And Nothing Heard My Scream

[delphi_ote]

To be honest, if some people have such a warped sense or morals and ethics that they need to believe in the delusion of an after-death punishment to keep them in line with society, then I say let them stay deluded.

If a man waves a gun in my face and says, "The only thing keeping me from killing you is the fact that these bullets contain cyanide gas and I'd breathe it in and die too," I'm more likely to reply "Well, then you better not shoot me" than I am to reply "Don't be absurd, bullets don't contain cyanide gas."

What's the harm in a little white lie to keep the morally infantile in line?

My grandmother used to tell me that if I didn't eat my vegetables, I'd get scurvy. Then she moved on to milk. If I didn't drink milk, scurvy. If I didn't eat my vegetables, scurvy. If I didn't take my flintstones vitamins, scurvy. To hear her talk, scurvy lurked in the wings at every moment, waiting to drop on the unsuspecting grandchild with the force of a thousand toothless sailors.

I suppose I could blame all of my vast range of oddities on the trauma of being threatened with scurvy, and bemoan the terrible betrayal of trust--the fraud! the scurvy fraud! O woe! it burns like lime juice in my braaaain!--but looking back, I think it mostly just made me roll my eyes and go "Grandmaaaaaa!" and eventually read up on scurvy just to make sure.

Scurvy, Santa Claus, the bogey man, souls... it's all the same basic idea.

 

[Roadtoad]

Scurvy, Santa Claus, the bogey man, souls... it's all the same basic idea.

Yes, but Tacos are real.

 

[AgingYoung]

The points that some people won't do what is 'right' only if there is a God or ultimate authority seem to over look the social experiments where the premise was tested. Stalin and communism comes to mind. A few powerful people that believe there is no God can make everyone's life very miserable.

I've heard it argued that Hitler was a good christian boy and look at what you got. Judging by what he did I'd believe he were a purple invisible dragon in my garage as much as I'd believe he was a christian. I don't see any evidence of the life of Jesus in his life.

Everyone has their own opinion about what is right and wrong. I think that's what is at the heart of this issue. You can argue with the soundest logic that it isn't right to murder but if you are the only thing standing between your property and someone they might not agree that it's wrong to murder you.

The often quoted Patrick Henry explains more of what a person is able to do if they believe in an after life.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Life is precious to a christian but in spite of that love of life there are times when we would be willing to give it up. If what I believe is true I'll be fine. If what I believe isn't true then it doesn't matter. I agree with Mr. Henry.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god(s) than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -Stephen Roberts

I've understood for a long time why, Mr. Roberts. I dismiss the idea that there can be more than one God with all power. The moment there were two Gods with all power that power is shared and neither have all power.

Your prediction, Mr. Roberts, (that I'd understand your position) isn't correct. You might consider reformatting your hypothesis also.

Gene

 

[Suezoled]

I saved money by switching to Geico, so you'd all best be impressed.

 

[Roadtoad]

I saved money by switching to Geico, so you'd all best be impressed.

Naughty girl. I suppose the next thing you'll tell us is that you've lowered your cholesterol.

 

[Suezoled]

Naughty girl. I suppose the next thing you'll tell us is that you've lowered your cholesterol.

By 20 points!
Actually, my bad cholesterol is at 101, and it should be at 100.
Which means I need to eat more bacon in my life. Because bacon is fun, and crispy, and has no soul. And yet it lacks that blatent atheist flavour.

 

[Meffy]

Bacon is wickedness incarnate! It divideth not the cud, nor does it spin. The smokier, the better, says I. =^_^=

 

[kittynh]

sooo... lemme tell ya sumthing.....

people with no souls...are the John Edwards and the Sylvia Brownes

the Muslim leaders that refuse to allow children to be vaccinated saying they should "trust in Allah"

The fundies that wink and nudge at people that blow up planned parenthood offices.

You want to see evil? See the video of a psychic "speaking" to a dead child in front of the grieving parents. That's no soul, that's evil.

Give me a good moral atheist anyday.

You know, someone that tell you up front that he/she is an atheist is the most trustworthy person in the world. Because they aren't lying. It's those REAL souless b@stards that lie and hide behind religion that we have to be afraid of.

A real atheist is like, "this is who I am, this is what I believe"

A real person without a soul wil lie and lie and lie. They would never admit to have no beliefs. Because it isn't lack of belief that is going to cause someone to act evil, it is lack of character, lack of ethics, lack of self control and taking responsibility for ones actions - that causes one to act evil.

I've heard more than one Xian say, "Xians aren't perfect, only forgiven". Usually when they say that they have commited some act that is so awful, any atheist would feel shame and dishonor. But the Xian, hey God loves me no matter what!

So I can be an @ss.

This is from a Xian. And a darn hard time I have staying one at times!

 

[I less than three logic]

sooo... lemme tell ya sumthing.....

people with no souls...are the John Edwards and the Sylvia Brownes

the Muslim leaders that refuse to allow children to be vaccinated saying they should "trust in Allah"

The fundies that wink and nudge at people that blow up planned parenthood offices.

You want to see evil? See the video of a psychic "speaking" to a dead child in front of the grieving parents. That's no soul, that's evil.

Give me a good moral atheist anyday.

You know, someone that tell you up front that he/she is an atheist is the most trustworthy person in the world. Because they aren't lying. It's those REAL souless b@stards that lie and hide behind religion that we have to be afraid of.

A real atheist is like, "this is who I am, this is what I believe"

A real person without a soul wil lie and lie and lie. They would never admit to have no beliefs. Because it isn't lack of belief that is going to cause someone to act evil, it is lack of character, lack of ethics, lack of self control and taking responsibility for ones actions - that causes one to act evil.

I've heard more than one Xian say, "Xians aren't perfect, only forgiven". Usually when they say that they have commited some act that is so awful, any atheist would feel shame and dishonor. But the Xian, hey God loves me no matter what!

So I can be an @ss.

This is from a Xian. And a darn hard time I have staying one at times!

Your post here reminds me of a quote.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

 

[Pup]

I've understood for a long time why, Mr. Roberts. I dismiss the idea that there can be more than one God with all power. The moment there were two Gods with all power that power is shared and neither have all power.

There's more to the question than why you choose to believe in one god rather than in a multitude of them. It also requires an answer to why you choose *your* god as the one to believe in, instead of choosing another god as the only one.

 

[AgingYoung]

Pup,

There's more to the question...

Good eyes. I might have missed the question because there was no question mark. It seemed more like an assertion to me.

Since you asked I'll answer. The short answer is that I believe in the historical accuracy and veracity of the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the prophesied Messiah. Now if there is a God that is omnipotent there can be only one. We could look at a textual criticism (hebrew idioms in the greek, etc.) or the archaeological evidences (written by someone that had a keen knowledge of the area and culture at that specific time) etc. but that's a little off topic.

The point I'm trying to address is the idea of a moral atheist. From what I gather you can arrive at what's right and wrong by using your intelligence and logic. I've heard some atheists say unequivocally that there is no ultimate truth (with the implied exception of the one they just stated). It goes without saying that different people come to different conclusions as to what's right or wrong. stalin had his ideas as you do. I am not even beginning to compare you with stalin; I'm only noting that there are some extreme differences of opinion.

My question is how do you decide that the conclusion you come to as to what's right or wrong is superior to anyone else's conclusion? edit: Or put another way what gives you that right?

Gene

 

[Roboramma]

Since you asked I'll answer. The short answer is that I believe in the historical accuracy and veracity of the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the prophesied Messiah.

That's fine, you choose to believe that Jesus was resurrected and is the son of God, and is God, etc. Okay, that's your choise. But why did you choose christianity and not Islam?
If there is only one god, how did you decide that it's a christian god and not Allah, or Krishna, or Zeus?
Is the evidence better? Do you prefer that belief? Or were you just born to it?

I have no problem with you being christian because you want to be, or because it seems like a nicer religion to you. But Robert's point is that you discard all other religions, yet those other religions have as firm a base as yours.
If you have no previous belief, how would you distinguish between them?

Because your current position is that you are Christian, and chrisitanity doesn't allow other religions therefore they are wrong. In other words, you've assumed your conclusion.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later, but let me get to this last point before I have to run off:

My question is how do you decide that the conclusion you come to as to what's right or wrong is superior to anyone else's conclusion? edit: Or put another way what gives you that right?

Let me ask you this: How does a religious person come to the conclusion that something is right or wrong?
Is it just because God says so? Is a thing only right because God said it is? Or is there some other standard?
If one of God's laws was that all third borns should be kept alive only to be tortured by their older siblings (you can think of any of the many barbarous tortures that human beings have invented throughout the ages here) would it be wrong not to do that?

If God is defined as being Good, then Good must exist outside of God, and we don't need god to have morality. If Good is defined as "what God wishes" then that could be anything, and it would still be good.

 

[Suezoled]

Oh dear. It appears that since we're all individuals and don't all agree on the same thing all the time, it's creating a conflict. Conflict, of course, is bad, since I'm right about everything so therefore all of you are wrong. So therefore, if you're wrong, you should be treated with contempt.

The veracity of belief is of course a reliable indicator of what happened... trust me, the fish was *this big* when I caught him, and that's why he got away. I swear it.

Most of all, God said bacon was okay.
And my deity trumps yours. Neener neener.

 

[AgingYoung]

Roboramma,

I believe this is true although I'd put it a little differently:

If God is defined as being Good, then Good must exist outside of God, and we don't need god to have morality.

I would say that an attribute of God is that of goodness but both are about the same.

My question is considering different people have varying degrees of intellect, reasoning, resources and motivation what makes one person's understanding of right and wrong more right than an others?

When I think about resources and reasoning in light of your questions I stop at the very beginning of it when you said...

That's fine, you choose to believe that Jesus was resurrected and is the son of God, and is God, etc. Okay, that's your choose.

I don't believe that at all. You didn't consider it at the time but would you consider that I might have come to the same conclusion Newton did about the matter or as argued in the Racovian Catechism (latin version 1609)? I believe that there's one mediator between God and man, that is the man, Christ Jesus. A lot of thought has gone in to this heretical position I share with Newton but as you mentioned that's my choice.

Then you conclude this about what I think:

Because your current position is that you are Christian, and chrisitanity doesn't allow other religions therefore they are wrong. In other words, you've assumed your conclusion.

not having the resources to know what I think or citing any basis that is what a christian should think. If you want to tell me what my position is on something could you do me a favor and make it a little stronger position than that?

Even if you had unlimited intellect, resources and reasoning there is the matter of motivation. From stalin's perspective it was no problem to murder his perceived enemies. By instilling fear in the population it made them easier to control and helped him maintain his power.

So I'll repeat the question:

• How do you justify your conclusions as to what is right or wrong?

Gene

 

[Roboramma]

To Suez - Anyone I disagree with is clearly wrong in the worst possible sense and must be stopped!
There is no other course of action! Live and let live? bah!
I say bigotry and intolerance is the only way! And in that spirt...

My question is considering different people have varying degrees of intellect, reasoning, resources and motivation what makes one person's understanding of right and wrong more right than an others?

Well... being right about it, of course.
But seriously, I can't contend that this such a thing as "right". I can't prove it. What I can say is that there are things that I intuitively consider right and wrong, and I live my life based on that. I try to make my moral system as simple as possible - that is I try to have least unsupported beliefs that I can. This means I start with a set of axioms and try my best to go from there. These axioms will tend to be things that most people can agree with.
Such as: "suffering is bad". Not only do I think this is true, but so do most people. And no, this does not suggest that there are no circumstances where causing suffering is not a good thing, just that the suffering itself is bad, and must be weighed against other things (like the greater suffering of others) to be justified.

But you're right, maybe I'm wrong. If someone can show me why I am, I'm happy to change my viewpoint, until then, I continue on.

I don't believe that at all.

My bad, I made an assumption that I shouldn't have and it turned out to be false. Mea culpa.

Then you conclude this about what I think:
not having the resources to know what I think or citing any basis that is what a Christian should think. If you want to tell me what my position is on something could you do me a favor and make it a little stronger position than that?

I based that on what you wrote. It seemed to be your argument. If I misread you, please show where I did so, or explain your position better. I grant that I very well could have, but I don't see it yet, so I'd appreciate you spelling out for my what about what I said doesn't apply to your belief, and maybe making your argument more clear. Thanks.

Before asking you to do so, though, I'll try to make my point more clear. From what I read, you said that because there can be only one omnipotent god, you are justified in dismissing all but the one god you believe in - obviously if your god exists, the others cannot.
But that isn't the point of the quote. My point is that if assume the Christian god to exist, then of course you can dismiss all other gods. But until you make that assumption, it's as easy to dismiss the Christian god and choose any other. What do you use to distinguish them? That's basically what the quote is saying - your god is on as firm a foundation as any other. If you find them ridiculous, then yours is too.
If they are all plausible, then how did you choose the one you believe in over the others?

Here's an analogy. Say I have three cups turned opening down on a table. One of them may or may not have a ball under it, but no more than one ball exists. This is all I know.
Is there anything I can conclude? It doesn't seem to me that I can conclude that cup A has a ball under it.

But again, this is how I'm reading what you're saying. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. What the quote suggests is that there is no way to distinguish between your god and any other, yet you believe in your god and no other. Is there a way to make that distinction? How?

Even if you had unlimited intellect, resources and reasoning there is the matter of motivation. From stalin's perspective it was no problem to murder his perceived enemies. By instilling fear in the population it made them easier to control and helped him maintain his power.

Okay, so? I don't see what you're getting at here. Yeah, there are bad people who do bad things. What's that got to do with me?
Do some of them think they are doing good? Sure. Many of those are religious, many are not.

So I'll repeat the question:

• How do you justify your conclusions as to what is right or wrong?

Very simply, I don't. I explained above how I reach those conclusions, and why I tentatively view them as reasonable conclusions. But I don't claim to have access to some "high truth" about the universe or morality. So I could be wrong. In many ways there is no morality. However, I choose to do what I think is right because I want to.
There is one thing that I feel is more important than anything else, though, in a system of morality, and that is logical consistency. I'm not sure that I've achieved that, or even that it's possible (though I believe it is), but I do try very hard to work toward it.
If say "it's wrong to hurt person X" and I can't show any moral difference between person X and person Y, then I must also say "it's wrong to hurt person Y" - please understand this is a gross simplification for the purpose of making an easy explanation.

How about you? How do you justify your conclusions as to what is right and wrong?

I think it's only fair you answer, as I've put some effort into giving you one.

That said, Gene, I harbour you no ill will. I'm responding because I disagree with what you're saying, not because I have anything against Christians or theists or bacon.

Edited for spelling

 

[Piggy]

I don't know how soul-theory accounts for empathy, altruism, cooperation, kindness, and aversion to murder. Maybe a soul-theorist can explain the connection.

But evolutionary biology is coming up with some wonderful insights. The development of all of the above creates positive survival pressures for social species.

In fact, complex social cooperation behavior has been observed in certain species of bats, who recall individuals who share with them, and tend to reciprocate with them (and to share with others who have no record, so to speak, with them) but to cut off the freeloaders.

Do bats have souls?

 

[Piggy]

Oops... I got to the end of page 1 and thought I was at the end of the thread. I'm probably repeating some other post -- if it matters anymore.

BATS GOT SOULS!

 

[Roboramma]

Oops... I got to the end of page 1 and thought I was at the end of the thread. I'm probably repeating some other post -- if it matters anymore.

BATS GOT SOULS!

Glad you said it. I think the point was implicit in a lot of what's been said, but never said outright.

Long live the altruistic vampire bat!

 

[AgingYoung]

Roboramma,

Thanks for your answer. If you don't mind I'll have to consider it a little more before I respond.

Bacon has been mentioned a few times. I do like bacon but I really like barbaqued spare ribs. I do a pretty good job on the grill. Pork though is one of the hardest meats to digest and pigs are scavengers. The idea of unclean is a health issue. People that have reverted to a strict levitical diet have had amazing changes in their health.

I think bats have souls.

Gene