GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Excellent response
http://tinyurl.com/23e77ay
Dagnabit, there it is.
I’m a lapsed agnostic.
I used to be unsure if God exists, but I just don’t know anymore.
Thanks, Robster. I was worried for a second that I would have to spend twenty minutes explaining why this article is absolute garbage.
Wow, what a terrible piece of writing. From the article: “Faced with the fundamental question: ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually.”
Um, no this isn’t what an atheist would say. The “fundamental question” is an important one, but atheists don’t have a “faith” in science nor do they claim science will eventually explain everything. “Faith” implies you believe in something that you can’t see or show someone else. I can show you how a rocket ship can take some people to the moon, or how strands of protein in a given cell lead it to develop in certain ways. Science doesn’t need “faith” to prop it up, unlike claiming that someone is the immortal son of God and all those who disagree will burn in hell forever and meanwhile, people who commit adultery should be stoned to death.
As for weak-tea atheists trying to pump themselves up as the remedy to mean, nasty atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins, well, when the Westboro Baptist Church Christians stop picketing at funerals with signs saying “GOD HATES FAGS” then he’ll have a point. Until then, religions are generally forces for harm, not good, and if it takes us reality-based adults to point out that your sky-gods are illusions based on childish fears of the dark, so be it. What atheists aren’t doing is actively trying to tell you whom you can or can’t marry, whether or not you can serve in the military, or mutilating your daughter’s genitals (to name just a few things among so many).
I know you hate me and think I shouldn’t disagree with you on anything, but if you think Westboro Baptist is even remotely close to mainstream religious opinion in America, you’re a crackhead. The religious right isn’t even mainstream, let alone those people. If you think Dawkins etc balance them out you’re kind of making the point for people like me.
I like PZ Myers, but on this topic he’s just a fundie.
I’m saying Dawkins et al. don’t balance anything out. Intellectuals like him and Hithcens writing books about atheism (and other things) doen’t even come close to the overwhelming tides of damaging ideas _and actual actions_ taken by theists on a daily basis in America.
You admit there are religious extremists, but in addition you’ve got a more pernicious “mainstream” theism that denies people the rights to marry whom they want, to serve their country, and (although not written as law) serve in public office.
As for the piece you linked, it’s stupid. He obfuscates the meaning of critical terms (atheism, agnosticism, faith, and belief) in order to score points against prominent atheists.
Atheism isn’t a belief. Look at the term: a-theism, lack of belief.
Further, I’d love to hear more from you (honestly) in an attempt to rebut Myers. Show me one sentence that makes him a “fundie.” I won’t hold my breath.
Jaim already said it better than I ever could, but it seems to me that many theists are offended by the mere notion that we exist, and have the gall to point out, “Hey, not everybody believes in god.”
Witness the continued vandalism of atheist and freethought billboards, the lastest example in N.C.
http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/06/27/atheist-billboard-in-north-carolina-vandalized-within-a-week/
I wonder what people of faith will do when ‘God’ is discovered to be a a cross dressing con artist from the 9th dimension?
e of faith will do when ‘God’ is discovered to be a a cross dressing con artist from the 9th dimension?-
Or he/she isn’t? I just wonder if atheist don’t “believe” anything then I am guessing they don’t believe in science either or am I wrong? I also wonder when science can’t answer something is it because science isn’t there yet(ergo science can answer anything, is…God like) or does it just become the default argument of atheists that “I don’t know but it isn’t your awful God!” It seems to me that nothing angers atheists more than the idea of faith on this site which I find odd. I am totally cool with people not believing in a God but I wonder how cool atheists are actually with people of faith or agnostics. We can all agree that we hate the actions of intolerant people of faith and the list of these actions is numerous but if most people were atheist and people of faith were a minority, how would things change?
I think its a matter of facts vrs. faith. I can point to facts, and inferences deduced from facts, but just because science can’t explain something today, it doesn’t automatically follow that “Goddidit.” The atheist isn’t saying, “Don’t go the church, you religious folks” in fact I say the religious are entitled to their beliefs, but for some reason, many of the religious, even those that acknowledge the existence of atheists, would prefer that we just be quiet about it, while they’re allowed to openly express their faith.
The last thing I want is for atheist to be quiet. I want more discussion from atheists and less fundamentalism from both sides:)
That might be you, WW, but that hasn’t been my experience with many =)
The only relevant sentence in that article is this one:
Ah, a product of the Templeton Foundation. Figures.
The Templeton Foundation’s main purpose, it seems, is to provide an academic “veneer” for the production of religious apologia in the guise of science, and to attack those dangerous and hateful “new atheists”. If any Templeton “scholar” has ever produced an article saying more or less “You know, Dawkins is pretty much right about X”, I have yet to see it. Every Templeton-generated article I’ve ever seen is exactly along the lines of the disquistion you’ve linked “New Atheists are mean and nasty, scientists aren’t so smart, and we all would be better off if we were more ‘spiritual’” (whatever that means). Let me know as soon as any Templeton-funded author produces a single article describing deep, fundamental flaws in the “spritual” outlook, and I’ll take their claims of “balancing” science and religion more seriously.
Ooohh…Templeton, I didn’t notice that!
Religion is a crock. The myriad deities which have been invoked since the first leader of a city-state decided that he was anointed to abuse the populace, have had thousands of years to make an unequivocal appearance.
The current deplorable state of the Catholic Church is what happens when the “moral leaders” are not constrained by any other authority except their own self-interest.
Religion serves the state by promoting obedience, and atheism, or even questioning authority, does not. Atheists by nature do not respond to being told to do something because God wants them to, and conservatives find that frustrating.
Unfortunately, atheism is a kind of faith, semantics be damned. Agnosticism may or may not be faith based, and generally is the moment one says, “Well, I’m not sure one way or the other, but I’m leaning towards X”. There’s no way to prove a negative, ergo the statement “God does not exist” is an unproven (and likely unprovable) hypothesis, equally as unproven as “God does exist”. What do we call hypotheses which are untestable?
If you hold the position that you do not know one way or the other, but feel that there is no God, then you aren’t an atheist, you’re an agnostic atheist, and the atheist part isn’t a statement of fact, it’s a statement of belief. If you believe something to be true that you probably will never be able to prove or disprove, what is that if not an act of faith?
You are correct when you say that a negative cannot be proven, but it is incumbent upon the person making the positive assertation to provide the evidence. Until a god or one of its advocates can provide the proof, I say its all fairy tales. You’re welcome to your beliefs, but your beliefs do not entitle you to special benefits, or shield you from criticism.
The fact is, no theory is known with absolute certainty, not even simple things like the Pythagorean theorem (let alone more complicated things like the Theory of Evolution).
However, after a theory has been tested time and time again, you reach a point where it’s highly probably that a theory is correct. At that point, you believe in the theory.
That’s why atheists don’t believe in God. The hypothesis has been tested, and has failed, repeatedly. No need to keep saying “oh, maybe there’s one more test that will prove the existence of God.” At some point you’re compelled to get off the fence and just say, “yeah, there’s no God.”
Of course you are correct. Personally, I’m an agnostic theist, and “my God” is more along the lines of Leibniz’ concept–or sometimes when I’m feeling whimsical, I think our creator is some mediocre 6th grader in another dimension who made this universe for a science class homework assignment…and got a D.
I find even the remote possibility that someone might believe that because there is no God , they are permitted to do whatever they want, either pathetic or frightening, on a case by case basis.
There may not be test tube or microscopic evidence that there is a living, breathing God, but there are myriad reasons why people believe in God, and myriad reasons why religion serves, has served, and will continue to serve as a force for good.
To respond directly to you Repack: Do you have any idea what percentage of any and all child abuse cases are the work of Catholic priests?
You might as easily call for the end of civilization because crime exists, as to call for the end of the Catholic Church because hundreds of priests out of millions have abused children.
The other part, of course, is that even your assertion that “its all fairy tales” is also merely a belief.
Wait, what? What a bunch of self-serving nonsense. What we don’t know about the universe at this point would fill another universe. How would one go about testing for the existence or non-existence of a Superior Being, with knowledge/intelligence, power/capability, etc generally far beyond our usual frame of reference? If a SB powerful enough to actually dictate the laws of physics while operating beyond their constraints did not wish to be discovered, its difficult to conceive of how we’d pull off that feat. And I’m not even talking about an old bearded sky god, just the general qualities one would assign in a typical Game Theory thought experiment.
You don’t have to test for “the supreme being,” just test for some of the aspects of God first.
For example: is God all-knowing? If yes, then why does the Old Testament contradict the New Testament? You’d think that an all-knowing being would at least be consistent with his statements, not contradicting himself nilly-willy.
Which of course, goes back to attempting to prove a negative
I find even the remote possibility that someone might believe that because there is no God , they are permitted to do whatever they want, either pathetic or frightening, on a case by case basis.
So if you didn’t believe in God, would you be out raping and murdering?
There may not be test tube or microscopic evidence that there is a living, breathing God,
Wouldn’t an omnipotent god transcend our ideas of “life”? I mean, that would imply he could die, right?
To respond directly to you Repack: Do you have any idea what percentage of any and all child abuse cases are the work of Catholic priests?
Frank, that’s only part of the problem. The other part is the Catholic Church has been actively protecting these very priests from justice.
Ahhh..the “atheists cannot have morals canard,” or as per your qualifications, the “some atheists have no morals” canard.
Let’s turn it around Frank. I find even the remote possibility that someone might believe that because there is a God, they are permitted to do whatever they believe their God commands, either pathetic or frightening, on a case by case basis.
Only because they graded on the curve…
But that only, at best, invalidates one “presentation” or “interpretation” of “God”. There are hundreds or thousands of religious belief systems, and on top of that, a theoretically infinite number of different interpretations of what “God” might be, including at least a few that would be disturbingly plausible from an atheist’s standpoint.
Does the infinitude of interpretations include the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus? (Rhetorical question, actually: the answer is “yes”).
You’re correct that one interpretation is disturbingly plausible, that being the “no God(s)” interpretation.
I recommend Phillip Pullman’s latest, “The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ.”
It’s a fictional retelling of Mary’s twin sons, Jesus and Christ. It’s a lightning fast read at just over 200 pages. I’m really surprised it hasn’t yet drawn the notice of Christian fundamentalists.
There are hundreds or thousands of religious belief systems, and on top of that, a theoretically infinite number of different interpretations of what “God” might be, including at least a few that would be disturbingly plausible from an atheist’s standpoint.
Such as? Not the hundreds of thousands of belief systems, but the few that are plausible from an atheist’s standpoint.
What do you call people who just don’t give a damn either way?
Whether that which is called “God” exists or not is a matter of profound indifference to me. His existence or absence doesn’t excuse the mass slaughter humans engage in every day. It doesn’t affirm the “haves” for what they have or condemn the “have-nots” for what they don’t. That “God” is invoked as a justifier for all manner of evil done in its name is proof enough for me that it is an invention of humans with an agenda. That counter-movements proclaiming that “God is love” and that the evil that is done is contrary to God’s wishes is just the reverse side of the same coin, an invention of humans whose agenda may be more benign but is founded no less in reaction to human, not divine, agendas. What does it matter to me whether the tornado that destroys my house is “sent by God” or the result of natural forces? My house is no less destroyed. Or if the tornado passes my house by, does it make any difference whether I prayed for it to do so or if it simply did it? My house still stands either way.
I have more important things to do than fret about the existence or non-existence of an unseen, unknowable force whose actions I cannot detect unless I assume them to be there a priori.
All religious texts are written by men with agendas; there is not a single one anyone can point to and conclusively say, “this was written by God.” The “inspired word of God” was written by men, writing down what they thought God wanted them to write but in fact cannot be proven to be anything other than their own thoughts; and to my mind, it’s silly to want to live according to the tenets of Middle Eastern sheep-herders of 2 millenia ago who could not even conceive of space travel or the germ theory of disease.
In the abstract, you’re right liberalrob. The problem is that fundamentalists, be they Christian or Moslem, DO want to force us, in the extreme, to believe as they do, or be put to death, or, at the other end of the spectrum, to legislate for themselves special governmental privledges that non-believers or wrong-believers will not have. That is why many of us feels a need to speak up, and, in the US at least, demand that theists follow the law of the land when it comes to keeping religion out of government.
What do you call people who just don’t give a damn either way?
Apatheists.
I find even the remote possibility that someone might believe that because there is no God , they are permitted to do whatever they want, either pathetic or frightening, on a case by case basis.
I think, that you are, an idiot, because, no atheists think that, they can do, whatever they want because they don’t believe in, God.
There may not be test tube or microscopic evidence that there is a living, breathing God
Why believe in ANYTHING that has no evidence for it? Do you know how dumb that sounds?
there are myriad reasons why people believe in God
The only reason that one could truly believe in God is if one truly believes that God exists. If you don’t think that God exists, then you cannot believe in God. There is precisely one reason why people believe in God, at least on this level of analysis. On a different level, there is at least one more answer: brainwashing.
and myriad reasons why religion serves, has served, and will continue to serve as a force for good.
Just asserting it does not make it true. Read Hitchens’ book, God is Not Great and tell me that religion is a force for good. It’s often not, and the religious as a rule have no moral authority that atheists don’t have as well.
You’re just wrong about everything, Frank. What’s it like to go through life and have everything you think you know be complete bullshit?
I’m happy to say I’m an agnostic atheist.
Does God exist? Maybe. Probably not, given my experience.
Is God the father of Jesus who died and if you don’t accept him as your savior you burn in hell forever?
No. No because it’s bullshit, and no because it’s sad and cruel to think he allows such suffering to exist.
Still waiting to hear from Oliver re: PZ Myers response makes him a “fundie.”
Don’t think we’ll hear it on this mediocre blog.
Nice porn links though.
Human history is replete with beliefs regarding supreme beings. Odin, Vishna, Zoroaster, etc.
Why is it that ca. 2010 we still struggle with the idiocy of a) Jewish kid who claimed he was the son of Yahweh or b) Arabian kid who claimed he was the true prophet of Allah?
Feel free to follow your ghosts. But stop trying to impose them on me and my fellow citizens.
I’m an atheist and an agnostic, and I’ve never raped a kid.
Frank? Response please? Because we all know plenty of pious Catholics stuck their dicks into young boys and girls.
Got a speeding ticket one though, and I regret that.
If I gave you that speeding ticket, I was just doing my job.
What’s it like to go through life and have everything you think you know be complete bullshit?
Why ask me ? You obviously know better than I do.
Insulting me, and saying things that amount to “Just because you say so doesn’t make it so, but when I say it, it IS true,” do not impress me as either eloquent or probative.
You don’t even qualify as a pseudo intellectual – you’re more like a pseudo pseudo intellectual.
I NEVER – repeat, N E V E R – said that either atheists or agnostics don’t have morals.
Repack Rider said the following : “Atheists by nature do not respond to being told to do something because God wants them to, and conservatives find that frustrating.” [emphasis added - fd]
I was responding to the implication of that remark.
Shall we now go back and delete all the oh-so-clever replies?
The question remains: From whence rises a moral imperative without God? And this time, put a little thought into the answer.
As to the stupid priest rape remarks, would you like to bet that I could find, with a little bit of research, some atheists and agnostics who have committed absolutely bloodcurdling crimes ?
So you don’t definitely say God doesn’t exist? How dare you indulge in the fantasy of the sky god!!! Etc, etc.
From whence rises a moral imperative without God?
Frank, I am an individual, separate from all others, a seemingly unique consciousness around which the perceptual world is organized. As far as I can perceive, the world exists for me and I am at its center.
In the earliest awareness of death I become aware of the limited nature of my existence, but also, simultaneously, with the fact of its uniqueness.
Then I encounter someone else, another separate individual.
I can assume that this individual, so much like me in all else, also sees the perceptual world as organized around their consciousness and that they too experience the world as existing for them with their consciousness at its center.
Suddenly I am no longer only a subject unto myself, but I am also an object to another. That other is an object to me.
In this encounter, I am displaced from the center of universe, but so to is the other, who is also encountering me and reaching the same assumptions and conclusions about their mistaken perception of the universe.
They realize that they are no longer solely a subject for which the universe exists, but they are also an object of some other subject for whom the universe also exists.
Both of us, subject to ourselves and objects to the other, are also aware, through the encounter with death, of the finite nature of our existence and so the uniqueness of our existence to ourselves.
Morality and ethics begin in that encounter and the realization that I am both a subject and object in the world and the fear of death which is the end of my unique existence.
Accordingly, I do not want to be treated as an object the other I encounter. I want to be treated as the unique and special subject that I perceive myself to be. So to, does the other person.
We work it out such that we can both exists as subjects in the world and not, wherever possible, as objects of the other.
This is, of course, a pretty simplistic encapsulation of a large body of philosophical thought that’s probably most influence by existential phenomenology.
No higher being or divine entity need ever referred to validate any claim made here.
But, the concepts of god and religion may be mobilized to reinforce and enforce the moral and ethical imperative established a priori to religion.
Because religion is nothing more than moral and ethical guidelines laid out in the form of narrative.
Some of these narratives are simple, some of them are complex. But they all serve the purpose of “catapulting the propaganda” as it were of moral and ethical behavior, the foundations of which were established long before god or religion ever entered the scene.
Frank, Frank, Frank, Frank, Frank.
The question remains: From whence rises a moral imperative without God?
You don’t have to come right out and say “atheists aren’t moral.” Your question implies that morals come from the teachings of a god, and those who reject the god and/or its teachings, lack a moral foundation.
The answer is simple. Doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. I don’t need to be coerced to do the right thing by some deity dangling the tasty carrot of eternal life before me, nor do I need to be disuaded from doing harm by the threat of eternal damnnation. I try to treat others as I would like to be treated in turn, and that idea is not unique to Christianity, or any other religion.
Well, empathy doesn’t require religiosity in order to exist, nor does reason, so it follows that so long as one possesses empathy and reason, and combines it with practical experience, one can probably suss out a system of personal ethics that can work for a larger group. Most ethical philosophical systems I’m aware of do not require the existence of a supreme arbiter in order to set forth a set of principles for determining the morality of a proposed act.
Repack Rider said the following : “Atheists by nature do not respond to being told to do something because God wants them to, and conservatives find that frustrating.” [emphasis added - fd]
I was responding to the implication of that remark.
What ARE the “implications” of that remark? It stands by itself, and needs no interpretation, although I see that you feel the need to write into it implications that are not there. If I don’t accept the existence of god(s), why should I respond to what other people representing themselves as third-party spokespersons for those god(s) are telling what to do? How do we know whom has been chosen as gods’ spokespersons, when there are so many competing claims?
Can’t you argue using facts and logic?
Rhetorical question. You have already answered it.
So you’re arguing that despite the fact that you can’t prove a negative, just this one time a negative has been proven?
The Pythagorean Theorem is 100%, absolutely, no questions asked, perfectly correct.
Whether it matches reality sufficiently well, in all circumstances, is something we can question. There are no perfect flat spaces, no perfect lengths, etc. but it’s perfect to the limits of our precision in normal circumstances.
Frank, this is a serious question, and like all serious questions, I’m sure it’s going to break your brain.
If a moral imperative comes from God, what makes it moral?
Is it moral because God is so powerful he can punish you if you fail to obey?
How is it “moral” to do something just to avoid getting punished? It might be *prudent* – but it’s not *moral*.
But if that moral imperative comes from *beyond* God – God can’t make the rules, but only sees them, and might help us puzzle them out – then morality *does not depend on God*.
So, when you speak of moral imperatives – do you mean the kind of morality where you do something to avoid getting punished, or do you mean a morality that exists, beyond, and apart from, God, and thus, is accessible to an atheist (though an atheist might have a harder time puzzling it out without divine help)?
Hence, the beautiful goodness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May his noodly appendage bless you all.
It is simple logic really. I say there is indeed a God, you disagree, citing the lack of empirical evidence, which is true despite the millions of anecdotes (Holy Taco anyone?) So, defensively, I ask the impossible, for you to prove a negative (a super-task as they’re called), and walk away still smugly assured in my cognitively dissonant “faith.” Simple really, isn’t it?
I do enjoy how uppity believers get all atwitter when confronted with the words of a militant atheist, but what puzzles me is the discomfort of freethinkers when they confront the same. I suppose it is the knowledge that most people in random groups would either hold such opinions in hostile disregard, or just squirm at the idea of their theological group members being “offended.”
Agnosticism is wishy-washy bullshit.
In reasonable courts of law, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. And in undemocratic societies, the accused is guilty until proven innocent. In both situations, there is no wishy-washy bullshit: either the accusation is considered false until proven true (innocent until proven guilty) or true until proven false.
The same applies to mythologies. Atheists say false until proven true, and the godbots say true until proven false. Agnostics are half-hearted and half-assed, refusing to take a side. It’s perfectly fine to say something isn’t known or can be known, but it’s idiotic to accede to someone claiming something might be true when there is no evidence for it.
Allowing godbots any place to stand and make claims when they have no evidence to present is a weak-kneed, weak-willed and just plain weak argument. If you actually think the wishy-washy bullshit of agnosticism has merit, do this:
The next time you’re accused of a crime (rape, murder, theft, pedophilia, whatever) and someone asks if you did it, tell them “Maybe I did it, and maybe I didn’t”. THAT is agnosticism.
‘What do you call people who just don’t give a damn either way?
Apatheists.’
I would have said ‘Realists,’ but yours is way funnier.
‘Don’t think we’ll hear it on this mediocre blog.’
You sure spend a lot of time on this ‘mediocre blog’ insulting its founder.
‘The question remains: From whence rises a moral imperative without God? ‘
How about from a fundamental respect for common human decency instead of a supposedly unassailable faith in a wholly ethereal ‘divine’ creator?
It’s really not that hard.
No one is claiming that you can’t retain your faith in Catholicism, but really, would giving it up alter that much in your life that you would be truly lost without it?
People can live without one or all of their 5 senses; surely they can live without something that is purely a hypothetical to begin with.
Many years ago, before I entered a seminary I decided to examine other Christian religions – just on the off chance the Big Guy wasn’t Catholic. My journey ended with me in a funny place. I became – and still am – convinced that the God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims POSITIVELY, UNQUESTIONABLE and OBVIOUSLY does NOT EXIST – just read – really read – his so-called Invisible Spaghetti Monster Book Of Horrors. I became a “god of Abraham atheist and an agnostic on all others.”
The bottom line is those three religions believe that a self-confessed, multiple-occasion, mass-murdering maniac is the creator and they want to spend eternity in his blood stained insane arms – go for it – as for me, I got enough to worry about when the mother-in-law visits.
ODub, you mistake fundamentalism for confidence in one’s position and annoyance at bad logic.
“[W]hence rises a moral imperative without God?”
Look, you don’t need to know the answer to a tough question in order to spot an obviously bad one. “Because God says so” is an obviously bad answer to the question “Why abstain from rape, torture, murder, etc.?”
Why ask me ? You obviously know better than I do.
Pee-Wee Herman jokes? This is what you’re reduced to?
Insulting me, and saying things that amount to “Just because you say so doesn’t make it so, but when I say it, it IS true,” do not impress me as either eloquent or probative.
Frank, I know you’re an idiot, but even you should be able to comprehend this. First off, the insults arise from your profound lack of understanding on virtually every topic – not the other way around. I usually explain why your incoherent ramblings are stupid; with enough incidents, it’s safe to say that you are stupid.
Secondly, I don’t think that I’ve ever said “Because I say it, it is true.” Point me to one, just one, example of me doing that. In all cases, I explain why I think you’re wrong and I’m right, and those reasons do not involve me saying “Because I said so.” The only other times when I assert that what you say is false is when you do not back up a specific claim with strong evidence.
You don’t even qualify as a pseudo intellectual – you’re more like a pseudo pseudo intellectual.
And you’re a confused, bitter, angry, idiotic old man. I’d rather be in my shoes.
Frank: I was responding to the implication of that remark.
To a fevered dream of what you think is the implication of that remark.
The question remains: From whence rises a moral imperative without God? And this time, put a little thought into the answer.
fafaroo answers this question well. Your thoughts on his reply?
As to the stupid priest rape remarks, would you like to bet that I could find, with a little bit of research, some atheists and agnostics who have committed absolutely bloodcurdling crimes ?
That’s not the point, that’s never been the point, and you’re apparently too stupid to understand that.
I was responding to the implication of that remark.
To a fevered dream of what you think is the implication of that remark.
The question remains: From whence rises a moral imperative without God? And this time, put a little thought into the answer.
fafaroo answers this question well. Your thoughts on his reply?
As to the stupid priest rape remarks, would you like to bet that I could find, with a little bit of research, some atheists and agnostics who have committed absolutely bloodcurdling crimes ?
That’s not the point, that’s never been the point, and you’re apparently too stupid to understand that.
I believe that the answers given to my question can be summarized in two replies:
I. I can assume that this individual, so much like me in all else, also sees the perceptual world as organized around their consciousness and that they too experience the world as existing for them with their consciousness at its center.
That is an unsupported assumption. a) What if your supposition is flawed, or totally incorrect? You wouldn’t know it, even if that other person viewed the world exactly as you did, until a third person came along. This is the crucial flaw in situational ethics / moral relativism. BUT
b) Where on earth would you get the idea that this person thought like you (not a rhetorical question)? What evidence would you have that this person who while similar to you, was not identical to you, might possibly think like you? My guess is that judging by physical appearances, you would assume the person thought differently from you (after all, primitive men would have a 40,000 year waiting list for Multicultural Sensitivity Workshops).
The second answer put forth seems to be:
II. How about from a fundamental respect for common human decency instead of a supposedly unassailable faith in a wholly ethereal ‘divine’ creator?
You have several undefined terms in this statement:
respect
common human decency (nothing “common” exists in “humans” yet – see (I) above.
Second, which is “more” ethereal: common human decency, or a divine creator?
Finally, with regard to both suggested answers: Where is “evil”, or “deviance”, as it is described in the social sciences? Does it exist in all men? Some men, but not in others? Or does it exist from time to time, in all men? Are we compelled to do evil, when tempted, or do we possess some “common human resistance” to temptation?
Here’s a situation, familiar to us all, that describes the difficulty I am trying to illuminate here:
You have paid for an item with a $10 bill, and received change back for a $20 bill. You notice this, and return the difference to the clerk. But what about when you are home, or almost home, and you notice the discrepancy? Is it a universal human response to return to the store with the proper change in spite of your current financial condition, the inconvenience of returning all the way to the store, the possible danger of hazardous road conditions, the additional expense for gasoline, maybe even a toll? Does the size of the store and its affluence matter? Does whether or not you are known there matter?
The answer is that each of these factors matters, in differing degrees, to each individual faced with that problem. There is no such thing as “common human decency”.
There is a universal desire to be “to be treated as the unique and special subject that I perceive myself to be,” but that does not bring with it a desire to treat others as you would be treated. That is why all the world’s religions and dogmas have made it a “Rule”, because they all instinctively recognize that men do not come by such a feeling naturally.
One more example, from this very blog: I once suggested that each person who comments here is entitled to respect. I was told by another commenter that that was “bullshit”, and that I had to “earn his respect.” Apparently, of all the people on earth who possess innately to desire to treat others as they wish to be treated, he lacked that critical attribute. Unless, of course, it was his desire never to be respected.
That is an unsupported assumption.
So what? What you have to prove is how my example cannot possibly allow for the establishment of a moral or ethical system without the concept of God.
The concept of god does not and cannot offer any solution to the problem that I can never know with any certainty how other people experience the world.
I, on the other hand, can proceed to establish the same moral and ethical framework without any recourse to anything beyond my experience of the perceptual world.
I am aware of myself because I am aware of a specific perceptual experience of the world. I am bounded by the perceptual experience. When I encounter another, I do not need to know how that other experiences the world in order to know that I my perceptual experience of the world is separate and distinct from its perceptual experience of the world precisely because I do not and cannot know how this other experiences the world. I have no access to their perceptual framework.
Hence, we have the distinction that I am a subject, bounded by my perceptual framework which is in turn bounded by death and in the encounter with an other, I encounter something separate from me and so an object of my perception.
I can establish a moral and ethical order based on that awareness alone: The other is not me. How do I treat that which is not me and how do I want that which is not me to treat me, in the full awareness of death?
So whatever your problem with my assumptions, those problems have nothing at all to do with the whole point of this exercise: How can you have a moral imperative without god.
Your problems with my philosophical assumptions do not at all challenge the idea that the concept of god is not necessary for the establishment of a moral/ethical system.
Bah. Bad tag.
I would also add, that I am talking about is not some “innate” or “natural” awareness that all human life is of value. Not even close. There is no “innate” a priori awareness that the existence of the other I encounter has any value at all.
There is, however, a very distinct and powerful awareness that my existence has value, even if it only has value to me. In the encounter with the other, the only thing I care about is that this value is respected by the other.
That respect can come through mutual agreement on a set of ethical and moral rules or it can come through force. Or both. Doesn’t matter.
“Might makes right” is still a moral and ethical system. Now any moral or ethical system will not only replicate itself, but it will also lead to the generation of its opposite, which, in this case, might be “Do unto others.” Why? Because you are still dealing with subject who do not want to be treated as objects. These subjects will establish their own value systems in contrast to the dominant value system. They will then find a way to assert their value system over the other one.
And thus the entire course of human civilization is set into motion.
Religion is noting more than the organization of moral and ethical systems into powerful narratives which can motivate and compel acceptance and promotion.
All of this is set in motion well before anyone arrives at the concept of god or a spiritual existence in order to give force their moral and ethical world view.
It begins in the awareness of our bounded perceptions and the death. No god is necessary.
My guess is that judging by physical appearances, you would assume the person thought differently from you (after all, primitive men would have a 40,000 year waiting list for Multicultural Sensitivity Workshops).
I should also point out, Frank, that you are misreading what I’m saying. I am not talking about “thought” as in shared cultural assumptions or articulated world views.
I’m talking about perceptual experience, before thought, as the basic foundation which gives rise to thought.
‘You have several undefined terms in this statement:
respect’
No I don’t.
‘common human decency (nothing “common” exists in “humans” yet – see (I) above.’
Really? NOTHING common exists in human beings? What the Hell?
‘Second, which is “more” ethereal: common human decency, or a divine creator?’
You must be joking if you think that respect, tolerance and understanding are ‘ethereal’ elements of an evolved modern human being, on par with the concept of some all powerful super creature that lives in a shadowy alternate dimension.
‘Are we compelled to do evil, when tempted, or do we possess some “common human resistance” to temptation?’
As a species, we are neither ‘compelled’ to do good nor evil, but rather people act in accordance with their individual conscience or lack thereof, based on a variety of factors including upbringing, personal experiences, the society in which we live, education and intelligence, none of which ‘compels’ us to do a damn thing.
As a species, we are neither ‘compelled’ to do good nor evil … none of which ‘compels’ us to do a damn thing.
The short answer to my question is, therefore, “No.”
Fafaroo, no matter how you twist it and bend it, you cannot get from “Might makes right” to “Treat others as you would wish to be treated”, without restraint, or discipline (in its conventional meaning).
This restraint can me imposed by other human beings – be they “religious” or “secular” – but then they must be in some way restrained or disciplined.
We each “must have a code, that we can live by” , sang Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. But if we each have our OWN code, then that is the same as having no code.
So the question remains yet unanswered: From whence rises morality without a belief in a God?
Notice I said “belief in a God”. The existence of God is not required to create a moral system. All that is required is the belief that a being, greater than ourselves, has a direction for us, that He or She wishes us to follow, and that we have been created, not out of caprice or intent to control, but out of a desire of His / Hers to see us live in accordance with that plan.
Only a belief. Not hard copy, not a sonogram, or a spectrograph.
Only a belief.
Frank, just because you don’t like the answer to the question doesn’t mean that the answer is somehow wrong. You’re being willfully obtuse. But that’s par for the course.
How about research in nonhuman primates? It’s been shown that apes that steal from others or who are needlessly violent in their group are shunned or expelled from the group. Other work suggests that nonhuman primates have a sense of “fairness”. Are you going to suggest that these animals believe in a God? Are you going to say that their behavior arises from that belief? Because it seems quite obvious that the behavior comes first, not the belief.
We each “must have a code, that we can live by” , sang Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.
Compelling argument.
But if we each have our OWN code, then that is the same as having no code.
The entire point is that there’s commonality in morality across peoples, and that you don’t need a God or a belief in a God for that to arise. It’s a bad thing for society to go around murdering and stealing. From an evolutionary perspective, if this is the behavior our species regularly engaged in, we likely would have gone extinct (or humans would not have evolved at all). Moral behavior is evolutionarily adaptive.
So the question remains yet unanswered:
No, it doesn’t.
And this gem: common human decency (nothing “common” exists in “humans” yet – see (I) above.
Utter, complete, total bullshit. Wrong, wrong, wrong, so badly wrong that it’s laughable. Frank, did you know that persons from every culture on the planet smile and laugh in much the same way? Did you know that people of all cultures, at the start of friendly social greetings, flash their eyebrows (raising and lowering them in quick succession)? Notably, monkeys do this too – when I worked in a lab with capuchin monkeys, that was affiliative behavior. I would raise and lower my eyebrows at them, and they would return the “greeting.”
So again, what’s it like to be wrong about everything in your life?
Fafaroo, no matter how you twist it and bend it, you cannot get from “Might makes right” to “Treat others as you would wish to be treated”, without restraint, or discipline (in its conventional meaning).
Uh, Frank, I’m not twisting or bending anything. That’s exactly what I said:
Assert being used in its conventional meaning.
In other words, an oppressive moral system will naturally give rise to an oppositional moral system as those who are oppressed seek to have their subjecthood respected. This oppositional moral system can only become a dominant system, however, if it can assert itself over the repressive force of the system that dominates it. This can be accomplished through brute, physical violence or through rhetorical persuasion. It usually requires both.
Religion is a rhetorical instrument of persuasion which has often, throughout history, turned to violent force when rhetorical persuasion has proved insufficient to the task of conversion.
But if we each have our OWN code, then that is the same as having no code.
First of all, “Might makes right” is not “everyone does their own thing.” It is, rather, “Everyone does what the guy with the biggest club tells us to do.” This is a moral and ethical system whether you like it or not. It is also one that still underpins almost every society on the planet and has since time immemorial. One does not require god to establish order through force. But, neither does one require god to establish a society based on something other than force.
But even religions which preach that we’re all of value in the eyes of god and so we should “Do unto others” require the threat of punishment to enforce this belief system.
Ultimately, the moral and ethical system of Christianity is little more than “Do unto others” backed up by force: The ability of god to punish everyone who doesn’t do what they’re asked.
My point is that god is not necessary at all to establish the same system and that, in fact, god is nothing more than one among many rhetorical devices that can be used to accomplish the same thing.
That for centuries of human existence the concept of god appeared to be the most compelling rhetorical device to compel acceptance of a certain code, does not at all mean that it is the only rhetorical device that can compel such acceptance. Human reason alone is capable of establishing such a moral system without reference to a divine being and it can accomplish observance of this system through rhetorical persuasion backed up by force.
Second, a world in which everyone is out for themselves is still capable of forming a coherent and functioning moral and ethical system without any belief in god. Otherwise, how can you explain your faith in the unfettered free market?
The profit motive is an entirely selfish motivation that nevertheless and necessarily leads to a system of cooperation for mutual benefit. And, yes, outside regulation is necessary to mitigate the damages done by uncontested greed or to protect things like the environment, but these regulations are born in response to abuses that impact the selfish desires of others: Such as the selfish desire for a decent wage or the selfish desire for clean drinking water.
All of this is, of course, ultimately regulated by force which ultimately depends on the fear of death for its effectiveness.
One does not need a belief in god to create a regulated market based on the profit motive. One only needs a selfish desire for money and power.
As for this:
Frank, trust me, I never thought you meant that god had to actually, really exist. I was always proceeding with the idea that not even a belief in god is necessary to establish a moral and ethical system of behavior. Indeed, I have been asserting that god and religion are little more than narrative devices used to compel acceptance of moral systems established well before the concept of god developed in order to sell them.
All you’re describing above is one means of compelling acceptance of a common shared sense of human worth where none exists: There is a god and god created us in his image so we are all the same before the eyes of god and so we all have the same value which must be respected.
You do not need any kind of belief in god to arrive at the same conclusion. I have value to myself in the simple awareness that I am a unique and separate individual with a finite lifespan. My aim is to have that value respected voluntarily, or to assert that value through force, such that no one treats me as an object this limiting my already limited experience as a conscious being.
But, of course, this has been said before. All you’ve done is come back and say, “Well, okay, so you’ve established a moral and ethical system without god, but you can’t enforce it without god” which is essentially conceding the main point.
Then, of course, you’ve simply ignored everything you can’t actually refute and repeated your question if we didn’t really understand it in the first place.
Guess what, Frank? We did. You just can’t respond seriously or thoughtfully to any of our answers.
This is why it’s so frustrating to have any kind of serious discussion with you Frank. You simply ignore what you can’t actually respond to, preferring to pretend that it hasn’t been said.
‘The short answer to my question is, therefore, “No.”’
Obviously in your incredibly limited worldview, but not in mine.
I notice you didn’t answer my question, though that too is obvious;
‘No one is claiming that you can’t retain your faith in Catholicism, but really, would giving it up alter that much in your life that you would be truly lost without it?’
You would have to throw yourself off a cliff if in fact ‘God’ was proven to be nothing more than a figment of human imagination.
‘We each “must have a code, that we can live by” , sang Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. But if we each have our OWN code, then that is the same as having no code.’
So we each must have a code to live by, but if we each have our own code, then that means the same as no code, therefore we must all have the same code, although the code differs from geographic region all over the Earth.
That doesn’t make any sense, not surprisingly.