Evolution
Options
Replies
-
I’m happy to talk about Exodus 21:20-21 but, given what you have said, I don’t see what the issue is. Since you admit that atheists have no basis for morality, how can you judge that text to be morally unacceptable? Upon what grounds do you presume to make a judgment on what social arrangements are morally acceptable and how people “should” treat one another?You do realize that most people have a conscience. The reason that the "Golden rule" exists in almost every major religion is because its part of our humanity, not because some old dude wrote it down on a piece of paper.
I've addressed this too many times to do so again. If you'd like to know my position on this, feel free to read all my prior comments.0 -
Cool. It's interesting, isn't it?
But back to my other question about human beings. I understand all that was said before about little changes like our taller ancestors having an advantage for being able to see over grass, so on and so forth. But I still wonder how, out of all the beings that have ever existed on this planet, did we advance so far, and others so little in comparison.
Oh that's easy, can't believe I didn't get to that. Our giant brains! Our brain is the single most important organ in our body, it's everything that makes us, us. Neural pathways and connections and synapses firing thousands of times a second..it's the single most impressive thing in the world I dare say.
We have the largest brain of any creature that's ever lived (I may be wrong and if anyone corrects me they win a cookie). Even giant dinosaurs still had tiny little brains (though I think some even had two brains, both still small).
Our brain is what makes us unique. Because we don't need to wait for evolution any more. We adapt the world around us to fit our needs. While every other animal who suddenly finds itself in a colder climate must wait generations to start growing a thicker coat, we just said "F this" and killed something else that already had a thicker coat and took it for ourselves. Our intellect is the engine of our own evolution and it doesn't take millions of years anymore. We don't have to migrate to better climates. We just build things that change the temperature to our liking.
Now this may not be viewed entirely as a positive thing. Because this is what's led to pollution and wars and all the bad as well. But if the survival of our species matters to you, you can thank our big, juicy, delicious brains!
SIDE NOTE: I wish people would stop believing their hearts had thoughts. "My head wants this but my heart wants this." "Trust your heart" "God knows what's in my heart." Listen up! Your heart pumps blood. Very important, yes. But it ain't doing any thinking for you. That's your brain. Give some credit where it's due. Or start also asking how your kidneys feel about important things.0 -
Look closely at the next five people you see. Of course we're related to primates. Of course I think they have it backward and we are devolving into apes.0
-
Not only do I seem not to understand what you are saying since they are abstract to say the least, you also seem to be lost on what I have said which is by far the simplist thing that has been said. . No where did I say the Atheist has no frame work for his morality. An atheist is a person. People get their morality from a variety of placed. Atheism in itself, is not a law, it's not a philosophy, it's not a club. It's the simple statement that we do not see proof of a god or the supernatural. The comparison of atheism to other belief structures is not accurate because it's apples and oranges. There is no debate from me that my atheism is where I get my morality from. Atheism has nothing to do with morality. Nothing, no comparison. So when I am confronted by a moral issue, I have no atheist handbook to skim through for guidance. Since I don't have the time to go through every issue on earth and what I think of that issue, I will simply say I try to treat those as I wish to be treated. If I don't get that same treatment back, that's on them and not a reflection of me.
But that is the problem we are facing. My morality, while consistent, is something that I think about personally, grapple with in my own mind, and then come to the conclusion of what I think. I have no prepackaged morality through a bible. I'm not saying there aren't very valuable lessons in the bible, as well as other religions. Only a fool would make such a statement. But it is an outdated text, written by man. In a lot of ways, consulting the bible for moral wisdom in todays society is a lot like still opting to use a type writer to write college papers. Maybe it can work, but there are now a lot better ways to type.
So, back to your argument, just because I don't like something, it doesn't mean it's immoral. I know this. I don't like trumpets. I don't think a trumpet is immoral. Second, I do not think that evolution is a fact about nature. I think it's a theory. Gravity is a fact (law) as long as you aren't in a black hole (theory). The reason everyone doesn't agree about evolution is because it hasn't been proven as a law yet.
But you are right about one thing, I do not "get" what you are saying about morality. My guess is, that you are going to not answer any of the questions about the various and 100s of rididculously ancient and outdated biblical texts on the basis that I'm taking everything out of context and being cynical, but really just don't want to talk about it.
1. I have continually stated that atheism has no grounding or sufficient intellectual foundation for morality. That is the subject that started this whole conversation. I have seen nothing that causes the least bit of doubt about this claim. If “morality” has to do with what humans should or should not do, there must be a standard or basis upon which such a determination is made. Atheism does not provide one. Since you cannot provide an objective basis for moral judgments, every time you make one it rings hollow since you cannot tell me why you say someone “should” or “shouldn’t” do anything (except for non-moral reasons like survival, pleasure or whatever).
2.I agree that atheism does not provide a handbook for morality. I have argued this is because once one denies God, the ultimate grounding for an objective morality is now gone. That’s why atheism can’t say anything about it. Although you are an atheist, you admit that you have to try and figure out morality on some other grounds. Those who believe in God ground their moral reasoning in the divine mind which is the “home” and source of moral goodness. Since you deny God, you have no such grounding and, as you admit, don’t even have the time to try and figure it all out. So what do you do? You appeal to a principle classically associated with religious systems, especially (but not exclusively) Christianity: the Golden Rule. When you say there is no God (or anything supernatural), you are simultaneously saying that all that exists is nature. If atheism only has the resource of “nature” (understood typically as matter in motion), it follows that it cannot believe in morality as something more than a product of a blind, material, physical process and therefore ultimately nothing more than a “fact” of nature. Good and evil are rendered meaningless in such a conception of the world. I think you are trying to suggest that atheism has no real obligation to explain anything (since you are only making a denial rather than an affirmation) but your denial of God also logically entails certain implications. One of these is that morality evaporates.
3.Regarding the Bible being outdated, etc., I would continue to argue that the Bible, when correctly understood, is a primary source of moral influence throughout the past thousands of years of history and that your moral sensitivities today are, at least in part, ultimately a product of that lengthy tradition even though you do not acknowledge that fact.
4.Regarding evolution, you miss my point. I’m not talking about evolution as a theory. Let’s assume that biological evolution has really happened. Even though there are people who doubt it now (perhaps because it has the status of “theory” rather than “fact” as you say), this does not mean that evolution is not “true.” When people came to believe that the earth moves around the sun rather than the other way around there was not a change in reality only a change in perception. If the moral law is objectively true, how people perceive or understand that law (or do not even acknowledge it) does not change the objective reality. And, I might add, just like I would go to the scientist to find the best source for understanding some scientific “fact,” so I would go to those who have devoted their lives to thinking and living the moral law to find out what the moral law is all about. There is a remarkable similarity of moral principles found among those who most deeply and profoundly devote themselves to learning and living the moral law.
5.You are right that I’m not really that interested in talking about the items from the Old Testament that you copy and pasted. My reason is simply because it would be an enormous waste of energy. We don’t even share a common set of moral principles (at least not consciously) that would allow us to have a meaningful conversation about that. Your goal in mentioning such things is, I think, primarily polemical and not with an openness to learn and patiently consider the facts and possibilities.
6.The questions I keep asking are still unanswered. What gives you the right or moral grounding to “judge” the Old Testament legal codes as “immoral”? You want me to explain them since you obviously see them as immoral. Why isn’t it true that their morality is equal to yours? Why can’t someone else say their morality is better than yours? Why can’t someone say your morality is just a sign of your own weaknesses (since you try to treat others like you want to be treated, your real motive, they might say, is self-preservation)? Why should someone who has power over others ignore what others want and get what he wants if that is what he wants to do? If you answer these questions, we might be closer to looking at the text in Exodus.
One, scientific theory is not the same as just someone making up a "theory". In science, the word theory is not interchangable with the word 'guess' or 'hypothesis' or 'possibility.'
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[10]
Also, who's to say what the 'correct' interpretation of the Bible is? You yourself agreed that people shouldn't take the Bible literally, but realize that it's parables etc. But not everybody agrees with that, just like not everybody agrees on the actual interpretation of what is in the Bible.
Additionally, while you don't think atheists have the 'right' to judge the bible because they aren't morally grounded, atheists don't believe that faith in a Sky Jew (man I love that term!) gives anyone the right to tell someone else they aren't allowed to do so. How does religion give you the right to tell someone else they don't have rights?
Anyway, I guess I don't really understand WHY yo u think it matters so much anyway that atheists don't have a 'grounding' for their morals. What matters more to me is that people HAVE morals, values, ethics, etc. Where they derive their strong sense of moral character is really irrelevant to me. My grounding for my morals is in the Golden Rule, which Christianity does not have the corner market on.0 -
Not only do I seem not to understand what you are saying since they are abstract to say the least, you also seem to be lost on what I have said which is by far the simplist thing that has been said. . No where did I say the Atheist has no frame work for his morality. An atheist is a person. People get their morality from a variety of placed. Atheism in itself, is not a law, it's not a philosophy, it's not a club. It's the simple statement that we do not see proof of a god or the supernatural. The comparison of atheism to other belief structures is not accurate because it's apples and oranges. There is no debate from me that my atheism is where I get my morality from. Atheism has nothing to do with morality. Nothing, no comparison. So when I am confronted by a moral issue, I have no atheist handbook to skim through for guidance. Since I don't have the time to go through every issue on earth and what I think of that issue, I will simply say I try to treat those as I wish to be treated. If I don't get that same treatment back, that's on them and not a reflection of me.
But that is the problem we are facing. My morality, while consistent, is something that I think about personally, grapple with in my own mind, and then come to the conclusion of what I think. I have no prepackaged morality through a bible. I'm not saying there aren't very valuable lessons in the bible, as well as other religions. Only a fool would make such a statement. But it is an outdated text, written by man. In a lot of ways, consulting the bible for moral wisdom in todays society is a lot like still opting to use a type writer to write college papers. Maybe it can work, but there are now a lot better ways to type.
So, back to your argument, just because I don't like something, it doesn't mean it's immoral. I know this. I don't like trumpets. I don't think a trumpet is immoral. Second, I do not think that evolution is a fact about nature. I think it's a theory. Gravity is a fact (law) as long as you aren't in a black hole (theory). The reason everyone doesn't agree about evolution is because it hasn't been proven as a law yet.
But you are right about one thing, I do not "get" what you are saying about morality. My guess is, that you are going to not answer any of the questions about the various and 100s of rididculously ancient and outdated biblical texts on the basis that I'm taking everything out of context and being cynical, but really just don't want to talk about it.
1. I have continually stated that atheism has no grounding or sufficient intellectual foundation for morality. That is the subject that started this whole conversation. I have seen nothing that causes the least bit of doubt about this claim. If “morality” has to do with what humans should or should not do, there must be a standard or basis upon which such a determination is made. Atheism does not provide one. Since you cannot provide an objective basis for moral judgments, every time you make one it rings hollow since you cannot tell me why you say someone “should” or “shouldn’t” do anything (except for non-moral reasons like survival, pleasure or whatever).
2.I agree that atheism does not provide a handbook for morality. I have argued this is because once one denies God, the ultimate grounding for an objective morality is now gone. That’s why atheism can’t say anything about it. Although you are an atheist, you admit that you have to try and figure out morality on some other grounds. Those who believe in God ground their moral reasoning in the divine mind which is the “home” and source of moral goodness. Since you deny God, you have no such grounding and, as you admit, don’t even have the time to try and figure it all out. So what do you do? You appeal to a principle classically associated with religious systems, especially (but not exclusively) Christianity: the Golden Rule. When you say there is no God (or anything supernatural), you are simultaneously saying that all that exists is nature. If atheism only has the resource of “nature” (understood typically as matter in motion), it follows that it cannot believe in morality as something more than a product of a blind, material, physical process and therefore ultimately nothing more than a “fact” of nature. Good and evil are rendered meaningless in such a conception of the world. I think you are trying to suggest that atheism has no real obligation to explain anything (since you are only making a denial rather than an affirmation) but your denial of God also logically entails certain implications. One of these is that morality evaporates.
3.Regarding the Bible being outdated, etc., I would continue to argue that the Bible, when correctly understood, is a primary source of moral influence throughout the past thousands of years of history and that your moral sensitivities today are, at least in part, ultimately a product of that lengthy tradition even though you do not acknowledge that fact.
4.Regarding evolution, you miss my point. I’m not talking about evolution as a theory. Let’s assume that biological evolution has really happened. Even though there are people who doubt it now (perhaps because it has the status of “theory” rather than “fact” as you say), this does not mean that evolution is not “true.” When people came to believe that the earth moves around the sun rather than the other way around there was not a change in reality only a change in perception. If the moral law is objectively true, how people perceive or understand that law (or do not even acknowledge it) does not change the objective reality. And, I might add, just like I would go to the scientist to find the best source for understanding some scientific “fact,” so I would go to those who have devoted their lives to thinking and living the moral law to find out what the moral law is all about. There is a remarkable similarity of moral principles found among those who most deeply and profoundly devote themselves to learning and living the moral law.
5.You are right that I’m not really that interested in talking about the items from the Old Testament that you copy and pasted. My reason is simply because it would be an enormous waste of energy. We don’t even share a common set of moral principles (at least not consciously) that would allow us to have a meaningful conversation about that. Your goal in mentioning such things is, I think, primarily polemical and not with an openness to learn and patiently consider the facts and possibilities.
6.The questions I keep asking are still unanswered. What gives you the right or moral grounding to “judge” the Old Testament legal codes as “immoral”? You want me to explain them since you obviously see them as immoral. Why isn’t it true that their morality is equal to yours? Why can’t someone else say their morality is better than yours? Why can’t someone say your morality is just a sign of your own weaknesses (since you try to treat others like you want to be treated, your real motive, they might say, is self-preservation)? Why should someone who has power over others ignore what others want and get what he wants if that is what he wants to do? If you answer these questions, we might be closer to looking at the text in Exodus.
1. If everything I said rings hollow morally since I don't believe in your God, then let me reply in kind that I have no respect for a person who can not make moral decisions without consulting some ancient middle eastern manuscript. Only sheep need a sheperd.
2. I never once said I didn't have time to figure out my own morality, I said I wasn't going to go line by line of every issue with you because we would be here forever. Also, the golden rule, is not, and was never exclusive to Christianity as you have admitted. So if the golden rule can be valued and learned by other cultures who had other Gods and by people with no belief, then it fails the test that it comes from your specific supernatural source. You have yet to show me in any argument how a God has to exist in order for morality, good, or evil to be understood. We has a society, as you have so eloquently pointed out with references to ancient mesopotamia, define what good and evil is. I, think slavery is evil, as have several people throughout history who actively tried to end it. The people in the bible didn't think slavery was evil unless being victims of it. So do you think slavery is evil now? How did you come to these conclusions? Because, like I have said earlier, there is no biblical quote, old or new testement that outlaws slavery. It actually gave rules about slavery. So how did you or your church leaders come to think of slavery as evil when God gave no specific instructions?
3.Once again, I don't think you are reading all of my posts because at least once, I have been more than willing to ackowlege the influence of Christianity on todays moral landscape. I never said it didn't, and said anyone who didn't find some of Christ's teachings valuable a fool. So that whole point is invalid.
4. Ok, this is ridiculous. Science is based upon tangible evidence. Morality is an opinion on what right or wrong is. If Evolution was proven 100% right tomorrow, of course people would deny it becase they simply refuse to believe that. But morality is an opinion. And the fact that you seem so set on the fact that atheists can have no moral foundation, you seem to forget the fact that you can ask 10 different Christians the same question and get ten different interpretations of what they think the bible means. So I guess atheists aren't the only ones with shakey moral foundations, or Christianity would have one denomination instead of hundreds.
5. And you are right, we do not seem to have common moral principles. You seem to think that anything God did, forget his followers, was simply ok and don't want to speak on it. War crimes, the slaughter of all of Egypts first born (very pro-life), rape, and threats of torture are not something I would want to defend either. So you can go ahead and hide behind the false belief that I am not open minded, because I have conceded and agreed with many points you have made. But you have to convince me how an all loving, all powerful God commands his followers to gut their own children as a test of devotion. What context is that ok in? I would love to know. But that is the point. If there was a god who was all loving an just, he would never do such a thing, but the Christian can't admit that and has to rationalize evil since God specifically said he and his judgments were eternal.
6. Old testement. If people don't have the morality to judge other civilizations as wrong or evil, then why don't we have slavery today in this nation? Did someone eventually say, "enough of this"?
Your reasoning is too circular. I say I have morals, you say I have no foundation to have them or to judge, I ask how do you make moral judgements not talked about in the bible, you say that morality is an innate truth. I say, if it's innate, then why do we need a bible. You say for guidance. I ask the morality of the old testment stories, you say I have no innate moral foundation. Circle, circle, circle.
So you are right. I no longer care about your opinions on the old testement because since you "know" that I will not agree with them, I also know that you are close minded enought to defend them at all costs, and I have no interest in discussing morality with some one who things slavery, genocide, rape and torture were just a cultures sign of the times. I guarantee the people being slaughtered thought it was pretty immoral. But who are they to judge?0 -
6. Old testement. If people don't have the morality to judge other civilizations as wrong or evil, then why don't we have slavery today in this nation? Did someone eventually say, "enough of this"?
Yes. Lincoln.
:happy:0 -
SIDE NOTE: I wish people would stop believing their hearts had thoughts. "My head wants this but my heart wants this." "Trust your heart" "God knows what's in my heart." Listen up! Your heart pumps blood. Very important, yes. But it ain't doing any thinking for you. That's your brain. Give some credit where it's due. Or start also asking how your kidneys feel about important things.
I think when people say, "God knows what's in my heart", they're either a) really meaning that God knows their motives or b) it's an excuse to hide something so obvious to everyone else. Example: Did you see the footage of the the Detroit Lions player, Suh? He was ejected from the game for unnecessary roughness. There was actual footage of him shoving the other player's head into the ground then stomping on him when he got up. Appeared pretty blatant to everyone watching. During his press conference, he claims he just lost his balance, but he didn't care what anyone else thought because "The Man Upstairs" knows the truth. What a bunch of crap. Do you know how many times Christians have "sworn on the Bible" or claimed that "God knows the truth" while lying righ to your face?
But, my bladder "knows" when I have to pee, so can I start asking it when it's time to go?
0 -
SIDE NOTE: I wish people would stop believing their hearts had thoughts. "My head wants this but my heart wants this." "Trust your heart" "God knows what's in my heart." Listen up! Your heart pumps blood. Very important, yes. But it ain't doing any thinking for you. That's your brain. Give some credit where it's due. Or start also asking how your kidneys feel about important things.
I think when people say, "God knows what's in my heart", they're either a) really meaning that God knows their motives or b) it's an excuse to hide something so obvious to everyone else. Example: Did you see the footage of the the Detroit Lions player, Suh? He was ejected from the game for unnecessary roughness. There was actual footage of him shoving the other player's head into the ground then stomping on him when he got up. Appeared pretty blatant to everyone watching. During his press conference, he claims he just lost his balance, but he didn't care what anyone else thought because "The Man Upstairs" knows the truth. What a bunch of crap. Do you know how many times Christians have "sworn on the Bible" or claimed that "God knows the truth" while lying righ to your face?
But, my bladder "knows" when I have to pee, so can I start asking it when it's time to go?
Regarding Suh, I just have to say that he's being coached to play that way. When he played for us (Nebraska), we rarely saw that type of behavior from him.0 -
Regarding Suh, I just have to say that he's being coached to play that way. When he played for us (Nebraska), we rarely saw that type of behavior from him.
My issue with the whole thing is the way he handled it. Man-up and own your actions. Just say, "It was in the heat of the moment and my actions were wrong". Don't tell people their eyes are lying to them and that God knows the truth. I can't stand that.0 -
SIDE NOTE: I wish people would stop believing their hearts had thoughts. "My head wants this but my heart wants this." "Trust your heart" "God knows what's in my heart." Listen up! Your heart pumps blood. Very important, yes. But it ain't doing any thinking for you. That's your brain. Give some credit where it's due. Or start also asking how your kidneys feel about important things.
I think when people say, "God knows what's in my heart", they're either a) really meaning that God knows their motives or b) it's an excuse to hide something so obvious to everyone else. Example: Did you see the footage of the the Detroit Lions player, Suh? He was ejected from the game for unnecessary roughness. There was actual footage of him shoving the other player's head into the ground then stomping on him when he got up. Appeared pretty blatant to everyone watching. During his press conference, he claims he just lost his balance, but he didn't care what anyone else thought because "The Man Upstairs" knows the truth. What a bunch of crap. Do you know how many times Christians have "sworn on the Bible" or claimed that "God knows the truth" while lying righ to your face?
But, my bladder "knows" when I have to pee, so can I start asking it when it's time to go?
Regarding Suh, I just have to say that he's being coached to play that way. When he played for us (Nebraska), we rarely saw that type of behavior from him.
They are just sayings. Telling someone "I live you with all my heart" sounds a little better than "Your looks, personality, and phermones have the nuerons in my brain buzzing and my testes producing an abundance of testosterone and semen."
Heck, I still say "Bless you" when some one sneezes to be polite. Learned response I guess.0 -
Regarding Suh, I just have to say that he's being coached to play that way. When he played for us (Nebraska), we rarely saw that type of behavior from him.
My issue with the whole thing is the way he handled it. Man-up and own your actions. Just say, "It was in the heat of the moment and my actions were wrong". Don't tell people their eyes are lying to them and that God knows the truth. I can't stand that.
I agree completely. I'm disappointed with how he's started playing dirty and that's how the NFL fans view him. He wasn't like that at all when he played college ball.0 -
So you are right. I no longer care about your opinions on the old testement because since you "know" that I will not agree with them, I also know that you are close minded enought to defend them at all costs, and I have no interest in discussing morality with some one who things slavery, genocide, rape and torture were just a cultures sign of the times. I guarantee the people being slaughtered thought it was pretty immoral. But who are they to judge?
I agree that we are going in circles. Our debate is not unique at all. I appreciate the discussion we've had.
Please do not take away that I believe slavery, genocide, rape and torture are "good". I am more open-minded than you know. I've probably read/studied more about world religions and atheism than you have. I spend my life educating young men at a Catholic school and my own children how to be open-minded, respectful, and knowledgable on all of the same. I will always defend my belief in God and my faith, but I hope to always do so in a respectful, mature way.0 -
So you are right. I no longer care about your opinions on the old testement because since you "know" that I will not agree with them, I also know that you are close minded enought to defend them at all costs, and I have no interest in discussing morality with some one who things slavery, genocide, rape and torture were just a cultures sign of the times. I guarantee the people being slaughtered thought it was pretty immoral. But who are they to judge?
I agree that we are going in circles. Our debate is not unique at all. I appreciate the discussion we've had.
Please do not take away that I believe slavery, genocide, rape and torture are "good". I am more open-minded than you know. I've probably read/studied more about world religions and atheism than you have. I spend my life educating young men at a Catholic school and my own children how to be open-minded, respectful, and knowledgable on all of the same. I will always defend my belief in God and my faith, but I hope to always do so in a respectful, mature way.
What a wonderful way to end a debate with a Christian who will defend everything in her bible and can believe the unbelievable, with the arrogant, unknowing, and unprovable "I am more open minded than you know" and I have probably studied atheism and world religions more than you". At least you put "probably" in there. So I guess you're probably arrogant.0 -
Before the bible was written (thousand years after jesus demise) where did morality come from? They came from kings, emperors, dictators, leaders of tribes etc. That's why even today what some think is moral, others may not. Those leaders set the precedence on what was to be expected from their followers and citizens.Not only do I seem not to understand what you are saying since they are abstract to say the least, you also seem to be lost on what I have said which is by far the simplist thing that has been said. . No where did I say the Atheist has no frame work for his morality. An atheist is a person. People get their morality from a variety of placed. Atheism in itself, is not a law, it's not a philosophy, it's not a club. It's the simple statement that we do not see proof of a god or the supernatural. The comparison of atheism to other belief structures is not accurate because it's apples and oranges. There is no debate from me that my atheism is where I get my morality from. Atheism has nothing to do with morality. Nothing, no comparison. So when I am confronted by a moral issue, I have no atheist handbook to skim through for guidance. Since I don't have the time to go through every issue on earth and what I think of that issue, I will simply say I try to treat those as I wish to be treated. If I don't get that same treatment back, that's on them and not a reflection of me.
But that is the problem we are facing. My morality, while consistent, is something that I think about personally, grapple with in my own mind, and then come to the conclusion of what I think. I have no prepackaged morality through a bible. I'm not saying there aren't very valuable lessons in the bible, as well as other religions. Only a fool would make such a statement. But it is an outdated text, written by man. In a lot of ways, consulting the bible for moral wisdom in todays society is a lot like still opting to use a type writer to write college papers. Maybe it can work, but there are now a lot better ways to type.
So, back to your argument, just because I don't like something, it doesn't mean it's immoral. I know this. I don't like trumpets. I don't think a trumpet is immoral. Second, I do not think that evolution is a fact about nature. I think it's a theory. Gravity is a fact (law) as long as you aren't in a black hole (theory). The reason everyone doesn't agree about evolution is because it hasn't been proven as a law yet.
But you are right about one thing, I do not "get" what you are saying about morality. My guess is, that you are going to not answer any of the questions about the various and 100s of rididculously ancient and outdated biblical texts on the basis that I'm taking everything out of context and being cynical, but really just don't want to talk about it.
1. I have continually stated that atheism has no grounding or sufficient intellectual foundation for morality. That is the subject that started this whole conversation. I have seen nothing that causes the least bit of doubt about this claim. If “morality” has to do with what humans should or should not do, there must be a standard or basis upon which such a determination is made. Atheism does not provide one. Since you cannot provide an objective basis for moral judgments, every time you make one it rings hollow since you cannot tell me why you say someone “should” or “shouldn’t” do anything (except for non-moral reasons like survival, pleasure or whatever).
2.I agree that atheism does not provide a handbook for morality. I have argued this is because once one denies God, the ultimate grounding for an objective morality is now gone. That’s why atheism can’t say anything about it. Although you are an atheist, you admit that you have to try and figure out morality on some other grounds. Those who believe in God ground their moral reasoning in the divine mind which is the “home” and source of moral goodness. Since you deny God, you have no such grounding and, as you admit, don’t even have the time to try and figure it all out. So what do you do? You appeal to a principle classically associated with religious systems, especially (but not exclusively) Christianity: the Golden Rule. When you say there is no God (or anything supernatural), you are simultaneously saying that all that exists is nature. If atheism only has the resource of “nature” (understood typically as matter in motion), it follows that it cannot believe in morality as something more than a product of a blind, material, physical process and therefore ultimately nothing more than a “fact” of nature. Good and evil are rendered meaningless in such a conception of the world. I think you are trying to suggest that atheism has no real obligation to explain anything (since you are only making a denial rather than an affirmation) but your denial of God also logically entails certain implications. One of these is that morality evaporates.
3.Regarding the Bible being outdated, etc., I would continue to argue that the Bible, when correctly understood, is a primary source of moral influence throughout the past thousands of years of history and that your moral sensitivities today are, at least in part, ultimately a product of that lengthy tradition even though you do not acknowledge that fact.
4.Regarding evolution, you miss my point. I’m not talking about evolution as a theory. Let’s assume that biological evolution has really happened. Even though there are people who doubt it now (perhaps because it has the status of “theory” rather than “fact” as you say), this does not mean that evolution is not “true.” When people came to believe that the earth moves around the sun rather than the other way around there was not a change in reality only a change in perception. If the moral law is objectively true, how people perceive or understand that law (or do not even acknowledge it) does not change the objective reality. And, I might add, just like I would go to the scientist to find the best source for understanding some scientific “fact,” so I would go to those who have devoted their lives to thinking and living the moral law to find out what the moral law is all about. There is a remarkable similarity of moral principles found among those who most deeply and profoundly devote themselves to learning and living the moral law.
5.You are right that I’m not really that interested in talking about the items from the Old Testament that you copy and pasted. My reason is simply because it would be an enormous waste of energy. We don’t even share a common set of moral principles (at least not consciously) that would allow us to have a meaningful conversation about that. Your goal in mentioning such things is, I think, primarily polemical and not with an openness to learn and patiently consider the facts and possibilities.
6.The questions I keep asking are still unanswered. What gives you the right or moral grounding to “judge” the Old Testament legal codes as “immoral”? You want me to explain them since you obviously see them as immoral. Why isn’t it true that their morality is equal to yours? Why can’t someone else say their morality is better than yours? Why can’t someone say your morality is just a sign of your own weaknesses (since you try to treat others like you want to be treated, your real motive, they might say, is self-preservation)? Why should someone who has power over others ignore what others want and get what he wants if that is what he wants to do? If you answer these questions, we might be closer to looking at the text in Exodus.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Adrian I know she didn't mean it like that. Patti may believe the complete opposite of you and I, some of her beliefs I may downright detest same as you, but she's not trying to insult you or slip in any digs. That much I do know.0
-
Adrian I know she didn't mean it like that. Patti may believe the complete opposite of you and I, some of her beliefs I may downright detest same as you, but she's not trying to insult you or slip in any digs. That much I do know.
So if someone thinks I have no moral foundation and that I am going to be tortured for eternity, I shouldn't be offended? Screw, that, I'm offended, and I will be as long as people believe this stupidity.0 -
Adrian I know she didn't mean it like that. Patti may believe the complete opposite of you and I, some of her beliefs I may downright detest same as you, but she's not trying to insult you or slip in any digs. That much I do know.
So if someone thinks I have no moral foundation and that I am going to be tortured for eternity, I shouldn't be offended? Screw, that, I'm offended, and I will be as long as people believe this stupidity.
But think of how many people believe that. You gonna be mad at 80% of the population? That's a lot of wasted energy there.
When the debate gets to these places, our fundamental disagreements, the only thing we can do is roll our eyes and let it go. She's not actively trying to take any of our freedoms away. She's only giving her side of things. Yes we may think it's wrong or dumb or whatever.
Some things we will simply never agree on. That's ok. No one is going to walk away from this and completely change their religion. But we can engage in the exchange of ideas, evaluate them and come to our own conclusions. That's it.0 -
What a wonderful way to end a debate with a Christian who will defend everything in her bible and can believe the unbelievable, with the arrogant, unknowing, and unprovable "I am more open minded than you know" and I have probably studied atheism and world religions more than you". At least you put "probably" in there. So I guess you're probably arrogant.
Adrian~ I was not insulting or belittling you in any way. What I meant by that is because that's what I do for a living. You called me closed-minded. I had every right to defend that allegation. I purposefully added "probably" because I don't know for a fact all you've read and studied. I'm basing that on my age and how many years I've been doing this. I've stated numerous times in this thread that I don't claim to understand all of Christianity, especially my own Catholocism. It would be foolish of me to make such a claim. I defend it with what I know and what I've studied.0 -
So if someone thinks I have no moral foundation and that I am going to be tortured for eternity, I shouldn't be offended? Screw, that, I'm offended, and I will be as long as people believe this stupidity.
I NEVER said I think you're going to hell! I would never say or think such a thing about another person. I have repeatedly stated that atheists can be positive, law abiding citizens. I've never made such a claim about any atheist!0 -
So if someone thinks I have no moral foundation and that I am going to be tortured for eternity, I shouldn't be offended? Screw, that, I'm offended, and I will be as long as people believe this stupidity.
I NEVER said I think you're going to hell! I would never say or think such a thing about another person. I have repeatedly stated that atheists can be positive, law abiding citizens. I've never made such a claim about any atheist!
But in your mind, positive and law-abiding does not = moral, right?0
