Atheists and theists: Endless confrontations

[westprog]

No, they can't. Again, we don't live in a democracy--we have rules about what can and cannot be voted for. We cannot, for example, vote that all Hispanics be enslaved--that violates an amendment. We can't vote to disband the SCOTUS--it violates the Constitution. We can't vote to deny women the right to vote--it violates an amendment. The average people cannot overturn anything in the Constitution or its amendments, any treaties, or the majority of federal laws. We live in a representative republic.

He believes in democracy. I doubt he'd see the problem with letting the majority do whatever they want, for whatever reason strikes their fancy.

It's been clearly demonstrated that religions in our day and age don't generate moral norms, but rather co-opt them.

I already explained that the ability of the voters to control what happens is limited in other ways. Whether or not the USA is actually a democracy is a matter of semantics. It's certainly the case that democracy operates in the USA, and that voters can have whatever motivation they want for choosing their representative, and if they elect Michelle Bachmann as President, President she will be.

And the average people can change anything they like about the constitution, subject to the rules that allow them to do exactly that. How did the constitution come into existence? It wasn't handed down from heaven on stone tablets.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

It's fairly clear - there are worrying people out there who rely on the Bible for morality, which proves that they lack normal empathy, and hence are likely to "commit murder" say, if the Bible ceases to provide answers.

This diagnosis of Bible following as evidence of psychopathy is fairly unusual. If it were true (and luckily it isn't) then discussing atheism with a fervent Bible believing Christian would be highly irresponsible, as it would probably lead to the creation of a consciousless super-criminal.

Could you please read the bolded and italicised parts of my post?

My point was that if the only thing preventing someone from committing murder is the bible, and someone else proved that the bible is not a good book of reference for anything, then what is there to prevent the person from murdering?

I'm not saying that "someone who holds the bible in high regard is incapable of contributing to society in a meaningful way". I would never say that.

I'm saying that people who purely depend on the bible (and nothing else) for their morality are missing some vital pieces of information, such as the changes which have happened over the past millennia since its publication.

Also, they are missing the inherent feeling of care which prevents most people from committing murder, or else they wouldn't really need the bible for morality.

I think that most people who say that "without the bible, there is no morality" are actually perfectly capable of being moral people without the bible.

It's the small group who actually do need the bible which I worry about.

Thank you for doing so.

 

[westprog]

Could you please read the bolded and italicised parts of my post?



Thank you for doing so.

Which group remains tantalisingly unquantified. So how many of these Bible-controlled psychos are there? Enough to be worried about, certainly.

 

[muzungu100]

I think that most people who say that "without the bible, there is no morality" are actually perfectly capable of being moral people without the bible.

It's the small group who actually do need the bible which I worry about.

I would be interested in how you define a "moral" person if you have no absolute authority to refer to.

In order to save time I am agnostic.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Which group remains tantalisingly unquantified. So how many of these Bible-controlled psychos are there? Enough to be worried about, certainly.

I was positing that if someone really needs the bible for morality, then they need professional help.

Because the people who really need the bible to prevent them from going on a killing spree could well be the same people who find a passage in the bible which condones mass murder.

I didn't say that I know that those people exist (although the guys who flew the planes into the WTC towers could fall into this category), merely that I would be worried if they did.

 

[westprog]

I would be interested in how you define a "moral" person if you have no absolute authority to refer to.

In order to save time I am agnostic.

It's a problem isn't it, if the only people who are allowed to pass laws are the people who don't believe that any given moral system is more true than any other?

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I would be interested in how you define a "moral" person if you have no absolute authority to refer to.

In order to save time I am agnostic.

If you are agnostic, then you would probably agree that any claim to "God-given objective morality" is nonsense, since you would say that we don't know if God exists, so how can we know whether that morality is objective, let alone from God.

Right?

I think that morality is evolutionary, thus it is by definition subjective, since it comes from us, and we are subjective creatures.

But if we can agree on a set of moral ground rules, and build on those (as has been done a lot), then we can build a good system, without ever aving to crave an objective source of morality.

(If anyone knows more about the subject of evolutionary morality, and can correct me, please let me know)

 

[muzungu100]

If you are agnostic, then you would probably agree that any claim to "God-given objective morality" is nonsense, since you would say that we don't know if God exists, so how can we know whether that morality is objective, let alone from God.

Right?

I think that morality is evolutionary, thus it is by definition subjective, since it comes from us, and we are subjective creatures.

But if we can agree on a set of moral ground rules, and build on those (as has been done a lot), then we can build a good system, without ever aving to crave an objective source of morality.

(If anyone knows more about the subject of evolutionary morality, and can correct me, please let me know)

So how do we know what a good system is?

A morality based on evolutionary biology would have no problem with removing from the gene pool those who we have compassion for but serve no purpose. Why would we feel that?

Not sure about subjective morality, certainly not on an individual basis.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

So how do we know what a good system is?

A morality based on evolutionary biology would have no problem with removing from the gene pool those who we have compassion for but serve no purpose. Why would we feel that?

Evolution gave us the ability to form morality. That doesn't mean we have to clinically remove everyone who isn't contributing.

Evolution has no purpose, it just happens.

In the same way, morality has no purpose, it just occurred, and it helped us to become more organised.

What we do with it is up to us. I vote for reducing the amount of killing, and improving life for everyone.

Not sure about subjective morality, certainly not on an individual basis.

Well, where would an objective morality come from? If it's from us, then how can we tell that it's objective? If not from us, then from where?

 

[Pup]

A morality based on evolutionary biology would have no problem with removing from the gene pool those who we have compassion for but serve no purpose. Why would we feel that?

By definition, a morality based on evolutionary biology includes compassion, because we're the product of our ancestors, and we feel compassion. Compassion is clearly helpful to our species, or those who felt it wouldn't have outcompeted those who didn't.

It's easy to think up lots of reasons that compassion would be useful. For example, having an abundance of compassion for the weak and helpless, contributes to a species' survival, when its offspring are weak and helpless much longer than most other species' offspring.

 

[muzungu100]

Well, where would an objective morality come from? If it's from us, then how can we tell that it's objective? If not from us, then from where?

If it is from us, then it is by definition subjective, then why is anybodies' morality any more valid than anybody elses? I choose to be a serial murderer, that is my personal morality, why is that "wrong". That is just an imaginary position by the way!

I have no idea where from if it does, but most people (not all) have an instinctive idea as to what is right and wrong. If it is just evolutionary biology so be it, but it has no meaning at all other than the continuation of the species.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

If it is from us, then it is by definition subjective, then why is anybodies' morality any more valid than anybody elses? I choose to be a serial murderer, that is my personal morality, why is that "wrong". That is just an imaginary position by the way!

I have no idea where from if it does, but most people (not all) have an instinctive idea as to what is right and wrong. If it is just evolutionary biology so be it, but it has no meaning at all other than the continuation of the species.

I recommend the following:

By definition, a morality based on evolutionary biology includes compassion, because we're the product of our ancestors, and we feel compassion. Compassion is clearly helpful to our species, or those who felt it wouldn't have outcompeted those who didn't.

It's easy to think up lots of reasons that compassion would be useful. For example, having an abundance of compassion for the weak and helpless, contributes to a species' survival, when its offspring are weak and helpless much longer than most other species' offspring.

That covers it nicely.

 

[muzungu100]

By definition, a morality based on evolutionary biology includes compassion, because we're the product of our ancestors, and we feel compassion. Compassion is clearly helpful to our species, or those who felt it wouldn't have outcompeted those who didn't.

It's easy to think up lots of reasons that compassion would be useful. For example, having an abundance of compassion for the weak and helpless, contributes to a species' survival, when its offspring are weak and helpless much longer than most other species' offspring.

I would agree with that on a evolutionary basis. However having compassion for those who serve no purpose would not mean it would be morally "wrong" to do away with them on evolutionary grounds. This would be a rational response to our understanding of "morality" based on evolution.

Yet we know instinctively that this is wrong.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I would agree with that on a evolutionary basis. However having compassion for those who serve no purpose would not mean it would be morally "wrong" to do away with them on evolutionary grounds. This would be a rational response to our understanding of "morality" based on evolution.

Yet we know instinctively that this is wrong.

Because killing someone is in contrast with compassion. Plain and simple.

 

[muzungu100]

Because killing someone is in contrast with compassion. Plain and simple.

So killing someone is just wrong because it is the opposite of feeling compassion for those who will continue the species? Surely that is not evolutionary morality in action.

Is it just an emotional carry over from protecting those who will continue the species?

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

So killing someone is just wrong because it is the opposite of feeling compassion for those who will continue the species? Surely that is not evolutionary morality in action.

Is it just an emotional carry over from protecting those who will continue the species?

Maybe the world is not a simple as "those who contribute and those who don't".

Maybe we don't kill them because we have ascended the "they are a burden, let's get rid of them" stage of human evolution.

 

[muzungu100]

Maybe the world is not a simple as "those who contribute and those who don't".

Maybe we don't kill them because we have ascended the "they are a burden, let's get rid of them" stage of human evolution.

So we've gone beyond "evolutionary morality". That takes us back to the beginning, where does right and wrong come from other than ourselves? If it comes from ourselves then anything is possible.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

So we've gone beyond "evolutionary morality". That takes us back to the beginning, where does right and wrong come from other than ourselves? If it comes from ourselves then anything is possible.

Maybe we have ascended specifically the kind of morality that I named.

In the same way that we have ascended the "kill an adulterer" kind of morality... mostly.

Then again, maybe I'm oversimplifying the situation.

 

[muzungu100]

Maybe we have ascended specifically the kind of morality that I named.

In the same way that we have ascended the "kill an adulterer" kind of morality... mostly.

Then again, maybe I'm oversimplifying the situation.

The point I am trying to make is that in a determinist universe there is no room for morality, right or wrong, good or evil. Yet we live our lives believing that we make choices
and make judgements of other people based on the belief that they make choices.

In the absence of a "God" morality is meaningless other than at a simplistic level of continuing the species.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

The point I am trying to make is that in a determinist universe there is no room for morality, right or wrong, good or evil. Yet we live our lives believing that we make choices
and make judgements of other people based on the belief that they make choices.

In the absence of a "God" morality is meaningless other than at a simplistic level of continuing the species.

If morality is meaningless in the absence of a God, then why do I still not feel like robbing a bank?

Surely you're not suggesting that the existence of morality and the importance we give to it are indicative of the existence of God?