The pope's ridicuolus and wrong stance on condoms has led to world-wide outrage, and the Vatican is going to be sent millions of condoms in response. I have an even better idea: if you're Catholic, leave the church. Why you are following an ignorant, superstitious kook as a moral authority is mystifying to me.
In another weird story of the Catholic persecution complex, look what a Brazilian archbishop has to say:
"The Jews talk about six million people killed. But how many Catholics were victims of the Holocaust? They were 22 million in all," Archbishop Dadeus Grings, from Porto Alegre in southern Brazil, told advertising magazine Press & Advertising.
Hmm. About 3 million Catholics were killed by the Nazi regime in camps…but it wasn't for being Catholic. It was for being Polish. I don't know where this mysterious "22 million" number comes from — there were 42 million total civilian casualties in World War II. Is he trying to include every single dead Catholic as a direct victim of the Holocaust? Since by far the largest fraction of the casualties in that war were borne by the Soviet Union, shouldn't we then be complaining that atheists were the true martyrs? (Not that I would, I think the reasoning of this archbishop is specious.)
- Log in to post comments
It doesn't make me mad though. Why is that?
because you already were?
...mad as a hatter, that is.
you don't appear to be listening, Tim. Which either means you're too stupid to understand what we are saying to you (ignorance no longer covers it), or deliberately just trolling for kicks.
I'm done.
*tags out*
Tim,
For us scientists, everything has to be based on mountains of observable evidence. We have no faith in the theory of gravity, the theory of electromagnetism, the theory of evolution, etc... all supported by mountains of evidence and no evidence that disproves them, we accept the mountain of evidence.
Introducing anything supernatural whether you call it "god" or "intelligent designer" does not explain anything and is simply a cop-out to stop searching for a scientific explanation.
You will have to cross the bridge from "faith" to "evidence-based reason" to understand what everyone on the reason side is telling you. If you don't you'll keep bringing up silly questions and waste your an our time.
We live in different worlds: we don't give up the search for scientific explanations and you are way to eager to throw arms up into the air and say "GodDidIt or "IntelligentDesignerDidIt.
I've been wondering something and this seems as good a place to ask it as any:
If the Garden of Eden story isn't literal, then where the hell does original sin come from?
All the arguments about morals coming from god aren't an argument for god actually existing, they are an argument for getting people to believe it does. An actual god is totally uneeded no matter what side you are on.
Tim:
Because you're not very bright? I have to admit, you're one of the stupider trolls we've seen here recently.
Why, oh, why doesn't Pharyngula attract trolls of even moderate intelligence? Trolls who might actually be able to construct a half-way interesting argument? Trolls who might actually have something interesting to say?
Why do we only get dim bulbs like Tim here who clearly has never thought about anything more complicated than how to eat his Wheaties without messing himself at his mommy's table?
Pharyngula - where even the most bulimic trolls become obese.
I chose 400 because it was a round number and the Reformation was so long ago it seemed about right. We barely covered this in school, it was whitewashed to the max. Luther, a nice guy (he was a not very nice crackpot) nailed some papers on a door and the church split. Not a mention of the decades of bloody wars that followed.
500 years would be closer, but to the point, Catholics and Protestants traditionally hate each and occasionally kill each other, it doesn't really matter.
During that 500 years it hasn't been nonstop bloodshed. Full scale wars don't last that long continuously and if they did, by now both sides would have invented nukes and history would be different or finished.
The way we use war colloquilly today doesn't necessarily mean nonstop violence. We have cold wars, wars on drugs, wars on terrorism, wars on family planning clinics, wars on Xmas, wars on Halloween, and the War on Easter is coming up.
The 500 year RCC-Protestant war was cold for most of that time with sporadic violence that continues today, although it is getting rarer. If you are from the UK, you might not know that in the USA, hostility and discrimination between Catholics and Protestants was common up until the late 20th century. When JF Kennedy was elected president, he was the first and so far only Catholic in a nation with 23% RCCs and it was a big deal. This is before my time barely and of most people reading blogs. And the reality today, most but not all people don't care anymore.
There is still a large amount of anti-Catholic bigotry among the fundies, a not insignificant fraction of the population. The WELS, Wisconsin Lutherans, have on their website that the pope is the antichrist, a common belief along with the RCC being the church of satan. I've long maintained that the only reason the two major divisions aren't still fighting somewhere is that the secular governments got sick and tired of the conflicts over dogma and took away their armies and heavy weapons.
Becca [15], I offer the words of the immortal GBS:
Last Hussar [47], the sperms' journey is always getting the publicity. Meanwhile the egg travels down the Fallopian tube, a journey that has been likened to paddling down the mighty Mississippi River in a canoe.
Tis Himself [#362], it's implied in your description but Tuchman also mentions that the folly is carried out in spite of clear warnings from contemporary advisers.
As LotStreetWiz's grandmother said when told her daughter was going to marry a Jew, "Well, at least he isna a Catholic."
A last word, from Benjamin Franklin. He had your number, guys:
People invent gods to reinforce the morality that they already have, whether it's eating the neighbours or symbolic cannibalism performed on crackers.
Is it wrong to murder your mother, and can anyone give me an objective moral standard as to the reason why?
Does your life have value, and if so, why?
Tim must be a very recent convert to Catholicism, or else someone who is too lazy to find out what his church actually believes.
Unlike Protestant fundamentalists, the Vatican has no problem with evolution by natural selection. Recent Popes have at least been intelligent enough to understand that the last thing their Church needs is another Galileo scandal.
Mainstream Catholic intellectuals will tell you that God created everything at the Big Bang, and then let the universe potter along by natural means, intervening every now and then, by popping a soul into Homo Sapiens, or by sending his son to earth to be horribly tortured and killed.
What is the common ancestor? Depends how far back you go. A few million years ago, it was an ape a bit like a chimpanzee, but which moved bipedally. A hundred million years ago it was a rat sized mammal scampering under the feet of the dinosaurs. Four hundred million years ago it was a fish. A billion years ago it was a bacterium.
If Tim rejects natural selection, then he is in the company, not of the mainstream Catholics, but of the Lefebvrists, such as the holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson.
As for faith - well, in reality Tim, you, like the rest of us, live by reason, not by faith. You don't switch on youur computer by the force of prayer. You use the on/off switch, and the elctrons flow in line with the laws of electro-magnetism.
You don't just turn up at an airport or a station and have faith that a plane or a rain will whisk you where you want to go. You consult the timetable.
And you don't step out onto a busy road in the hope that your faith in God will take you to yhe other side. You look and see whether there is any traffic coming first.
Even if we explained it to you, you wouldn't understand. Is the only thing stopping you from murdering your mother is that God says not to? If not, why not?
Tim asked:
I'm looking for an objective moral standard, can you give me one?
Taking inductive reasoning, and pretending it's the same thing as unquestioning acceptance of logically absurd and morally problematic commandments from a virgin male in a dress who claims to know better than you how to interpret the transcribed myths of a tribe of iron age desert nomads, is jaw-droppingly dishonest. Isn't "thou shalt not lie" one of the commandments?
Yes it is one of the commandments.
Is it wrong to murder your mother?
How 'bout you? Can you give me one objective moral standard?
Perhaps if you were to define the phrase "objective moral standard" in a way that explains why you do not accept what we have been telling you for the last 350 comments or so?
Tim@517,
When humans (and other animals) live together cooperatively, there are objective moral codes that the group adheres to (more or less).
Don't imagine that it requires an imaginary being to set an objective moral standard.
For an ancient written set of objective moral standards, check out the Hammurabi Code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi
An absolute standard of right and wrong?
You guys are the scientists, I figured you'd know what an objective moral standard is?
Can you give me one?
Thanks. What I want to know is: Is it wrong to murder your mother? And if it is, can you give me an objective moral standard as to why it's wrong.
We have.
Now explain what's wrong with the answers we've given, or sit down and shut up.
There's no such thing as an absolute standard of right and wrong, morals are contingent on our existence and if we didn't exist then whatever morals that applied to us wouldn't either.
The answers you've given me are your subjective opinions. I don't agree with them. I'm looking for an Objective moral standard. Can you give me one?
Does anyone else think Tom has become Tim, because Tim was getting all the attention?
At any rate, there's a good explanation of "Objective Moral Standard" here:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsmorals/a/AbsoluteMorals.htm
OK, so you can't give me one because one doesn't exist.
No objective moral standard exists as to the reason why it is wrong to murder your mother?
I'm not looking for an explanation of objective moral standard.
I'm looking for an objective moral standard as to why it is wrong to murder your mother. Can you give me one?
Now you're gettin' it!
As I understand it, morality is always subjective, based on whatever society one happens to live in.
You need to stop looking at things in black and white. Things are neither objective or subjective, absolute or relative. There's a grey area to everything, and to suggest otherwise is going to misrepresent whatever it is you are trying to explain. This is what is so frustrating about trying to talk to theists on the issue of morality - it's not the either / or situation that they proclaim between absolute objectivity and useless subjective reason.By it's own standards, morality cannot be subjective because it's a social construct. Morals are contingent on the society one is in and both the genetic and memetic constructs therein. We can see that many of the foundations for behaviour are instinctual, we are instinctual moral creatures. And that can be explained by evolution as I laid out in post #492. And until you actually look at what morality is you will never understand any answer given to you. You are asking the wrong questions because you don't know how to see the world any other way.Again, I ask is the only thing stopping you from killing your mother that God says no? If not, then what is it that is preventing you from killing your mother. If you can answer that honestly, then you may be able to start understanding where we are coming from.
Not if you're just going to plug your ears and go "THAT'S YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever we offer a formulation of one.
How about you, Tim? Can you give us one?
So far, the evidence seems to suggests that an objective moral standard, as to the reason why it is wrong to murder your mother: doesn't exist.
Can anyone give me one?
OK, let's humour Tim for a moment.
Tim, why does God think it's wrong to murder your mother (since this where your line of questioning is leading)?
Either God can offer sound reasons for why it is wrong to murder your mother, or he's just arbitrarily concocted this rule for his own amusement. If God can offer such reasons, what are they?
So far, the evidence seems to suggests that an objective moral standard, as to the reason why it is wrong to murder your mother: doesn't exist.
Can anyone give me one?
So it is the fear of eternal punishment from the big sky daddy that keeps Tim from murdering his Mom. I love his objective morality.
Because Tom was just too stupid to take seriously...
That's not where my line of questioning is leading.
I've asked the question, I'm just waiting for an answer.
I got one so far, he says that an objective moral standard as to why it's wrong to murder your mother, doesn't exist.
Is his answer accurate?
Can you give me one?
Ask the wrong question and you won't get an answer of value. If you really want to know, ask yourself is "God said so" the only thing stopping you from murdering your mother? If not, then think about all the reasons you wouldn't do it. If you can be truly honest with yourself, you may answer your own question. Though I'll give you a hint in order to get there:"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
How about you, Tim? Can you give us one?
No, he can't. Tim is in a bind: if his God exists, either there is an Objective Moral Standard (TM) to which his God is subject, or his God invented said Objective Moral Standard (TM) out of whole cloth.
As I said, Tim's in a bind. And that's why he's taken the infantile route of sticking his fingers into his ears and repeating the same question ad infinitum. (See #535.)
OK, that's your subjective opinion and Albert Einstein's subjective opinion. What I want, is an objective moral standard as to why it's wrong to murder your mother?
Can you give me just one? Please?
Apparently, Timmy-Tom is frustrated that we're not giving him the correct set-up for his punchline.
There is a punchline, right?
I want, is an objective moral standard as to why it's wrong to murder your mother?
Can you give me just one? Please?
Why do you need one?
There is a punchline, right?
Could it be . . . . Goddidit?
Does Tim have mother issues?
Probably, but it's not very funny.
The evidence further suggests that you can't give me one.
Fucking hell Tim, if you ever want to understand where we are coming from, you are going to have to put yourself into our headspace. Like I said, there is no absolute standard, morality for humans is contingent on humanity existing. Without us, there is no morality applied to us and thus you aren't going to find the absolute you are looking for. Other animals behave without any higher power dictating terms to them. They'll cooperate in groups, they'll protect their offspring from danger. There's even evidence that dogs have an innate sense of fairness. Morality sorts itself out through repeated interactions, and this can be shown both mathematically and in nature. For better or worse that is the basis for morality. Can you please answer the question that you would kill your mother if God didn't tell you not to? If not, why not?
Do you think he's looking for permission?
Or forgiveness?
Well, the punchline for The Aristocrats is not funny.
Who says morality exists that way?
The evidence further suggests that you can't give me one.
I asked you an honest question, Tim. Why do you need one?
Others have made honest endeavours to answer your question. That you fail to understand the answers is certainly neither their problem nor their fault.
By ignoring their responses, as well as the questions put to you, and simply repeating the same words over and over again, you demonstrate to all who are paying attention that you are acting in bad faith and have nothing constructive to offer to this debate.
Come back when you've grown up.
I'm getting concerned for Tim's mother, he seems obsessed with the idea of killing the poor woman. God probably told him to knock her off and now he's frantically trying to find a reason why he shouldn't. I hope he seeks help.
Good point.
Just another ignorant Liar for JesusTM. I tried talking with him, but no. He's obsessed with asking that one wrong question - and because of that he'll never understand where we are coming from. Though for a theist to want to understand, that would be miraculous in itself. It seems his tactic on here is to prove that God exists because you need God for morality - it's not the case and a complete misrepresentation of what morality is. But still...I wonder where he sides on the Euthyphro dilemma.
Of course I wouldn't, she's my mother. Silly atheist!!
OK, you've explained your position. Thank you. What you say, though, is still your subjective opinion. I don't agree with it. So, the reason why it is wrong to kill your mother is based on everyone's own subjective opinion? Since there is no objective moral standard?
Exactly. So you need no religious commandment not to murder your mother. Therefore your desire not to murder your mother is based on something else, maybe your love for her, that emotional bond that forms between a parent and child. Maybe it's that you've got in your DNA code that prevents you from wanting to murder others, it's hard wired into other animals. Maybe you've learnt that cooperation is part of being in a society, so those societal bonds have taught you that killing would break such a rule. In any case, your ethics are based on sympathy, education, and social ties. Which is foundation for morality. Thank you for inadvertently demonstrating my point.
Tim is asking scientists a philosophical question, and is surprised when he is asked to define his terms.
Still, I do not want Tim to imagine that no atheist could satisfy what, to him, seems a simple request.
so, here it is Kant's categorical imperative, which fits the bill as an objective moral standard:
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.”
—Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
Holy fucking dead jew on a stick!
Do you have a fucking point?
Or are you trying to be an annoying asshole?
Tim, we've established that you don't need an Objective Moral Standard to not kill your mother. We don't either. So, end of pointless questions, OK?
Timmy-tom-tim: I'll bite.
So, OK, no. I do not believe that there are any "objective" moral laws. You may now move on to your point, if you have one.
However, note that my statement does not preclude the existence of universal or near-universal subjective (i.e. the result of judgments made by conscious entities) ethical rules, including one against matricide in nearly every case. The source of such a rule may be evolutionary (i.e. somehow genetic, probably rooted in the concept of inclusive fitness) or purely social, or most likely a complex combination of both.
So what?
Whoever asked me "why I needed one"? The answer is: Because I want to know why an atheist believes it's wrong to murder one's mother.
If an objective moral standard can't be produced because one doesn't exist, then all you will ever be able to give me in answer to my question, is your own subjective opinions. No matter how long you answer my question, the only answer that you will ever be able to give will be your own subjective opinions. What do you think?
And you have this answer by what you said above, you wouldn't do it not because of God but because you feel it's wrong. You have your answer, now go away!
I think you are brain-dead.
I'm tired of this fuck knuckle.
This troll is stale...
That's Mr. Kant's own subjective opinion, I want an objective moral standard as to the reason why it is wrong to murder your mother.
You look at the world in black and white far too much for your own good. Morality is a social construct, and because it's social it can't be subjective. It's just that it's not absolute either - it's contingent on us as a species existing and the society we're currently in. Morality is provisional, that's the best way to describe it. If you want to learn more, read the book The Science Of Good and Evil by Dr Michael Shermer. That may explain things better than anyone can in a few lines on a blog post.
Tim@ 517- "I'm looking for an objective moral standard, can you give me one?"
Holy crap, that question speaks volumes.
What a sick man.
You just don't get it. There's no need for an objective standard, because as you demonstrated yourself it sorts itself out as in the way Einstein suggested. You are looking for something that isn't there, and isn't necessary to be there.Demonstrate it's objective and cannot be explained by genetics. Then come back and ask the question.
Well here's just one example of my point.
According to your logic,
If there is no objective moral standard as to the reason for murder, and the reason therefore must be based on subjective opinion; we all know that with opinion, might makes right. So therefore, since Hitler had the might his subjective opinion was right and he therefore was right in killing millions of people.Was Hitler right? and if not why wasn't he.
Get used to disappointment.
No! Morality is a social construct and by very definition cannot be subjective. Stop playing the dichotomy between objective and subjective you simpleton, get out of these black and white absolutes if you want to learn anything.
Give us an example of something you would acknowledge as being an "objective moral standard."
Kel's right: Tomtim is suffering from the dreaded False Dichotomy. For T it's either "objective" (= decreed from On High) or it's "subjective" (= nothing but personal opinion).
*yawn*
Also, Godwin's Law!
In the wise immortal words of Obi Wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"
But your opinion can be and IS subjective and it's the only basis you have for determining that murder is wrong. Morality is based on your subjective opinion. You don't see the problem with that?? Think about it.
Tim, don't hurt anyone, ok? And if you feel the urge to do so, please seek help.
Your values are subjective, morality is not. Each individual is part of a society like each cell on your body is part of you. You are subject to the whims of others around you, thus your moral outlook is dependant on others. Here's basically what you are doing. If something isn't 100% it's 0% - that's what you are saying with your "if it's not objective, then it's subjective" neglecting the grey area in between and misrepresenting what morality is. You won't understand until you realise that talking in absolutes is the way of the Sith. If you disagree, please demonstrate that objective morality exists. And if you invoke God for this objective morality, please answer the Euthyphro dilemma.
Tim, if you don't believe that certain behaviours are an evolved trait, would you go attack a bear cub in front of its mother? You can scream "Morality is subjective" while the mother tears out your throat, and if you survive the encounter, hopefully it will teach you an important lesson about animal behaviour.
Nerd @387, sure sounds like the F troll.
Yawn.
Presupps are boring.
So the reason Tim has not murdered his mother is that he has stumbled across an "objective moral standard" somewhere in the Bible, or maybe in the ramblings of Pope Ratzinger.
But what on earth is "objective" about the Bible? We don't even know who wrote most of it.
The Mosaic injunction "Thou shalt not kill" was not a sudden brilliant discovery by the Israelites. Every society must have rules against murder and theft, otherwise it can't function. In literate societies those rules take the form of laws.
Is the legal injunction against killing your mother any more or less objective than the biblical one?
It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church hedged the very clear instruction "Thou shalt not kill", round with all kinds of exceptions. For century after century it was perfectly OK to kill those who disagreed about the exact interpretation of the Bible and were labelled as "heretics".
Both catholics and protestants used to think that killing witches was an excellent idea.
Killing during a "just war" was also encouraged, with the Vatican defining which wars were just.
What "objective moral standard" was involved in the decision to slaughter the population of southern France known as Albigensians or Cathars?
What "objective moral standard" did the Catholic knights of the First Crusade follow when they massacred every moslem and jew they could lay hands on when they captured Jerusalem?
Or perhaps Tim just imagines that "instructions from the Pope" means the same as "objective moral standard".
Tim, welcome to the world of moral responsibility. There is no big daddy in the sky to say, No, bad, daddy smack; _you are going to have to make your own moral decisions_.
The objective moral standard, like the ether, is not there, and it was never there even when you thought it was.
Now play nicely with others, like I suggested, and act they way you'd want people to act in the sort of world you'd want to live in. Have a nice life.
Tim,
please proceed and murder your mother,then tell us how it felt.
We have exhausted the theoretical approach to it by now,I think.
There is no objective moral standard,as has been pointed out to you a million times now,although you might feel you need one,and without it you would be tempted to do all sorts of bad things.
However unlike you,atheists do not require such a standard to be good moral beings.
Please contemplate this first before you answer.
apropos the subject
"As Newt Gingrich converts to Catholicism, a leading Catholic conservative says his sins—including an affair with a congressional aide—"no longer exist.""
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-29/newts-resurre…
If you actually want to learn about how morality works from scientists, here's a basic introduction from Dawkins done back in the 1980s. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3494530275568693212
Though it would be best to read The Science Of Good & Evil as I suggested above, and maybe even that chapter in The God Delusion where Dawkins talks about the origins of morality.
OT
For anyone interested,here is Ed Brayton's radio show with PZ from March 26:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/declaringindependencepodcast/~3/1BydoYCV…
I'm listening to that right now Clinteas.
The answer is: Because I want to know why an atheist believes it's wrong to murder one's mother.
Why?
(Incidentally, there is no single atheist position on whether or not there is an objective morality. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity or deities: nothing more, nothing less. And nowhere in the definition of atheism is implied a particular position on objective morality. So, since no single atheist here is the spokesperson for TEH ATHEIST HIVE MIND, you might as well stop demanding one. Thankyou.)
I think it would be wrong for you to murder your mother. I think the poor woman has had enough to suffer in life, what with the stupidity of her Tim-born, and the fact that he has to come to an atheist blog to consider her early death.
The answer to your question is obviously "it depends". There are situations in which it would be, if not "right" certainly "reasonable". It might not be wrong to murder my murder if, for example, she were terminally ill and had decided to kill herself, an act in which you she needed my help; if she were pregnant and the child would not survive unless a risky medical procedure were performed on her (she herself to die soon anyway); if she had gone insane and were holding hostages - only I could approach her, and her death were the only way to prevent murder; or if she had abused me throughout my childhood, looked set to continue with other children, and the effects of it had made me matricidal; or, if I had gone insane, felt my mother was possessed by demons, and the fate of the world lay in killing her (this would be regrettable, but hardly wrong...).
So it would not always be wrong to kill my mother, no. Normally, of course, it would be wrong, because I love her, abhor violence, and lest I considered it I would find it illegal and punishable by jail. It is a truly stupid question, and one only asked by religious morons. You do not have a monopoly on morals just because sky-daddy has to tell you what to do. Morals are innate, to some extent culturally determined, and, we would argue, possibly an evolutionary adaptation to allow us to live together in society.
Fuckwit. Tim = SF? No doubt a brief textual analysis, together with a compilation of his troll questions, should provide an answer.
Now, anyone know a good contract killer? My mum's getting on my nerves and I'm an atheist.
Sorry about that. My mother was the only one who knew how to do html formatting, and now that she's gone..
What are the moral teachings of a father who let his daughter and son be a "hooker" and a gay ?
Wow. Scratch a loving Christian deep enough and you unmask a hate-filled sexual predator. Much is explained, though I'm sure I'm not the only one to find Simon's obsession with PZ's children to be getting creepier by the day.
You do not have a monopoly on morals just because sky-daddy has to tell you what to do.
Actually, Tim has no morality because his sky-daddy has to tell him what to do. He's a moral automaton. There's no "there" there.
I learned HTML from my crazy aunt, before she died . . . in the bath.
Yes, heavenly Father, what were you thinking of?
Nobody has "objective" morality in the way the nutters on this thread want to define it.
What theists do is PRETEND their morality is "objective." Saying your morality comes from a god is no good unless you can demonstrate (for starters) that your particular beliefs are the real thing. But none of that cuts any ice with your Muslim or Hindu next-door neighbor, who also believes their morality is "objective," yet they believe in different gods than you do with different "objective" rules than you have.
Pretending your morality is "objective" and then tsk-tsking the atheists who won't agree to your definitions is the ultimate stupidity.
Now explain to me why I should follow your "objective" morality instead of the Muslim "objective" morality. "My god is real because I say/feel so" doesn't count.
Since someone has been asking for peer-reviewed answers, I'll ask the same for this question. I'm not holding my breath, though.
Recently, on another blog, a person displaying tim's amazing persistence appeared, displaying much of the same behavior. After a short period of time the person admitted he was "practicing" his act, trying to trick the regulars with his impersonation of a religious troll, in preparation for visiting some cult site and playing with them.
could tim be doing the same thing (i.e., could his behavior be an act?)
"My god is real because I say/feel so" doesn't count.
Now, now, let's be fair. Tim's god is real not because he says so, but because his church says so. His church says so because it's "filled with the Holy Spirit," whatever the fuck that means.
Possibly. We call such an act a "Poe" - claiming to hold outrageous christian views in an effort to satirize the fucktards.
With Tim, who might well be one of our more despised contributors "Silver Fox", it's unlikely, simply because he's so persistent - most Poes give up quite soon as the effort of appearing stupid is usually too much - but I reckon he isn't. He is too insistent, and his arguments are too dull and pointless.
Incidentally he asked, ridiculously, if a toothbrush were evidence of a designer. To which the answer is:
"No, dickwad, before toothbrushes we used twigs, which are not, so far as we know, designed for that purpose."
(sigh) If you can't stifle the troll-feeders, join 'em:
Tim, never mind killing mothers, what about mothers killing sons?
"Possibly. We call such an act a "Poe" - claiming to hold outrageous christian views in an effort to satirize the fucktards. With Tim, who might well be one of our more despised contributors "Silver Fox","
Possibly, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear: the person of whom I spoke admitted he was 'practicing the rhetoric', thinking that if he could pass for a fundamentalist on the sciblog site, he had the lingo down sufficiently well to get by on a fundie site.
I do get your point, however, and withdraw my suggestion.
Umm... that's not such a great move in this game. You really don't want the foundation of morality to rest on human rules, social norms or anything like that. That's because you want to be able to recognize that *all* of us can sometimes collectively get things wrong. (Think: sexism, slavery, racism, &c.) If you define 'right' just to be 'consistent with our rules or choices' then you can't do that.
You're better off saying that our laws and ideas about right/wrong are *hypotheses* about the correct set of moral laws. So, for instance, we have laws about not murdering our mothers because that's our best guess about what the *right* moral code consists in.
Once you do that, you owe some account of what *correct* moral laws consist in. You owe a story about the objective ground or foundation of morality. No biggie. Tim thinks it's the word of Jebus. Maybe that's true. But we have absolutely no (non-circular) evidence that it is. Also, since the word of Jebus makes lots of people unhappy, disease-ridden, poor and fucked up, it's plausible that this is not the right sort of answer. Much earlier (#112) I suggested that another way of grounding an objective morality is in the real, actual, palpable consequences of actions: more happy sentient beings = morally right; more miserable sentient beings = morally wrong.
This is intended as an objective standard and that our hypotheses about what will make us happy in no way determine what is the case. So it seems sensible. Also, it's consistent with how lots of us *actually* make sane moral decisions. (Governments get this sort of thing wrong all the time and so do parents.)
At about this point, Tim will tell you that (a) happiness is subjective. He will tell you that (b) our hypotheses about what will lead to less worldly misery are just guesses and so subjective. And he'll tell you (c) that he disagrees with the proposed standard. No worries: (a) think of happiness like bodily health. People's *assessments* of their state of cardiac health are subjective. But the state of their heart is a real, objective state of affairs. So this argument is pretty bad. Secondly, (b) hypotheses are not somehow rendered 'subjective' (whatever that means) simply in virtue of being held true by fallible beings. Limited, finite being can have a hypothesis about how some objective facts turn out. No contradiction there. Finally (c), it's not very useful to know that Tim disagrees with our hypothesized objective standard. If our hypothesis is in fact correct, all that means is that Tim is wrong. (surprise, surprise)
So there we go: an objective moral standard for the atheist, courtesy of John Stewart Mill. Go read the book Tim and leave us in peace.
Not buying the JSM argument above; saying we're making "a hypothesis about the right set of laws" implies that the right set is somehow an intrinsic property of the universe like electrodynamics, which doesn't seem to be the case.
at #453 Ichthyic wrote:
”the current thinking on the evolution of hominids ...
start with some very basic facts:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html ”
I followed that link, but the below paragraph doesn't reflect current knowledge:
I think the current understanding (in part based on DNA analysis) is more like this:
http://scottsdalecc.edu/ricker/psy101/readings/Section_2/images/human_t…
according to which we evolved from monkeys and apes, and our latest common ancestor with the chimps was an ape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Before_Homo
Yah, it does mean exactly what you suggest. Can you offer any reasons why this this "seems not to be the case" to you? It's far from obvious that you are right.
One point of clarification: the laws of thermodynamics or universal gravitation or even the laws of chemical bonding are particularly low-level phenomena. They're not a very good point of comparison. If there are universal moral laws, they won't be like that simply because moral laws don't govern entities in virtue of their thermodynamic properties or electron valence or anything as low-level as that. But there are universal, high-level regularities that govern economic systems, computational devices, self-replicators under selection pressure, and all sorts of other complex stuff. I don't see any reason to doubt that evolution or computation or market forces are objectively real even if I can't see how (or whether) they reduce to physics. I see no reason to doubt therefore that there are complex laws that govern optimal modes of social organization and individual behaviour among sentient beings with our constitution. What's weird about that?
The psychological and physiological characteristics of humans (and, by extension, sentient beings with a remotely similar physiology) are such that certain stimuli and situations will predictably result in a response which is interpreted neurologically as pain or suffering, and others will result in a response which is interpreted positively. A sufficiently complete and insightful understanding of these phenomena and a sufficiently robust and precise descriptive language would allow the development of rigorous heuristic approaches for identifying, and following, the course of action most likely to minimize the latter and increase the former. Moral laws are not measurable independent of sentient agents, but gravitational behavior is not measurable independent of objects with mass -so what? The relationship remains in the abstract. The other objection I've seen is that the laws of physics or their derivatives cannot tell us that we should want people to be happy. So what? They also can't tell us that we shouldn't want bridges to collapse.
So precisely that: objective science can (in principle) tell us _do this and people will be happier_ as it can tell us _do this and the bridge will stay up_. However the actual moral decision is in the wanting people to be happy. I, as I suspect you do, try to live by a generalised version of that principle- act in the way that you'd want people to act in the kind of society you'd like for everyone to live in. I just don't think the universe cares. It got along fine for billions of years without us.
Re Tim and his epic quest to find an objective moral standard:
Yes I outlined something similar to this idea at post #437 (which was originally addressed to Tom), which I already told Tim to read once. We can use empirical research to deduce such a moral standard if needs be.
Tim, just because a complete objective moral code hasn't been found yet, doesn't mean one can't exist. To say therefore that we must follow the code of God (who we don't believe in anyway) is just a God of the gaps argument and is a logical fallacy.
Ah Mill. His Harm principle is one of my favourite ways to formulate a code of ethics. (Plus I support the Lib Dems). It's my opinion that a code formulated empirically like I outlined above, and one formulated via the Harm principle, would be virtually the same.
Tim said:
I'll tell you what I think. I'm thinking, why should I agree with God's subjective opinion of morality?
By the way Tim, you still haven't answered my question from post #500:
You have faith that there's a Holy Spirit, and it inspires the Church and the Bible, but where did you originally get the idea of the Holy Spirit from?
Oh, and the "Alex" that just posted was me.
@Stephen. If I understand you, you are making two arguments in your last post: (1) There are no iron-clad, counter-factual supporting generalizations concerning what makes people happy. In order for there to be objective moral standards, such generalizations would need to exist. Therefore no objective moral standards exist. And (2): The universe does not care if we are happy or unhappy. For objective moral laws to exist, the universe would need to care. And so, objective moral laws don't exit.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sincerely trying to read you correctly.
Regarding (2): The universe does not care, just as you say. But the universe also does not execute computations. It by no means follows that parts of the universe (like my laptop's motherboard) do not execute physical processes that count as computations. And so, computations exist. The same applies to caring. We care; the universe doesn't. But that's enough. (All that is just a way of saying that I reject premise 2 of that second argument.)
Regarding (1): I agree with you that there are no laws concerning what makes people happy. That's why I'm not really an utilitarian; I'm something more of a negative consequentialist (like Karl Popper). I think we can make predictions about what makes people miserable: repression, torture, lack of political freedom, rape, and so on. The role of government is to remove as many of these harmful stimuli as possible for as many people as possible. They will have to take care of their 'happiness' for themselves. So, in short, I agree with the first premise of your argument. But I want to stress that just because we can't discover the objective regularities that govern a system or just because such regularities are devilishly complex does not entail that such regularities don't exist. The weather is a complex but deterministic system governed by regular laws; we still can't predict whether it will rain 17 days from now. What we know and what is the case are two different issues though. Ceteris paribus morality.
@610: my objection is much simpler. The objective questions of how to minimise harm or maximise happiness are only relevant after we've already made the moral decision that those are the goals it's good to seek, and that is not an "objective moral standard" of the kind which Tim claimed to be seeking, i.e. an absolute independent of anyone's opinion. I do agree with you that they're the goals any rational healthy benevolent sentient being is going to arrive at. That's probably "objective" enough for us to be going on with :)
Stephen: fair enough. It looks like we actually agree on the issues and any remaining disagreements are terminological.
I'm actually very suspicious categorical moral imperatives for the very same reasons that I think categorically optimal biological fitness is a contradiction in terms. There are no 'best' organisms; there are ones that are well-suited to their local environments. There are no 'absolute' moral standards; there are merely ones that promote the thriving of the kind of creature we are. (Why thrive? I don't know: why survive? Same question.)
From the source.
Not necessarily, see Digital physics at Wikipedia.
(Incidentally, is it just me, or is Wikipedia down right now?)
Now explain to me why I should follow your "objective" morality instead of the Muslim "objective" morality. "My god is real because I say/feel so" doesn't count.
Because even though I don't know you, I don't want you to suffer.
Then why do you keep posting? I suffer through your complete lack of understanding on the matter at hand and your refusal to take on board what anyone else says.
Both.
tim, if you don't want us to suffer then you're already following our morality. Good night.
ANd thanks for explaining nothing at all. You are so good at being completely oblivious to any knowledge on this matter. Please get at least a cursory education before posting again.
I was asked to answer it, not explain it.
Tim, why don't you explain your definitions for a change.
By the way, your god doesn't exist your bible is a work of fiction.
You didn't answer it, you said both and without explanation as to why it's both, that doesn't answer anything at all. Why both? What do you mean by both? How does it solve the dilemma? Do you have the mental faculties to understand what the dilemma even means?
I'm not that old, but it's been a while since I attended a school. Do they still do that whole "show your work" thing?
Because even though I don't know you, I don't want you to suffer.
Why don't you want us to suffer?
Yes, I do have the mental faculties to understand what the dilemma means. You've hit the nail on the head, though, because I lack the mental faculties to explain why it's "both". It's beyond my comprehension. I know that you don't believe in the Trinity, but I do, and to explain a Tri-une God is also beyond my comprehension. I would have to know the Mind of God and I don't. His Divine Mind so far exceeds my comprehension.
argument by sappiness.
I think I'm going to vomit.
Since god doesn't exist, Tim has no mind.
The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma because it starts from the premise that there is a god and there is absolutely no evidence that She/He/IT exists or ever existed.
Someone recently told me that churches Europe are empty because people are too lazy to go to church. I said, why don't we make a list of ALL possible reasons before we conclude what the exact reason was but that person was 100% convinced that there was only 1 reason and that it was her explanation.
The true Euthyphro dilemma dilemma should have at least 1 extra choice: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God, or is it because humans, as consciousness evolved, determined that morality is determined by the golden rule (don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself) ?"
Therefore "both" is an answer from ignorance and the only credible answer is the Golden Rule.
By the way, we society is still struggling with this. The roman catholic pedophilia institute had to solicit the help from mor(m)ons to enshrine discrimination against homosexuals in the California constitution. Another proof that the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma.
Raven:
Well, assuming they still kept oppressing science, they probably wouldn't have worked out how to build a nuke.
I didn't know it was a big deal. Interesting.
Least you've had a Catholic president. We haven't had a Catholic Prime Minister. Blair was too cowardly to convert to Catholicism before he resigned. (I'm sure it was nice for him having his sins like Iraq be absolved). I can say we have had a Jewish Prime Minister (Disraeli), which I'm proud of, though he was Tory (though one of the better ones). Meanwhile, the Government has recently said it's considering changing the rules for the monarchy so that women and Catholics have equal rules to everyone else (yes, we're that backwards). Cue comments and forum posts on the BBC website declaring, "But how can we have a Catholic monarch when the Queen is head of the Church of England?" I can't believe people are that ignorant that only one state of affairs makes sense to them.
That's just the way I am.
So it's your subjective opinion?
So your answer to the philosophical problem is that "Goddidit" and it's beyond our understanding so we should just accept it? That doesn't answer anything at all, it's nothing more than presuppositionalist bullshit. Goddidit and don't ever ask beyond that - nevermind the fact that the existence of God has never been demonstrated. You make the assertion that God exists, then all questions that stem from that are explained away by the parameters that you've asserted to begin with. You need to demonstrate God's existence if you think that morality comes from God. We can demonstrate the social nature of morality, that behaviour can be mathematically explained and seen hard-wired in other creatures through natural selection. What do you have to support your assertions?
It's not a false dilemma. You're an atheist. The Euthyphro dilemma is specifically a dilemma for theists.
What fucking source?
Tim, the Euthyphro Dilemma is "does one's god of choice command things because they are good, or are they good because said god commands them?" What you gave is an answer to "Are you dumb as a stump, or incredibly dishonest?"
Try and understand the difference.
You claim allegiance to evidence, but the most you will ever be able to provide is opinion. You claim rights in a system of law that has it's very source in the premise that the truth is self evident that we are endowed these unalienable rights by our Creator. Yet you deny the existence of a Creator and still claim the rights under the system of law that has as it's very source the existence of a Creator. If you were true to your beliefs, you wouldn't claim the rights that are endowed to us by our Creator, because you claim that the truth is; there is no Creator. This is hypocrisy.
I, on the other hand, am entitled to these rights.
My subjective opinion has nothing to do with it. It is NOT my opinion that I live under a system of law that has at it's very source the existence of a Creator, it is indisputable FACT, pick up a copy of the Declaration of Independence and read it any time you like.
Therefore, the case for the Creator is stronger than the case against the Creator. And it has nothing to do with my subjective opinion, and everything to do with yours.
Based on the evidence, I'd say that you need to demonstrate God's non-existence. You have a system of law that you claim rights to that directly contradicts your own position.
I answered "both" because a dilemma for me, is not a dilemma for God.
No! Did you even read what I wrote above about how we can demonstrate it through both theory and real world examples? Did you read Dr Shermer's book The Science Of Good & Evil? Did you watch that Dawkins' documentary I linked Nice Guys Finish First? And that's just for a beginning, there has been plenty of scientific word done on the matter. So while you may dismiss it as "opinion" all you are doing is highlighting your own ignorance!
Based on the evidence, I say you need to demonstrate Thor's non-existence. Done talking absurdities yet?
Here I was thinking the founders explicity stated that America is not founded on any religion, and indeed put freedom of religion there. Though if you want to be absurd about it... Saudi Arabia is built on foundations of Allah, that is indisputable FACT. Therefore Allah exists and Muhammad is the final prophet of God.
Argument from the Declaration of Independence...is that one on the list of proofs for God?
For the first time, I agree with you. But the reason I do agree will not make you happy. There is no dilemma for non existing creatures.
Never mind. #247 on the list seems to cover Tim.
Ah- Tim believes the writers of the Declaration of Independence are qualified to rule on the existence of God. And there he was saying it was only the right people in the Catholic Church.
Course they also said that white land owning men could have a say in running the country, and allowed slavery. Is it ok for racists to reference them as proof that there is nothing wrong with racism?
But as God told Muhammed that the Koran is all his word, that sure revises the New Testament.
Yes, thanks for the info.
I can however, dismiss it as opinion because it is in fact opinion. No objective moral standard, all you will ever be able to give me is opinion.
I didn't say anything about religion I said that the system of law that you claim rights to has at it's source the existence of a Creator, which you deny. Yet you still claim the rights under that system of law, Which is hypocrisy.
I don't claim any rights under Saudi Arabian law.
Tim believes the writers of the Declaration of Independence are qualified to rule on the existence of God.
hmm, I wonder if he considered what Jefferson had to say on the issue?
for example (and there are of course hundreds more from Jefferson):
"The natural cause of the human mind is certainly from credulity to skepticism."
-Thomas Jefferson
Tim #636 wrote:
You're looking at "rights" as something handed down from an authority, the way a king or parent grants favors. Another way of grounding rights, however, is through the mutual consent of those who recognize that, in nature, we are all equal in the ways that are significant for fair relationships.
Both methods will establish 'inalienable' rights, but only the second one does so from a democratic standpoint. The first method -- God "gives" them -- can just as easily establish hierarchies of worth and value, where some people or races have been "created" to rule over others. After all, human rights are being set up inside a system of absolute monarchy. That makes them very tenuous indeed -- particularly if the True nature of the King can never be demonstrated to all -- let alone be considered "self-evident." You can only ground objective standards in a world we can all see.
I think you over-estimate the value of your method, and underestimate the value of ours. We borrow nothing from yours.
Two things:Firstly, please drop this binary understanding of the universe, only a sith speaks in absolutes. Secondly, I was referring to the origin of morality, not whether there is an objective standard. We can show that morality does not come from a god but is a social construct based on our evolutionary history as demonstrated through the study of infants, other species and looking at game theory.
The constitution of the US is founded on secular values, it has at it's source the notion that men are equal in the eyes of the law. Nothing to do with a creator at all. Also I find it hilarious that someone would appeal to a society for a proof of God where God's first commandment was to have no other gods but him, and the society's first right is that to guarantee freedom of religion.
And I don't claim any rights under American law, though I think the bill of rights is a great secular construct. And either way, it's irrelevant to the fact that morality is an evolved construct. Stop looking at the world in absolutes, if you only look in black and white you'll miss the intricate colours of nature.
Shorter Tim:
A document written over 230 years ago implies God exists, therefore the burden of proof is on you to show God doesn't exist.
This is perhaps the most moronic thing I ever read.
You are aware that the Declaration of Independence is a work of politics? You asked several times for an objective moral code, and yours is a political document! How is that objective?
You should also know that these "inalienable rights" aren't guaranteed by a single word in the Declaration of Independence. You don't go to court and have it decided whether something is "Declarational", you go to decide whether its "Constitutional". And guess what? There's not a single mention of a "Creator" in the Constitution. But there is a clause saying that religion and the state should be separate.
Besides, you realise that the writers of the Declaration were Protestants, Deists and Catholics, not Catholics, so if we accepted you argument, you've just proved the wrong God.
And by the way, the Declaration of Independence is specifically an American document. It doesn't apply to me, a British citizen. And hell, it doesn't apply to Kel, who you were replying to, since he's from Australia.
EPIC FAIL.
Ahh, Tim. You don't even try to understand it from out side, do you? How can you expect to reach anyone on here if you won't see the world through their eyes? Ask the wrong questions and you won't get any answers of value. So please stop talking about objective morality, it seems the only person who craves an absolute is you so talking as such will get you nowhere.
Whoops, I meant they were "Protestants, Deists and Atheists", not "Protestants, Deists and Catholics".
Tim #643 wrote:
No, our system of law has its source in nature and human reason. We were created by nature: it needn't be a Person. You can then make a God in the image of a reasonable person, and "derive" laws. Or you can make a God in the image of a tyrant, and "derive" different laws. Nothing is more subjective than religious belief. Whatever God you believe in rests on faith in invisible, untestable things.
But we can't make reality into anything we want. We're stuck with dealing with it, and each other. The founding fathers believed in a God of Nature, discernible through reason alone. You can leave out the "God" part, and their system works fine.
Better, even.
First off Tim, don't assume that everyone here is an American. Lots of people think they have rights for reasons that have nothing to do with American law. Here's one good story: "rights" are actually a convenient shorthand for duties (or the converse of duties, if you want to be specific). When I say that I have a right to my property, that just means that others in society have a duty to leave my stuff alone. When I say that I have a right to life, it means that others have a duty to preserve my life, no matter what. And so on.
Why do we recognize duties to each other? Because that makes things run much more smoothly than if we didn't. (See above.) Some duties are reasonable: the duty to leave others' pocket-watch and umbrella alone, for example. Some duties that others claim are silly: your duty to preserve my life no matter what is a silly one. You have no such duty and so I don't have a blanket right to life.
See...? No sky daddy anywhere in sight. Now, you may wonder why Americans respect each other's rights? Well, in fact, it's for the same reasons that any other people on the planet do, actually. The odd thing about Americans though is that they have some very weird behavioural ticks when it comes to talking about rights: they seem to be prone to a kind of verbal spasm that has them ejaculate nonsense about 'Creators' and 'inalienabilty' whenever the topic comes up. It's really the darnedest thing. Funny folks those Yanks. But what can you do?
And for the record, the Australian constitution put freedom of religion at the core of our constitution. We don't even have free speech guaranteed (it's implicit rather than explicit) but our leaders 108 years ago thought it was important enough to guarantee anyone the choice to worship whatever deity they wanted, or even none at all. Hell, we've even had an atheist as our prime minister in the last 20. The laws of this country are there for all - though from everything I can gather, it's the same way in the US.
The constitution of the US is founded on secular values, it has at it's source the notion that men are equal in the eyes of the law. Nothing to do with a creator at all.
Tim is confusing the DOI with the US constitution.
surprised?
not.
The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion. - Arthur C. Clarke.
Humans developed morality as part of social/collaborative evolution. Our ancestors couldn't have known this, so they invented gods to explain it - much like they did to explain thunder, lightning, the sun, the moon, the stars and rainbows.
We now know - and have known for some time - that the gods aren't responsible for those things. Science tells us they are entirely ungodly natural phenomena.
So why should we still believe the gods are responsible for our morality?
errr... present company excepted, of course. :-p
Define your term, or it is just a meaningless phrase we can avoid.
I really think, Tim, that you should lay off the source..
The human species has been around for ~150,000 years. If you include our recent big-brained tribal tool-making ancestors, you have around ~3,000,000 years or so. During that time our ancestors were tribal and had to work in groups. Yet organised religion is but 6,000 years old and the Judeo-Christian myth is at most 3,000 years. For less than one percent of our tribal history, we've had religion as the source of morality. Yet for that other 99% we were able to survive just fine without it.So just what do we need God for in terms of explaining morality?
Rather than trying to answer Tim, we should make him defend his ideas. Put the burden of proof where it belongs. After all, he is the one trying to convince us of some cockamamie idea. If he can't sell it, it is worthless.
JSM #652 wrote:
Yes; in which case, rights and duties make sense only in a system of equals. If we have a duty to obey God, and God thus has a right to be obeyed -- then what is God's duty to us? Do we have the right to be treated fairly by God?
If the theist says no -- all the obligations are on one side -- then they can make no sense of talk about 'rights' and 'duties' in a system of mutual agreement. All they've got is commands which must be obeyed or punished.
Robert Grant wrote about this way of looking at human rights in his book American Ethics and the Virtuous Citizen. Excellent book, I thought.
nice
No, I was just referring to the existence of a Creator.
I have to admit, you had my hopes up there for a second.
Thanks for your well written responses.
I'd like to thank you all for your time and for putting up with me, I appreciate it. I didn't expect to, but I got a glimpse of where you all are coming from, now I gotta get back to business. It's been a very interesting conversation(for me, anyway). I never considered myself to be a troll but if the shoe fits.........
May nothing? be with you. (dat don't seem right)??,
Tim
fixed
Thanks for the book recommendation Sastra, I'll take a look.
I'm really not so sure about this though:
I may have a right not be enslaved and you may have a duty not to enslave me even if I happen to be your slave and you don't believe there's anything going wrong. How is it possible that there exist unrecognized duties/rights? Well, it actually stands to reason. Being a realist about rights and duties, I said earlier that things run more smoothly if we recognize the actual duties that hold in a given situation. Things run less smoothly if we get our hypotheses wrong. So if you use me as a slave, you can expect me (or my kids) to one day hang you (or your kids) from the nearest lampposts...
Rights don't exactly come from the barrel of a gun (to paraphrase Mao) but something like that. Rights/duties are both, underneath it all, a sort of shorthand for the balancing of power relations. We do best when we recognize how those actually play out. We do optimally, it seems, when we treat all members of our society as political equals (for Hobbsian reasons), guarantee social mobility, and let everyone get on with the pursuit of happiness...
[aside:]....so, still no sky-daddy.... Just Hobbes, biology, and some game theory.... See what a big complex world it is Tim?
Greetings!
I have no problem being an atheist and holding that rights came to me by my creator.
I know who my creator is. Or rather, are, both of them. I call them on their (and sometimes my) birthdays and other holidays.
Is Tim confused about where babies come from...?
This is the framers' subjective opinion.
Leaving aside the point that the USA is not the universe, has Tim not noticed that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing anywhere? The rights of US citizens are guaranteed by your constitution which doesn't have any gods in it.
Somebody show him the Treaty of Tripoli already.
Damn, I have to figure some way to come back and read these more often, but my job gets in the way. I did have a comment from around 359, about where I have to stop now to get some sleep, but I never, ever understood the "intercessory" prayer. First off, this god supposedly knows everything, so he already knows what you will pray for, and somehow he can't hear you, or act favorably towards you, without the extra prayer of this saint of young woman, I mean, virgin "mother" of this bizarre oedipus thing (seriously, if this triune god is one, how sick is it to be born from the woman you just had relations with? And we thought the whole adam/eve/incest bit was bad.). If this god knows everything, he knows whether he will give help or not, so why is this extra step even necessary?
It does go back to the traditional pagan/polytheism. People were used to praying to multiple gods and such for everything, and Christians had to absorb that. They couldn't get rid of it, so they made the old gods into saints. There is evidence that some saints never existed but developed out of older gods (IIRC, some of the irish/celtic ones, but it's been a while). Even as our knowledge goes, and our technology develops, we get new saints to handle these things - when I found out there was a saint of television, some woman who hear music - on her deathbed - seriously, how lame is that?- I nearly choked. (editorial comment, sorry for the disjointed and hideous sentence structure, I'm writing train-of-thought style for this bit). I wonder if we have a Saint of Internet, or E-Mail, or Computer Viruses, but really have been too unconcerned to find out, but I'll bet we see it.
We can only wait for the Saint of Pedophile Priests.
Lastly, Job - I find Ehrman's (and others) account of the book as an early attempt at the Problem of Evil to be pretty consistent with what we know and what we read in it. It does sound like two tales put together, and I have to say I find most attempts to explain it away as fairly pathetic.
I also have to agree with Stephen that the Declaration is not a legal document, nor the bass of our laws and country. He should read the Constitution for a change. And probably his bible as well, and many books on historical research into the bible, and higher criticism....and an English book that might help him with his Capitalization Problem. Tim, maybe you could use more exclamation points next time.
Intercessory prayer is simply asking one's brother or sister to pray for them, whether on Earth or in Heaven. It has to do with family, the communion of Saints, without union there can be no communion. It has nothing to do with polytheism.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and of all that is seen and unseen.
Because you make it too complicated
Without first declaring independence, there would be no constitution, therefore it is the basis for our system of law.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I find that you guys can never get to the heart of matters, which is understandable. No source, no destination, little hope. I found the same thing in reading Mr. Dawkin's book.
Anyway, something to chew on:
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc.htm
Tim still proving nothing. We know better, so if you quit being stupid we might be able to have a disucssion. Start with the physical evidence for your imagainary god. Otherwise, god is only a delusion existing between your ears. No god, and the bible and church dogma are fiction.
Tim, you might also want to study up on Jefferson and his theology before you continue foolishly assuming that you understand what he meant when he wrote of "Nature and Nature's God" and "Creator." (He was a politician who knew very well how to craft a noncommittal phrase.)
Hint: he was not talking about anything even vaguely resembling Jahweh or your Wholly Threeway.
Oh, you mean it's not to be taken literally?
I'll rephrase that.
Some parts of the Declaration of Independence are not to be taken literally and other part are?
Thomas Jefferson edited out all of the supernatural elements from his bible. Yes, he took a razor and cut them out of his book.
Tim, the DoI is rheotoric, and not to be taken literally by idiots like you. This is not a "christian nation". Period. End of story. Trying to prove this is a futile waste of your time, and we will immediately be able to refute all attempts due to the amount of attempts we have refuted. Keep in mind you are only the latest in a very long string of people trying to say that. The "christian nation" side has yet to score.
Tim #670 wrote:
Actually, we are the one who get to the heart of matters, because we ask deeper questions.
You claim that God gave a rule. Why did God give this rule? Why not another one? Is it a good one? What makes it good? Will following it lead to good results? If following it leads to bad results, must it comes from something other than God? God gave "rights" -- what are they? Describe them. And so forth, and so on...
Invoking God as an unquestionable "source" is a child's answer, and a shallow short cut to avoiding the real work of justification. But that doesn't mean that you can't take the long way around anyway, and establish the very same kinds of rules, rights, and precepts from the bottom, that you are claiming were handed down from the top.
If God's moral laws are reasonable and make sense, then they can be justified through reason, and will make sense to reasonable people. In other words, they will stand on their own, grounded not just in the fact that "God said them" or "it's God's Nature to Instate Them," but in the fact that they work in this world, and can be shown to work in this world.
When the morals make no sense, that's when you need God as their source. People outside the religion would never come up with them. An authority is required to force something on the unwilling. And then someone else will come along and say "Hey, God wouldn't say that, or want us to do that -- because it makes no sense..."
You mean that it was the intent of the author to speak figuratively? In order to covey some truth? Or did he just flat out lie?
Tim, the only liar here is you. Quit lying to yourself, so you can quit lying to us.
One can easily consider the phrase "Nature's God" to be similar to the phrase "Mother Nature" -- and absolutely nothing is lost from the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. If someone says to you that Mother Nature has been in a bad mood this winter, you don't feel obligated to take it literally. It's obvious metaphor. Nobody would argue that, if you don't really, truly believe in Mother Nature, then you have no right to talk about the weather.
It's surprising how easy it is to substitute the words "Mother Nature" for "Nature's God." They can be taken in the same spirit; they're neither one of them spirits.
But there's a limit to that depth.
Who really asks the deeper questions?
Not you Tim, your questions are very shallow, along with the answers.
Tim #681 wrote:
Why?
God says.
Why would God say?
The second question takes more thought.
That's some shitty logic right there.
I don't disagree that the DoI is important as part of the framework of our Constitution, but it is just a part of all that occurred during the Constitutional Convention that led to the actual document. Saying because it came before makes it the basis of our Constitution is historically myopic and ignores the much broader field of ideas that led to the Constitution and all the law contained therein.
What, do you think only atheists ask this question?
Like I said, your depth has a limit.
What, do you think only atheists ask this question?
No, but theists rule certain answers out of bounds, including, crucially, the correct one.
If you're not seriously considering all possible answers, you're only pretending to ask the question.
(An atheist) what is the answer to it? Life, the universe, and everything?(a theist)"Goddidit"
Tim #685 wrote:
No, I think both groups can ask this question. But it's by far the deeper question, and it gets to the heart of what is good and evil, or right and wrong, when people deal with each other, and the world around them.
If someone simply stops cold at "God said," then they've gone nowhere at all in either exploring meaning, or explaining ethics. It's a simplistic, shallow, empty answer without any reasoning behind it. But when you start to reason through the question of why God would think the way it does, you're discovering the source behind God's morality.
God's a middle man, at best.
Greetings!
If this thread isn't utterly dead, I wanted to ask a question of Tim.
Earlier on, there seemed to be a very large fuss made over the difference between an Objective and Subjective idea. Tim asked repeatedly if something was 'an objective moral standard'. I'm not certain what the criteria for this are, or how one would demonstrate such a thing.
And chance you could let me know how that works, Tim?
Thanks in advance.
So then we ourselves become the arbitrators of morality.
Because what is moral makes no sense to us, we then decide for ourselves what is moral. Is it possible that something can be moral and make sense to one person, but not make sense to another at a given point in time?
An authority is required to force something on the unwilling
It is because of the unwilling that an authority is required.
If soldiers were left to their own willingness to train for combat, we wouldn't have much of a military, in fact, we wouldn't (those of us who live in the U.S.) have the rights that we spoke of earlier, that were fought for. Are you willing to go to work everyday for free? Do you happily pay your taxes because you want to? Are you the authority over your children? If you commit a crime aren't you sought after by an authority, or do you just willingly tote yourself off to jail? And, in fact, isn't it an authority that makes and enforces the law that was broken? Ahh, but shouldn't that authority, in reality, be there to serve you?
Just because I disagree with the authority, it doesn't mean I'm right, and just because the moral doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't make me the authority. That's why the authority is the authority. Without it every one is their own authority, and morality means nothing. Ultimately there is one Authority. In an attempt at Divine terms; the always was and always will be are one in the same. In man's terms; the beginning and the end are one in the same.
Would you say that it's virtuous to recognize one's own inadequacy? Even to cherish it?
I'll get back to ya later, Thanks.
An authority is required to force something on the unwilling
It is because of the unwilling that an authority is required.
If soldiers were left to their own willingness to train for combat, we wouldn't have much of a military, in fact, we wouldn't (those of us who live in the U.S.) have the rights that we spoke of earlier, that were fought for. Are you willing to go to work everyday for free? Do you happily pay your taxes because you want to? Are you the authority over your children? If you commit a crime aren't you sought after by an authority, or do you just willingly tote yourself off to jail? And, in fact, isn't it an authority that makes and enforces the law that was broken? Ahh, but shouldn't that authority, in reality, be there to serve you?
Forgot the quote:
Just because I disagree with the authority, it doesn't mean I'm right, and just because the moral doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't make me the authority. That's why the authority is the authority. Without it every one is their own authority, and morality means nothing. Ultimately there is one Authority. In an attempt at Divine terms; the always was and always will be are one in the same. In man's terms; the beginning and the end are one in the same.
Would you say that it's virtuous to recognize one's own inadequacy? Even to cherish it?
Wrong again Tim. Your god exists only between your ears. The ultimate authority is everybody's conscious. You try to give that authority to god, but since he only exists between your ears, it is you.
Some may say it's The Joy of Cooking, but the only true authority is Julia Child's The Way to Cook
I was getting at the idea that we as human beings have value. It's been said here that the Golden Rule is virtuous and that we should treat others the way that we would desire to treated. The origin of the Golden rule, in man, is the question.
Morality, according to what I've heard here, is dependent on others, we can see morality through the behavior of animals, morality is a social concept, etc… We know that nobody says it’s wrong for animals to kill each other, why is it wrong for human beings to kill each other? If morality is dependent on the things listed above (and perhaps others), then that will always leave an opening for someone or some group at some point in time to say that my life or your life doesn’t have value, or is insufficient in value. That’s exactly what has happened so many times and was, in most cases, deemed to be immoral. Since the Golden rule remains depite man’s obvious defiance, it stands to reason that there’s something about that Golden Rule that’s superior to man’s ability to follow it. Man breaks it, yet it still remains, but if man developed the Golden rule, then it should change accordingly with man’s development. An absolute law (or rule), on the other hand, should not and could not. With the idea of moral relativism, morality is ultimately, and can only be, dependent on conflicting and changing subjective opinions. That’s chaotic and no order can be rendered because the means by which to render order are conflicting and changing.
So……… I try to follow the Golden rule because you have value, if you didn’t have value there would be no reason. We take care of things because they have value. So why does a human being have value? I say that a human being has value if, and only if, he is loved by God. What would your reason be?
I suppose that the criteria for an objective moral standard would be something that exists, which is free of personal bias and opinion and is the absolute standard of right and wrong?
Wrong again Tim. Boy, are you on a roll of wrongness. Doesn't say much for your mental capabilities. There is no absolute standard without your imaginary god and fictitious bible. Since they are delusions on your part they don't count. All morality is relative and has been over since proto-hominids climbed down from the trees and became bipedal a few million year ago. Deal with it.
Greetings!
I just wanted to address a few statements made here..
"It is because of the unwilling that an authority is required.
If soldiers were left to their own willingness to train for combat, we wouldn't have much of a military, in fact, we wouldn't (those of us who live in the U.S.) have the rights that we spoke of earlier, that were fought for."
The US has an all-volunteer military. Everyone there willingly agreed to be there. This is widely seen in the modern world as a good thing.
"Are you willing to go to work everyday for free?"
I'm not, but many people are, such as charitable workers and, it could be argued, full-time hobbyists.
"Do you happily pay your taxes because you want to?"
No, I happily pay my taxes because I realize that they are, to some extent, required for a functioning society.
"Are you the authority over your children?"
Well, I don't have any kids, and don't plan to, but if I did, I would like to think that they would become their own authority figures when they became adults and didn't need Mommy & Daddy anymore.
"If you commit a crime aren't you sought after by an authority, or do you just willingly tote yourself off to jail?"
Many people do. They turn themselves in and confess.
"And, in fact, isn't it an authority that makes and enforces the law that was broken?"
Yes, one that, at least in theory, derives its right to govern from the consent of the governed.
"Ahh, but shouldn't that authority, in reality, be there to serve you?"
Yes, it should. And to a suprising extent, it does. And, not suprisingly, the more that a temporal authroity is concerned about, and works towards, serving actual people, rather than holding to some supposedly unchanging moral code, the better in general it does. A brief overview of the relative living conditions in theistic or non-theistic dictatorships versus secular or theistic democracies should show that.
I believe dictatorships are not good. I believe authroity figures derive their power from the people they have authority over. Does your 'ultimate authority' serve you, or are you supposed to serve it?
(And I'm typing this quickly and without the benefit of spellcheck, so my apologies in advance.)
My point was that authority is a necessary reality.
One serves a loving father by loving the father. A loving father serves a son or daughter by loving them. True authentic love is what is required.
Tim #696 wrote:
The Golden Rule is more or less an objective statement of fact regarding what it means to be fair inside any particular group. "If you wish to be fair, then you will treat others as you would want to be treated." To universalize this, you universalize the group.
People who don't want to be fair, can always decide to not be fair. That pretty much holds with or without God. People who reject the ideal of being fair would also reject God, wouldn't they? Adding God into our condemnation of that person adds nothing but an additional condemnation which isn't really needed.
Two problems with your standard. First, it allows virtually anyone to reject the worth of anyone else, simply by claiming that "God does not love them." How would you -- or anyone -- prove that wrong, if they claim to have God's word on that? You're left with competing faiths.
Nothing is more subjective than whatever supernatural beliefs people 'choose' to have faith in. Throwing morality to faith isn't going to ground it in an objective place everyone can see and agree with. We have better luck with grounding things in the world we can all see, rather than a God which everyone sees differently.
The second problem is that it doesn't explain why God has value. God loves someone. So what? Why should we care about God? What gives God value?
When you answer that question, then you've answered my question about why human beings have value. God only has value to us, if it embodies those things we already love -- in each other.