tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post4900822799430003061..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Peoria trip report, wrap upUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84993929364206710852010-04-24T16:28:51.125-05:002010-04-24T16:28:51.125-05:00Hey guys, go to my blog if you want to see a few p...Hey guys, go to my blog if you want to see a few pictures that I snapped while down at Bradley U.<br /><br />http://atheistally.blogspot.com/2010/04/weekend-at-bradleys.htmlThe Invisible Pink Unicornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431132950971038781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-3995386948833521562010-04-18T15:18:43.755-05:002010-04-18T15:18:43.755-05:00Ali,
quote: In my discussion with Jeff and Don, I...Ali,<br /><br />quote: In my discussion with Jeff and Don, I had noted that people misintepret scientific theories as well and then use them for ill means, so under the same logic we should get rid of science. Under the same logic we should get rid of all politics, ethical theories, etc.<br /><br />The response was "Yeah, but these are facts." I don't see how that solves the apparent inconsistency. All it proves is that even if you were to get rid of all the non-scientific ideas of the world, people would still do bad things (and based on history, even moreso it appears). So it actually favors my argument more.End of quote<br /><br />I honestly how it makes your argument stronger tbh. For scientific theories there is a clear and usually quite unambigous theory to fall back to. let's take darwinism as an example. Darwinism states a theory on how life came to be on this world. Now any misinterpretations are unlikely to begin with, since the theory in itsself is unambigous. However there have been ideas loosely based on the idea of natural selection that are called social darwinism. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It simply takes some parts of it and applies it to something completely different. I would call that misuse of the theory, cause it's taking bits and parts from the theory rather than the whole theory. The same can be said of the (mis)use of isolated ideas from nietszche by the national socialists and others (objectivism would be good example of misuse of nietzsche I'd say) <br /><br />Now if you look at religion there is absolutely no unambigous theory to start with. There is just scripture in one form or another, and from the widely varied denominations found in pretty much any large religion I'd say there is no conclusive base theory that is misused. scripture is ambigous and very much more open to interpretation than a scientific theory. So pretty much anything goes, as long as you find some bit of scripture that might be interpreted as supporting it.Fritshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10283591813641507318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76221226396170121702010-04-18T08:10:06.956-05:002010-04-18T08:10:06.956-05:00@Robert Morane: Great post. :-)@Robert Morane: Great post. :-)Leisha Camdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04768409807832229050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39562390756949240202010-04-17T15:21:24.040-05:002010-04-17T15:21:24.040-05:00Besides morality is by definition opinions which i...Besides morality is by definition opinions which is by definition subjective. Claiming god is the source of morality is just out sourcing who is making the subjective decision. Me letting my neighbor pick what color to paint my house does not make the decision objective.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30555250595981116512010-04-17T04:29:54.178-05:002010-04-17T04:29:54.178-05:00You can argue that morality is what "works&qu...<i>You can argue that morality is what "works", but where are you getting that from? It makes no sense. You can't prove this statemen, no matter how much philosophizing and scientific scrutiny you attempt to put it under. The moment you say that morality is subjective, all attempts to set a standard are pointless and ludicrous.</i><br /><br />Morality <i>is</i> objective. Whether an act is considered moral or immoral depends on whether it is associated with positive or negative emotions - an act that makes most people feel revolted and disgusted will be considered immoral, while an act that makes most people feel good will be considered moral. (Why most? Because there are people with defective brains - psychopaths; furtunately, these people are small in numbers.)<br /><br />Now here's the crux of my argument: because one does not choose what one feels, emotion-based morality (which I have just described) is objective. You simply cannot change the way you feel about a particular act or behaviour. You cannot look at a child being tortured to death one morning and feel revolted by the sight, and the next, feel happy and content. You just can't.<br /><br />I define two kinds of morality: universal morality (don't kill, don't steal) and cultural morality (don't drink alcohol, don't have sex outside of marriage). Universal morality is causal: groups that allow killing and stealing put their members at a disadvantage (they can be killed, stolen from), while groups that don't, give their members an advantage. That's why all human societies forbid murder and theft -those that didn't vanished.<br /><br />The second kind is cultural morality. This morality is enforced culturally, and insofar as you are raised in a culture that says drinking alcohol is wrong, that's what you'll believe. If you believe that drinking alcohol is wrong, then you'll feel bad every time you drink alcohol, so you'll refrain from drinking it, as we are genetically wired to avoid repeating what we dislike (just like we're wired to repeat what we like).<br /><br />But theistic morality is subjective. Maybe you're a protestant and you believe that death penalty isn't wrong. But maybe if you become a Catholic next year, you'll believe that it is wrong (the Catholic Church is against death penalty... today, but it used to be in favour of it, which supports my point: religious morality is subjective).<br /><br />As someone else mentioned in the comments, you choose your god, your religion, your version of that religion, your version of the sacred texts, your translation, your interpretations of the texts, and so on. Not quite objective, is it?Robert Moranehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00706576618914923528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-67000682516909574422010-04-15T21:13:34.720-05:002010-04-15T21:13:34.720-05:00"You can argue that morality is what "wo..."You can argue that morality is what "works", but where are you getting that from? It makes no sense. You can't prove this statemen, no matter how much philosophizing and scientific scrutiny you attempt to put it under. The moment you say that morality is subjective, all attempts to set a standard are pointless and ludicrous."<br /><br />What does your holy book say about oooooooooh Cloneing or stemcells? using only the book come up with an objective moral standard.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-67162594367800217402010-04-15T12:22:41.380-05:002010-04-15T12:22:41.380-05:00When the Hitler example comes around, I like to em...When the Hitler example comes around, I like to emphasize more on what Russell touched on -- that whether or not Hitler wound up in Hell, his <i>Jewish victims</i> certainly did. <br /><br />So we call Hitler a monster and say that if anyone deserves Hell, it's Hitler (I disagree, incidentally -- infinite punishment for finite crimes and all that). <br /><br />But why is Hitler a monster? <br /><br />Because he tortured and killed six million Jews (among others). <br /><br />And yet now those Jews are being tortured in hellfire [i]for eternity[/i] by a God that the people condemning Hitler would consider just and merciful. <br /><br />If Hitler is a monster for what he did to a group of people over the course of about a decade, is there even a word for a being that would do worse to those same people for all eternity?Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26644502441085146192010-04-15T07:30:40.508-05:002010-04-15T07:30:40.508-05:00Asadullah Ali
First off, this is only a comment, ...<b>Asadullah Ali</b><br /><br />First off, this is only a comment, I don't have time to get into the type of discussion in the previous thread. So just take this as such, please. :)<br /><br />Before I say anything, it seems to me you are making many assumptions about what atheists think. This isn't particularly sensible given that all being an atheist requires is not believing in god. Just a heads up.<br /><br />Anyway,<br /><br /><i>"For the atheist, it's a meaningless beginning (or eternity) with no standard attached, therefore the only thing that can be justified is a subjective view of ethics."</i><br /><br />This is a complete non-sequitur. By the same reasoning:<br /><br />"For the atheist, it's a meaningless beginning with no standard attached, therefore the only thing that can be justified is a subjective view of mathematics."<br /><br />Hopefully I don't have to explain why this is not true!<br /><br />Anyway, the thing I really wanted to point out is that your claim that theism provides an objective morality is riddled with subclaims, and is not particularly convincing to an atheist.<br /><br />What a theist's claim that a god provides them with objective morality entails:<br /><br />(1) There is a god.<br /><br />(2) This god is theistic, rather than deistic, pantheistic, etc.<br /><br />(3) This god is the particular god that the theist worships.<br /><br />(4) The theist has interpretted their religion accurately (e.g. to take Christianinty, they have correctly chosen between Protestantism and Catholicism, Baptist and Methodist, all the way down until they have chosen the right interpretation of their little sect.)<br /><br />And possibly most important:<br /><br />(5) There is an argument which surmounts the Euthypro Dilemma. <br /><br />As far as I can tell, the theist is 0 for 5 with the validity of those claims. I see no reason to accept that the theist has objective morality until all those claims can be shown to be valid. Indeed, given that some of the claims seem to me to be incoherent (e.g. God exists - I have yet to come across a coherent definition of a theistic god), I would go so far as to say that the theist's definition of morality is also incoherent.<br /><br />Of course, I may have missed some hidden claims in there, if I have, feel free to add to them.<br /><br />On the contrary, of course, it is facile to create an objective morality as an atheist - all you have to do is stringently define words such as morality, and good.<br /><br />E.g. define morality as:<br /><br />"That which promotes the greatest happiness for the world, whilst not interfering with their basic human rights."<br /><br />And you have an objective moral standard. You might say: 'But how can you know this is the best thing to do'... Hopefully you won't, mind, because then you will have missed the whole point of defining the terms stringently. (Here's a hint: 'the best thing to do' in that statement is a nebulous concept, which also needs to be defined stringently in order for the statement to make sense.;))Afterthought_btwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17758975616219512727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8776290680092478672010-04-14T23:16:39.092-05:002010-04-14T23:16:39.092-05:00Thank you Matt and Russell for coming to Peoria. ...Thank you Matt and Russell for coming to Peoria. You are so nice to everyone...and both of you are alot of fun. Wish I could have stayed for the meet-up after the show. Hope to see you again soon!5 catshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02911462045096681449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39629921518773302162010-04-14T15:19:49.998-05:002010-04-14T15:19:49.998-05:00I had called last show about the issue with modera...I had called last show about the issue with moderates "covering" for fanatics.<br /><br />In my discussion with Jeff and Don, I had noted that people misintepret scientific theories as well and then use them for ill means, so under the same logic we should get rid of science. Under the same logic we should get rid of all politics, ethical theories, etc.<br /><br />The response was "Yeah, but these are <i>facts</i>." I don't see how that solves the apparent inconsistency. All it proves is that even if you were to get rid of all the non-scientific ideas of the world, people would still do bad things (and based on history, even moreso it appears). So it actually favors my argument more.<br /><br />The reason I bring this up is that the article states the following: <br /><br /><i>" While it's true that people might not conflict if they all thought the same way, that's pretty unrealistic"</i><br /><br />If this sort of thing is so unrealstic, then why is it that many contemporary atheists (anti-theists, to be more precise) are fighting for just exactly that? They want to eradicate religion off the face of the earth and replace it with "rational science". They want to get rid of religion from the minds of the moderates and the fanatics and <i>save</i> the world from its seemingly negative fate. They want everyone to think <i>just like them</i> regarding religious ideas. <br /><br />I find this rather ironic.<br /><br />Other points in this article, to me, show that there is very little understanding morality from a theistic perspective, both from the atheists who attended and the theists as well. We all get our morality from the foundation of all existence (the source, as it were). For the Theist, it is an objective, rational standard that understands how the universe is supposed to work and how humans can make the most of their lives.<br /><br />For the atheist, it's a meaningless beginning (or eternity) with no standard attached, therefore the only thing that can be justified is a subjective view of ethics. <br /><br />To ask where "God got his morality from" is, to me, a misunderstanding of what morality is and where it actually comes from. If it just comes from human beings, than no ones morality is superior to anothers. Neither is the majority superior to the minority (since to claim such is a value judgment in and of itself).<br /><br />In a universe with subjective morality, the person who goes to feed the poor every weekend and dedicate their life to helping people is no more or less moral than the serial killer. The statement is meaningless.<br /><br />You can argue that morality is what "works", but where are you getting that from? It makes no sense. You can't prove this statemen, no matter how much philosophizing and scientific scrutiny you attempt to put it under. The moment you say that morality is subjective, all attempts to set a standard are pointless and ludicrous.Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59657292877372952662010-04-14T09:56:34.958-05:002010-04-14T09:56:34.958-05:00I can't believe that Catholics are still smug ...I can't believe that Catholics are still smug where you went, given the recent paedophiles scandal. Both in England (where I now live) and in Québec (where I come from), public interventions of Catholic priests and outspoken practicing Catholics is often the subject of ridicule. <br /><br />@Ing-This is maybe why Christianity appealed both to the poor and the elite in Rome: Christ was giving the poor Heaven at the end of their days...and the rich were satisfied that the poors did not mind as much being poor.Guillaumehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376749604845793465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39137097845284076982010-04-14T07:44:18.078-05:002010-04-14T07:44:18.078-05:00"One more thing that I forgot. The guy who wa..."One more thing that I forgot. The guy who was arguing for "beauty" also argued that hell was a kindness because the people who wound up there wouldn't have enjoyed heaven."<br /><br />This reminds me of an argument i heard in Highschool justifying not giving money to the poor. Money's the root of all evil, and Christ said a rich man has no chance in hell of getting in, so keeping them in destitute poverty is a charity.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-2679681075022344362010-04-13T21:05:29.048-05:002010-04-13T21:05:29.048-05:00Wow those Christians were all over the place and d...Wow those Christians were all over the place and didn't really know what to argue. They came in and went out purely to contradict you and not listen. Was there a single religious person who was actually trying to hear what you were saying?Alexrkr7https://www.blogger.com/profile/17487865585891855345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-5378917589927790882010-04-13T15:20:14.371-05:002010-04-13T15:20:14.371-05:00Thanks fr the link, Paul. It mirrors my own thinki...Thanks fr the link, Paul. It mirrors my own thinking on the matter.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78498945371521124422010-04-13T10:21:13.523-05:002010-04-13T10:21:13.523-05:00...To which I responded by asking "Will I enj......To which I responded by asking "Will I enjoy being in hell? Will it be at least as enjoyable as being alive, or would I be better off just dying and that being the end?"<br /><br />He REALLY didn't want to commit to an answer on that one; I'm pretty sure his actual answer would be no.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-48292820487146934722010-04-13T09:51:24.732-05:002010-04-13T09:51:24.732-05:00One more thing that I forgot. The guy who was argu...One more thing that I forgot. The guy who was arguing for "beauty" also argued that hell was a kindness because the people who wound up there wouldn't have enjoyed heaven.Matt D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06865398618141711897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8639934853004299982010-04-13T01:24:19.504-05:002010-04-13T01:24:19.504-05:00Please please please post links to the audio or vi...Please <i>please <b>please</b></i> post links to the audio or video of your events if they ever get put online. Please?<br /><br />Also, Star Trek Rule FTW. I love that argument.Derek CAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04861722187567221950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80799667045275253082010-04-12T18:34:20.559-05:002010-04-12T18:34:20.559-05:00Basically, "God Did It" appears to be an...<i>Basically, "God Did It" appears to be an answer to all questions, but it is actually a copout</i><br /><br />"God did it" in this case serves as a <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/" rel="nofollow">semantic stop sign</a>. Though I take the point that <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/esu" rel="nofollow">Christian philosophers argue God's existence is necessary</a>, that's not what's going on in popular versions of the "argument": there the aim seems to be to find something big enough to be psychologically satisfying.Paul Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07812075028283068443noreply@blogger.com