoral but fake when it suits.
Yea. As it turns out, some things can both be fake AND immoral.
I didn't proclaim you off topic in my first post to you. (Message 95) I don't see that I did in any response. We just had a difference of opinion on what moral bankruptcy is.
There very first line you wrote to me in this thread was to suggest that I wasn't talking about moral bankruptcy. How you were able to do that considering what I had said up to that point is only possible according to your narrowing of what YOU considered eligible for discussion under your wikipedia definition. You did not reply to the points I was trying to make at all.
I was moving away from "moral bankruptcy" and just looking at the morality of the ideas. My post didn't deal with moral bankruptcy. But your response asked "why would I assume we weren't talking about moral bankruptcy?" and blew off my points concerning vicarious redemption.
Because you were arguing about the technicality of whether Jesus applies as vicarious redemption while my point in my response to Nukes was about why it is possible for an idea such as vicarious redemption can be called immoral.
I could have used a different example of what some people consider vicarious redemption but there is the REALLY handy one available that happened to be related to this thread. We can argue if the case of Jesus is a case of vicarious redemption. I have made the argument in Message 184 that in fact many Christians do believe that it is. That, I believe is enough to have a conversation about the morality of this idea that many Christians do accept.
gave the definition I was using in Message 77. Neither you, nor the originator corrected my impression. In Message 80, he said he meant something different, but didn't elaborate.
Shouldn't that have been your first clue to perhaps be a little bit more charitable with what was being asked in the OP? He had no idea about your wikipedia definition and thus was not following you on your tightrope walk. As for correcting your impression, I think I have been trying to do that for quite a few replies now.
You say he talking about the negative quality of the ideas and I'm being to pedantic. But you didn't provide any support that that is what moral bankruptcy is.
That is because I don't particularly care about creating a perfect definition of moral bankruptcy. I am perfectly happy with a general understanding of what is being asked in the OP taking it as a whole. It is about ideas common to many forms of Christianity and their morality as ideas.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by purpledawn, posted 04-01-2013 6:57 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by purpledawn, posted 04-02-2013 6:00 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 198 of 652 (695031)
04-01-2013 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by GDR
04-01-2013 2:38 PM


Re: Hell as a choice....really?
I don’t see it as a choice made in a single moment of time. I see it more as a trajectory of the choices that we make.
Compared to eternity, the lifetime of a human being is essentially an instant. How many examples do we need of people who within less than a 20 year time frame go from being a selfish and destructive youth to a more wise and able adult? What would another 100, 1000 years do to the psyche of a human being to make a choice about something as daunting as ETERNITY if they could live that long.
Lets use space as an analogy for time. Compared to the eternity, our galaxy is infinitely small. If you then started out from earth and before you left orbit you were on a trajectory that wrong by smaller than our instruments could detect. If you could not course correct, then at distances akin to the size of our galaxy (which remember is infinitely small) you will go wildly off course. You would be considered a fool, worse than an idiot, to go our on this finite journey without the ability to change directions some vast distance along the way, and in ALL of that, we still only talking about things that are limited.
What you are suggesting, is that the trajectory of a miserably small human lifetime, can say something about how a human will be for an immeasurable amount of time after that.
It is plainly ridiculous.
If however you decide to donate to the same third world charity by announcing it in front of a group of people in order for them to see what a generous guy you are then it ceases to be a moral act. The act is the same but the morality is different.
Perhaps. Where there is a difference in morality between those two things I think it is trivial and hardly worth considering.
So I go back to saying that there does seem to be a moral standard that is universally true that has nothing to do with the consensus of individual societies and of course that standard is essentiallyto do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Societal consensus may or may not adhere to that universal standard but I think that we would both agree that if they did we would live in a much better world.
I think things such as morals being universal, eternal, standard, is trying way too hard to make a point that only needs to be made if you are trying to prop up an idea, such as God, that desperately needs the support. It makes morality something that is really hard to define because it has to be so precise.
But the morality we use on a day to day basis is much more important to us. It is the morality we agree upon that we value the most because we don't have to look at unevidenced things to apply it.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by GDR, posted 04-01-2013 2:38 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by GDR, posted 04-02-2013 11:28 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 199 of 652 (695032)
04-02-2013 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by GDR
04-01-2013 7:26 PM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
Instead of showing where the evidence is faulty you just dismiss it and don't provide any evidence for the atheistic position. What evidence do you have for atheism?
Well, you know the evidence for aporcovolantism? The same evidence does for both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by GDR, posted 04-01-2013 7:26 PM GDR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 200 of 652 (695037)
04-02-2013 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by GDR
04-01-2013 7:26 PM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
GDR writes:
It may be inconclusive but I suggest that the atheistic position is a great deal more inconclusive than the theistic one.
There's too much short hand in the labels being used here.
There's evidence for and against a god that may or may not have created the universe and there's evidence for and against a particular religion that worships that God. Deism and Theism in other words.
Believers understandably fuse the two and atheists get bored of having to point out that the difference is vital. Most atheists would say if asked, that they do not believe in any theistic postion because the evidence is not only non-existent but actually proveably wrong, but would concede a roughly agnostic position on deism.
quote:
Instead of showing where the evidence is faulty you just dismiss it and don't provide any evidence for the atheistic position. What evidence do you have for atheism?
Now that's unworthy of you. Surely I don't need to take you through the Russell teapot stuff?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by GDR, posted 04-01-2013 7:26 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by GDR, posted 04-02-2013 10:31 AM Tangle has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 201 of 652 (695039)
04-02-2013 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Jazzns
04-01-2013 11:26 PM


Re: Christianity Today
quote:
There very first line you wrote to me in this thread was to suggest that I wasn't talking about moral bankruptcy. How you were able to do that considering what I had said up to that point is only possible according to your narrowing of what YOU considered eligible for discussion under your wikipedia definition. You did not reply to the points I was trying to make at all.
I said we, not you and my response clarified that it wasn't about you and yet you persist in a false accusation.
You don't think I was addressing your points, I thought I was.
quote:
That is because I don't particularly care about creating a perfect definition of moral bankruptcy. I am perfectly happy with a general understanding of what is being asked in the OP taking it as a whole. It is about ideas common to many forms of Christianity and their morality as ideas.
Complain because we don't get it, but don't really want to help. Nice.
Apparently we are unable to communicate clearly with each other.
Have a great day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Jazzns, posted 04-01-2013 11:26 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Jazzns, posted 04-02-2013 10:58 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 202 of 652 (695052)
04-02-2013 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Tangle
04-02-2013 3:51 AM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
Tangle writes:
Believers understandably fuse the two and atheists get bored of having to point out that the difference is vital. Most atheists would say if asked, that they do not believe in any theistic postion because the evidence is not only non-existent but actually proveably wrong, but would concede a roughly agnostic position on deism.
I understand the difference between theims and deism but as a starting point you have to look at whether you conclude that there is any intelligent agent responsible for life. Only at that point can you decide to believe whether that agent continues to be involved or not. An atheist believes that there is no intelligent agent period. If you are a deist then it is a different discussion. Just to say that your agnostic about whether we are the result of an intelligent agent just an easy out. What is it that you believe and why?
Tangle writes:
Now that's unworthy of you. Surely I don't need to take you through the Russell teapot stuff?
That's a total cop-out. I didn't ask you to prove theism wrong. I looked at things that we know. Your claim as an atheist is that incredibly complex cells somehow formed from non-intelligent particles and then evolved into incredibly complex life forms some of which are intelligent and capable of morality all without any pre-existing intelligence being involved. What evidence or rationale do you have for making this case.
I looked at the evidence and gave my rationale for my theistic beliefs and even went further and gave my rationale for my Christianity. I'm just asking that you look at the evidence and tell me how it is that it points you to atheism. I'm not asking you to prove that there is no god.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2013 3:51 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Stile, posted 04-02-2013 11:11 AM GDR has replied
 Message 207 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2013 1:16 PM GDR has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 203 of 652 (695054)
04-02-2013 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by purpledawn
04-02-2013 6:00 AM


Re: Christianity Today
You don't think I was addressing your points, I thought I was.
I don't know, maybe you just decided to pick my post as a jumping off point to make a comment about the general course the conversaion was taking, but what it looked like to me was that you were complaining that I wasn't talking about the morality of the ideas which is exactly what I had been talking about with Nukes. I tried to clear that up with you by saying exactly what I thought, that nothing you said had to do with the points I raised about agency. I still don't even know if you have an issue with what I said regarding agency because after I gave you the defintion of agency that I was using, you stopped talking about it.
Complain because we don't get it, but don't really want to help. Nice.
I never said that you don't get it. I think you get it just fine. I think you see a way to strengthen the landscape by which you argue your position by narrowing the debate to the morality of actions instead of what the author of the OP was asking which is about the morality of ideas. I think what you are doing is very deliberate and reasoned.
Also, I am trying to fix the issue. I think the problem IS THE FOCUS on such a precise definition of moral bankruptcy involving actions, to choke out the discussion about the morality of ideas. How can you say that I don't want to help? Is it just because I am comfortable with not having an exact replacement for your wikipedia definition of a single phrase from the OP? If so, what is wrong with that?
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by purpledawn, posted 04-02-2013 6:00 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(5)
Message 204 of 652 (695055)
04-02-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by GDR
04-02-2013 10:31 AM


It's important
An atheist believes that there is no intelligent agent period.
Not really. I'm sure that it can seem this way. But this isn't really how I feel about it, anyway.
Perhaps an atheist just doesn't think the question merits a response. Because (to the Atheist) it is... an unnecessary question.
as a starting point you have to look at whether you conclude that there is any intelligent agent responsible for life.
Why?
Why do we have to look at concluding whether or not an intelligent agent is responsible for life?
When watching a hockey game on TV, we do not have to look at concluding whether or not the game is happening live, or with a 7 second delay, or with a 10 minute delay, or with a 6 year delay.
It may be important to some people.
But it's not important to all people.
It is also not important in order to enjoy the level of hockey that is being displayed on the TV.
I don't think anyone has to conclude anything about whether or not an intelligent agent is responsible for life.
Your claim as an atheist is that incredibly complex cells somehow formed from non-intelligent particles and then evolved into incredibly complex life forms some of which are intelligent and capable of morality all without any pre-existing intelligence being involved. What evidence or rationale do you have for making this case.
We are here.
We are able to understand and observe some natural stuff (processes, growth, decomposition, systems, physics, chemistry...).
We are able to understand and observe some natural stuff that yields incredible, wondrous results.
Out of the natural stuff we're able to observe and understand, we do not find any indication that an intelligent agent was required at any point in time.
Some of this natural stuff is boring. Like paint drying (...I mean that as a literal example.. wait, maybe not... the physics involved in paint drying is actually kinda cool... phase transitions and stuff). Like dandruff.
Some of this natural stuff is incredibly wondrous. Like computers and the "quantum world" and vision.
Throughout all the stuff we have... every single piece of natural stuff that we've ever been able to understand, and observe has always, without fail shown us that no external intelligence has ever been required. The natural stuff just happens on it's own.
Sure, there's some natural stuff that we are currently unable to understand, or observe as much as we would like due to limitations of our current technology.
However, we have not discovered... *ever*... even a single piece of natural stuff that actually required an intelligent agent to intervene before it could happen all by itself.
I just extrapolate from what we know.
If we are ever able to understand and observe some natural stuff that did actually require an intelligent agent in order to come about in the context of biological life... then I would begin to think that an intelligent agent (creator) may be required. But, we have yet to find this, so I don't begin to think that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by GDR, posted 04-02-2013 10:31 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by GDR, posted 04-03-2013 6:47 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 205 of 652 (695059)
04-02-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Jazzns
04-01-2013 11:54 PM


Re: Hell as a choice....really?
Jazzns writes:
Compared to eternity, the lifetime of a human being is essentially an instant. How many examples do we need of people who within less than a 20 year time frame go from being a selfish and destructive youth to a more wise and able adult? What would another 100, 1000 years do to the psyche of a human being to make a choice about something as daunting as ETERNITY if they could live that long.
Lets use space as an analogy for time. Compared to the eternity, our galaxy is infinitely small. If you then started out from earth and before you left orbit you were on a trajectory that wrong by smaller than our instruments could detect. If you could not course correct, then at distances ak in to the size of our galaxy (which remember is infinitely small) you will go wildly off course. You would be considered a fool, worse than an idiot, to go our on this finite journey without the ability to change directions some vast distance along the way, and in ALL of that, we still only talking about things that are limited.
What you are suggesting, is that the trajectory of a miserably small human lifetime, can say something about how a human will be for an immeasurable amount of time after that.
It is plainly ridiculous.
Let us start from the other end. God’s goal IMHO, is that when everything is re-created that the society that evolves out of that re-creation is characterized by the fact that they care for others as much as they care for themselves. If those who choose not to live by those principles continue to exist within that society then we are right back where we are today and nothing has changed.
Sure I would like to see all life adhere to those principles so that all would be part of that society but on if they ultimately choose to reject that basic principle in favour of looking out for number one then that is their choice. I’d suggest that in this life time a great many people do establish that trajectory towards selflessness but that also many reject it. Is that then the last word on it for those whose hearts remain stubbornly selfish? Nobody knows, however, I’ll go back to CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce and in his metaphorical dream it would indicate that he didn’t think it was, and that would be consistent with my own views. (How would a child who dies at a young age establish any kind of trajectory towards having a heart that embraces selflessness for example?)
My signature is from the book of Micah, and if he got it right, (and I’d suggest that is consistent with the whole Biblical narrative), then God asks that we are to be a people whose hearts lead them to be kind, (other translations have merciful) and just. If that is the case then it stands to reason that God Himself would be kind and/or merciful and jus,t and I believe that there will be perfect merciful justice done in the end.
GDR writes:
If however you decide to donate to the same third world charity by announcing it in front of a group of people in order for them to see what a generous guy you are then it ceases to be a moral act. The act is the same but the morality is different.
Jazzns writes:
Perhaps. Where there is a difference in morality between those two things I thi nk it is trivial and hardly worth considering.
I disagree completely. Our individual morality is based on our core values. If our charity is based on our concern for other’s opinions then, in terms of our discussion, we continue to have hearts that are essentially selfish.
Jazzns writes:
I think things such as morals being universal, eternal, standard, is trying way too hard to make a point that only needs to be made if you are trying to prop up an idea, such as God, that desperately needs the support. It makes morality something that is really hard to define because it has to be so precise.
But the morality we use on a day to day basis is much more important to us. It is the morali ty we agree upon that we value the most because we don't have to look at unevidenced things to apply it.
Do you maintain then that the concept of treating others as you would like them to treat you is not a universal standard of morality?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Jazzns, posted 04-01-2013 11:54 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-02-2013 12:07 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 211 by Jazzns, posted 04-03-2013 11:11 AM GDR has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 206 of 652 (695062)
04-02-2013 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by GDR
04-02-2013 11:28 AM


Re: Hell as a choice....really?
GDR writes:
Do you maintain then that the concept of treating others as you would like them to treat you is not a universal standard of morality?
Definitely not a Universal standard of morality because of the small flaw that exists within the proposition. While I will agree that in most cases this idea is a wonderful thought that leads to moral behavior, you must think about the strange cases to see that it cannot be Universal
For example:
"Susan is suicidal. She just wishes that somebody would shoot her and put her out of her misery. The principle of Do unto others says that she could permissibly go around shooting others, since she would not mind if somebody else shot her."
Obviously, this is an extreme example, but it shows where the problem lies. Think about people who enjoy pain, is it okay for them to then inflict pain on others?
Another great example:
"Jack’s sister Jill is claustrophobic. When playing around the house, Jack does not at all mind being forced into a dark and confined place — like a closet — and locked in. However, Jill goes into a state of total panic in this type of situation. Do unto others says that Jack, while playing around the house with Jill, can go ahead and lock Jill in the closet. He would not mind this happening to him, so he may do this to Jill."
See, even in such a small thing as being afraid of the dark there are differences in how each individual would react to it. Do unto others is a great rule of thumb, but it fails at being an absolute, or Universal, morality. Perhaps, if it were combined with the idea of "Do unto others as they would have done unto them" it may come closer because at least then the receiver of any action should enjoy it because it is what he or she wanted.
source

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by GDR, posted 04-02-2013 11:28 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2013 3:27 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 207 of 652 (695078)
04-02-2013 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by GDR
04-02-2013 10:31 AM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
GDR writes:
I understand the difference between theims and deism but as a starting point you have to look at whether you conclude that there is any intelligent agent responsible for life.
Not at all. I can legitimately conclude that Christianity is bunkum without having a moment's thought about whether a God exists or not. It fails on its own terms. Which is, I would guess, how you feel about all the other religions that are not Christianity.
However, if I did agree that we had to start with deciding that there was a God or not - regardless of what kind, I would conclude that if there is, it is certainly not the kind of interventionist god that behaves in the way Christians tell us he does - sending his son to earth, performing miracles, answering prayers and so on. That is plainly absurd and it totally unsupported by any evidence. (In fact, flatly contradicted by the evidence.)
An atheist believes that there is no intelligent agent period.
More or less; but it's more nuanced than that because:
Just to say that your agnostic about whether we are the result of an intelligent agent just an easy out. What is it that you believe and why?
It's the opposite of an easy out - it's an admission that there is room for doubt. The position is best explained by the Atheist Bus campaign here in the UK, "There probably is no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life"
The wording of the proposed advert caused considerable debate amongst atheists and Christians alike and Sherine discussed it in a post-launch article, "Probably the best atheist bus campaign ever", on the Guardian's "Comment Is Free" section.[27] Dawkins stated that he preferred the wording "There is almost certainly no God".[28] Ariane Sherine claims it is necessary to be factually accurate,[27] and that as it is impossible to disprove the existence of God it is only possible to say one 'probably' does not exist. Critic D. J. Taylor felt that this qualification let the campaign down, but admired it for introducing some tentativeness into an often polarised debate,[29] while atheists including A. C. Grayling[30] think that they can be certain there is no God and therefore the word 'probably' should not be used.
Atheist Bus Campaign - Wikipedia
I didn't ask you to prove theism wrong. I looked at things that we know. Your claim as an atheist is that incredibly complex cells somehow formed from non-intelligent particles and then evolved into incredibly complex life forms some of which are intelligent and capable of morality all without any pre-existing intelligence being involved. What evidence or rationale do you have for making this case.
The evidence is to be found in the sciences and the fact that we have never found any evidence for anything other that natural processes. But this is not the place to discuss all that - there are a thousand other threads here that do.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by GDR, posted 04-02-2013 10:31 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by GDR, posted 04-03-2013 7:12 PM Tangle has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 208 of 652 (695085)
04-02-2013 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-02-2013 12:07 PM


Do Unto Others
For example:
"Susan is suicidal. She just wishes that somebody would shoot her and put her out of her misery. The principle of Do unto others says that she could permissibly go around shooting others, since she would not mind if somebody else shot her."
I think this is trivially stupid. That interpretation of "do unto others" would appear sane only to someone who was acutely autistic. For the rest of us, we would reason that since I want other people to do things that make me happy, therefore by the Golden Rule I should do things to other people that make them happy. Obviously a certain amount of abstraction is required.
And we do, after all, know what it actually means. You are not genuinely confused, such that you think that Jesus really meant that if you're a masochist you should go around whipping people. You're just being disingenuous.
And I think this is shown by how people have in fact interpreted the Golden Rule. People have interpreted the Bible in horrible hideous ways, and used it to justify war and genocide and slavery and whatever. But I can't think of any case where someone said: "Well, the Bible says love thy neighbor as thyself, so since I'm kinky and like being tortured, I tortured my neighbor." No-one has ever misunderstood Jesus that way, even with a motive, even as an excuse --- so I think when you misunderstand him this way you're doing it deliberately.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-02-2013 12:07 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Tangle, posted 04-02-2013 4:03 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 210 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-03-2013 10:34 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 209 of 652 (695086)
04-02-2013 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Dr Adequate
04-02-2013 3:27 PM


Re: Do Unto Others
DrAdequate writes:
I think this is trivially stupid
Me too.
But I congratulate you on you're restraint, that's the very best interpretation.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2013 3:27 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 210 of 652 (695131)
04-03-2013 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Dr Adequate
04-02-2013 3:27 PM


Re: Do Unto Others
Dr A writes:
I think this is trivially stupid.
I agree that this reading of the moral code is ridiculous. However, I was simply trying to use these examples as reasoning for why it is not a Universal moral code. For something to be universal, at least to myself, it is required to work in all situations. As this can fall apart in these ridiculous scenarios, it would seem to me that the code of "Do unto others", while brilliant in its simplicity and basic meaning, cannot be called a Universal moral code, as was being stated.
Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2013 3:27 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 04-03-2013 11:20 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied
 Message 213 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2013 11:49 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024