Atheists and theists: Endless confrontations

[Pup]

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.

Exactly. It's not logical, it's instinctive, because it's bred into us. Our instincts trump logic and, fortunately, tend to win out over the long run because they're so strong, though unfortunately can get off track in the short run.

From a subsequent post:

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

And this seems to bother you why? If something works to make us as individuals and as a species healthier, longer-lived, better able to reproduce, etc. etc., I'm cool with that.

 

[muzungu100]

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?

But some do feel like robbing a bank, why is that wrong, because you say so?

What I am saying is that morality, in the absence of an absolute authority, can only be a matter of personal or societal opinion and that is not absolute but subjective. What else can determine it? We've dealt with the evolutionary morality aspect.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I'm with Pup on this one.

 

[muzungu100]

Exactly. It's not logical, it's instinctive, because it's bred into us. Our instincts trump logic and, fortunately, tend to win out over the long run because they're so strong, though unfortunately can get off track in the short run.

From a subsequent post:



And this seems to bother you why? If something works to make us as individuals and as a species healthier, longer-lived, better able to reproduce, etc. etc., I'm cool with that.

But it doesn't bother me. The issue of "morality", right and wrong, good and evil, are all posited upon the view that we have choices. I am repeating myself but if you are a determinist, and you have to be if you don't believe in a "God", then there is no such thing as an absolute morality. It follows then that morality has to be subjective.

 

[punshhh]

I'm with Pup on this one.

Me too.

When humanity began to choose consciously to do this or that, a moral awareness was one of the consequences.

 

[Dinwar]

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.

So you're saying that we have to be happy with whatever the current state of things (erroneous state, but never mind that--I'll play "Let's Pretend", it doesn't hurt my arguments) happens to be? We cannot say "This is wrong, we shouldn't do that" if we're the minority?

If the majority says that they want to line us atheists up along a wall and put bullets in our heads, should we simply accept that because they're the majority? Or should we perhaps point out that such a view is one of the main causes of conflict between our groups?

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.

No, they can't. There is one way to ammend the Constitution, and it DOES NOT, AT ANY POINT involve the average person voting on it. It involves our REPRESENTATIVES voting on it. You clearly are unwilling to understand the difference between a representative republic and blind, brute mob rule (democracy).

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.

I would suggest two things: First, don't equate altruism, which is one type of morality, with the subject of morality entirely--there are other schools of thought (and focusing on compassion is to focus on altruism). Second, brush up on evolutionary theory. Think about this for a minute: If I kill someone, that person has relatives that are hard-wired to protect them. Those peopel will come at me, often with FAR more force than I can withstand. They may even decide to trade goods and services with some other group to attack me--and no one person can withstand an army (trust me, I tried--got the deformed clavical to prove it). So I'm likely to be wiped of the face of the planet. Obviously not evolutionarily beneficial. In vampire bats we see something like this: bats who don't share food don't get help when they're suffering from lean times. I'm not saying this is the correct view of morality (I think limiting morality to interpersonal actions is flawed from the start), I'm just saying that evolution can in fact explain why we aren't all sociopaths.

 

[Pup]

But it doesn't bother me. The issue of "morality", right and wrong, good and evil, are all posited upon the view that we have choices. I am repeating myself but if you are a determinist, and you have to be if you don't believe in a "God", then there is no such thing as an absolute morality. It follows then that morality has to be subjective.

Not sure I follow. I don't believe in any god, but I do think we have choices. On a day-to-day basis, we're faced with dozens of different urges that we have to choose among.

One can only really see the evolutionary pressures when looking at societies on a massive scale. Individual people may be born psychopaths, or with excess anger or aggression, or be raised in a violent subculture, or for whatever reason be "for" murder, but societies, on a larger scale, on average, over the long run, tend to be "against" murder, even though they'll have differing definitions of what exactly constitutes murder.

Even people who believe in god display subjective morality. The Bible, for example, is full of behavior that most people would say is "wrong," yet apparently was okay because God did it, or because times were different then. Murdering thousands of people in the flood, inflicting deliberate suffering on Job, putting poor Abraham through the wringer before telling him he really didn't need to kill his kid, informing slaves they should obey their masters without mentioning to the masters that slavery was wrong... Not really acceptable today.

And even if our overall behavior is determined by our heritage, it's fragile, based upon what works in any given environment. It could change in a heartbeat, if environmental pressures changed.

Let's say some weird coincidence occurs--there's a new deadly incurable disease that strikes the young and healthy, but those who carry a gene for extreme aggression also tend to carry a gene that makes them immune. In enough generations, if the new environment that includes that disease stays constant, I bet we'd see society's moral attitudes about violent crime changing.

 

[westprog]

So you're saying that we have to be happy with whatever the current state of things (erroneous state, but never mind that--I'll play "Let's Pretend", it doesn't hurt my arguments) happens to be? We cannot say "This is wrong, we shouldn't do that" if we're the minority?

I've just explained that the political system in somewhere like the USA or most western democracies allows you to change anything. But you have to either persuade the majority of your wishes, or you have to convince the legal authorities that

If the majority says that they want to line us atheists up along a wall and put bullets in our heads, should we simply accept that because they're the majority? Or should we perhaps point out that such a view is one of the main causes of conflict between our groups?

No, they can't. There is one way to ammend the Constitution, and it DOES NOT, AT ANY POINT involve the average person voting on it. It involves our REPRESENTATIVES voting on it. You clearly are unwilling to understand the difference between a representative republic and blind, brute mob rule (democracy).

Yes, that's called a representative democracy, or, as we commonly refer to it, a democracy - because the kind of democracy where the public directly vote on everything doesn't actually exist.

The way you decide things is to elect a representative who will hopefully act in accordance with your wishes. It's pretty much the same in most "democracies", even the ones which don't want to be called democracies.

I would suggest two things: First, don't equate altruism, which is one type of morality, with the subject of morality entirely--there are other schools of thought (and focusing on compassion is to focus on altruism). Second, brush up on evolutionary theory. Think about this for a minute: If I kill someone, that person has relatives that are hard-wired to protect them. Those peopel will come at me, often with FAR more force than I can withstand. They may even decide to trade goods and services with some other group to attack me--and no one person can withstand an army (trust me, I tried--got the deformed clavical to prove it). So I'm likely to be wiped of the face of the planet. Obviously not evolutionarily beneficial. In vampire bats we see something like this: bats who don't share food don't get help when they're suffering from lean times. I'm not saying this is the correct view of morality (I think limiting morality to interpersonal actions is flawed from the start), I'm just saying that evolution can in fact explain why we aren't all sociopaths.

 

[Minarvia]

You've distilled the essence of my problems with the religious, especially my family. They cannot accept any responsibility for things that they've done, and can't face things that happen to them, because they cast these things on Jesus, or whatever their wording, and pretend that they don't exist. Going to confession, for them, is like erasing their culpability in anything that they've done to others. Problem is, deep down, they don't believe it, and guilt and cognitive dissonance is taking it's toll on their sanity.

I have a brother who committed an atrocity on his daughter, due to not dealing with his own demons ( childhood molestation ), and couldn't take the consequences, and committed suicide. Most of the rest of my siblings are similarly, but hopefully to a lesser degree, damaged. I certainly blame magical thinking for this. I wish I knew how to help them. They, of course, won't listen to me, when I ask them to seek professional help.

I'm so sorry! That's terrible and I can only hope that your family will be open to your suggestion someday. I suppose they feel that their Mystical Being is all they have right now. If only they knew that having EACH OTHER is really what matters.

I'm glad to see that you understand my frustration with the song that encourages such thinking. It makes my blood pressure rise when I hear it. I can turn the dial in my own car, but when I'm with a friend I can't. And lately this friend has been playing that stupid CD when I've traveled with her from my state to the next.

I asked her politely to skip that song (after about the fifth time) and she said, "Oh, but it's so beautiful and about Jesus helping us!" I can't persuade her otherwise. Another case of the fingers in the ears going "La la la la la!"

Heh, and here Complexity just said how kind and patient I am! Well, I usually am, as I'm the most Gullible Forum Member in the history of the JREF in that I believed in a bogus poster's wild claims and bids for attention for the longest time because I am too sympathetic.

Yet with my own friend I argued over a song!

Maybe I need professional help!

 

[Dinwar]

Yes, that's called a representative democracy,

No. It's a representative REPUBLIC. If you're going to continue being willfully ignorant of the political system in this country, there's no point in continuing our discussion.

 

[Darat]

No. It's a representative REPUBLIC. If you're going to continue being willfully ignorant of the political system in this country, there's no point in continuing our discussion.

That is the type of democracy you have, a republic is usually today considered a form of democratic governance in which everyone can vote for the head of state.

 

[Dinwar]

The difference is that the United States of America was built specifically to avoid the majority simply forcing their views on others, which is precisely what I'm stating that the theists do. For example, to ammend the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states--the populous doesn't get a direct say. westprog continues to refuse to accept any limites to the power of the majority--his stance has been, and far as I can see continues to be, that the majority gets to set whatever rules it wants, even for those who are not members of the majority's religion. Thus, it's permissable for Christians to demand that Hindus and Taoists not work on Sunday, and that an atheist like me cannot buy alcohol on their holy day.

 

[westprog]

That is the type of democracy you have, a republic is usually today considered a form of democratic governance in which everyone can vote for the head of state.

I really don't care what people choose to call their form of government, but the USA is governed in the same basic way as most western states - and it involves electing people to govern the country, within the restrictions of a constitution. The country most similar in its institutions to the USA is the UK which isn't even a republic.

 

[westprog]

The difference is that the United States of America was built specifically to avoid the majority simply forcing their views on others, which is precisely what I'm stating that the theists do. For example, to ammend the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states--the populous doesn't get a direct say. westprog continues to refuse to accept any limites to the power of the majority--his stance has been, and far as I can see continues to be, that the majority gets to set whatever rules it wants, even for those who are not members of the majority's religion. Thus, it's permissable for Christians to demand that Hindus and Taoists not work on Sunday, and that an atheist like me cannot buy alcohol on their holy day.

All democracies have restrictions of that kind.

I have never stated that the majority gets to do whatever it wants. I've said that people can vote with whatever motivations they like, and if people want to vote for Palin or Bachmann because they proclaim their Christian credentials, then they are entitled to do so. The ability of the judiciary to set aside legislation because of its religious motivation is extremely limited. It involves laws passed purely for religious purposes - say, for example, teaching creationism. Any person with beliefs about moral issues will of course be influenced by those beliefs when voting, whether they are theist, agnostic or atheist.

 

[Dinwar]

e said that people can vote with whatever motivations they like, and if people want to vote for Palin or Bachmann because they proclaim their Christian credentials, then they are entitled to do so.

I've never said otherwise. I've stated that it's an invalid reason, and explained that the reason it's invalid is because they are trying to force their group's norms onto people who are not a member of that group.

At this point, I'm not clear what we're even talking about....

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I've never said otherwise. I've stated that it's an invalid reason, and explained that the reason it's invalid is because they are trying to force their group's norms onto people who are not a member of that group.

At this point, I'm not clear what we're even talking about....

I think the reasoning is that motivation is not important, as long as the rule is good.

The whole "good for the wrong reasons" thing seems to be shrugged off as trivial, which I don't understand.

It's like saying "evolution should be taught in school because the word sounds better than creationism".

Whilst teaching evolution in schools is better than teaching creationism, the reason "the word sounds better" is just a bad one, and if someone used it, I wouldn't vote in favour of it, no matter how good the rule itself might be.

 

[westprog]

I've never said otherwise. I've stated that it's an invalid reason, and explained that the reason it's invalid is because they are trying to force their group's norms onto people who are not a member of that group.

At this point, I'm not clear what we're even talking about....

Forcing a group's norms onto people who aren't members of the group is what the law is for. If certain behaviour were the norm for people, then it wouldn't be necessary to make them do it.

 

[Dinwar]

Forcing a group's norms onto people who aren't members of the group is what the law is for.

Actually, no. In fact, the United States government is specifically designed to prevent the majority from forcing its rules onto the minority. The government is to protect the rights of the citizens and residents (groups which include everyone in the geographic area controled by the nation--meaning the only way to not be in the group is to leave the country). Some religious group forcing its rules on people outside of that group via the government is an abuse of power. If it were Muslims forcing you to stop work to pray towards Meca I imagine you'd see the problem pretty quickly. The same principle applies to Blue Laws.

I think the reasoning is that motivation is not important, as long as the rule is good.

Short-sighted and dangerous. Like I said, it's impossible to see what your errors are if you reach the right conclusion for the wrong reason. At least if you reach the wrong conclusion for the right reason the correction mechanism is still in place--you CAN correct it.

ETA:

I can't let this slide:

If certain behaviour were the norm for people,

"Norms" does not equal "the norm". They are two completely different concepts. You are basing your logic on an equivocation. I'm not saying "We shouldn't enforce what's normal for groups on people outside those groups" (though in many cases this is true), I'm saying "The rules, regulations, and social structures a group addopts are only applicable for that group, and any attempt to force them onto people who are not members of that group is an attempt to force non-members into joining the group." See the difference? "Normal" is what happens to be socially acceptable within the group--it's what people do. Norms are the rules, regulations, etc. of a group--it's what makes a group a group.

 

[Multivac]

Existence of God is taken as a self-evident truth.

Of course it isn't. How can it be a self-evident truth if faith is required to believe it?

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Of course it isn't. How can it be a self-evident truth if faith is required to believe it?

It is self-evident, and therefore no evidence is required.

No evidence means that faith is needed.

Ergo: Self evident God requires faith.


Or some other drivel.