How do atheists feel about Christianity? [Archive]

shunyadragon

September 23rd 2007, 08:08 AM

Zeluvia

September 23rd 2007, 08:20 AM

I mean the Christianity of the Nicene creed and the Apostles creed--the God of the Bible. Do you need more clarification?

I meant that from the perspective of an atheist, who believes that Christianity is a false religion (just as they believe that all religions are false).

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell. [See Calvin]

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

It is impossible for me to believe any of the above is true. While I sometimes wish there was some kind of conscous existance after death, my wishing is nothing like anything expressed in this creed.

Red Wine

September 23rd 2007, 01:52 PM

shunyadragon

September 24th 2007, 03:27 PM

Zeluvia, you might be interested in some of the works of Charles Sherrington, or John Eccles and Eccles/Popper. Just a thought.

Shunya, should we respect this Source? Does it know we exist? is it intelligent?

'Respect?' Please clarify. If the 'Source' that some call God exists it is the creator, and definitely knows creation exists. Intelligence is a human relative concept involving the brain and the mind.

I've read references from these sources mentioned above, and basically nothing new. I like Sherrington and Eccles for their pioneering early advances in neuroscience, but nonetheless they are a bit dated, and we have moved beyond this work in modern science. I like Sherrington's writings concerning 'Natural Theology', which would more akin to my view of a non-miraculous origin for the nature of existence, but modern science and philosophy has openned more windows since..

Most arguements for God lean heavily on various assumptions that are on auto pilot that God exists, and depend too much on an older outdated view of existence in the philosophies of Aristotle, St. Augustine, and St. Thmas. First, everyone needs to realize that 'actual infinities' in time and space are a reality. The nature of existence that includes our universe does not have to have a physical beginning. Based on our modern knowledge of the nature of existence there need not be an intelligent 'Source' for our universe and us.

Popper does nothing to justify the existence of God..

joel

September 24th 2007, 05:49 PM

shunyadragon

September 24th 2007, 10:29 PM

Just a reminder: this thread is not about what is true. So no debating on whether something is true or not. This is an exercise in suspending your disbelief and contemplating you feelings regarding two possible world views. Personally, I am filled with a sense of horror, whenever I try to imagine that naturalistic atheism is true. I am curious about how atheists differ from me in this respect. The feelings alone don't make a thing true or false, but this thread is only about feelings.

It sounds like you are likely filled with a sense of horror when you immagine that any other world view were true other than your own.

From my perspective I neither hope, desire, want or miss whether the Biblical God exists or not. I do feel a sense of horror at the consequences of people who still cling to these ancient beliefs in a modern world where the weapons available have progressively increased from sticks and stones to nuclear weapons when it comes to how they relate to those that believe differently.

The possibility that naturalistic atheism being true would be a far more welcome alternative to the more ancient warrior religions like Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Buddhism and Taoism would be even more desirable alternatives.

familyof6

September 24th 2007, 11:07 PM

A few years back, I read the Bible. Beforehand, I probably would've picked your third option. After reading the Bible, I feel that the second option is more true for me. To be honest, I was horrified at the majority of the content. The god depicted in this Bible seems to me a vindictive, violent, revengeful, and inconsistent entity. I began to wonder if Christians had actually read the Bible. There is enough talk about sex, rape, men 'entering into' their wives' maids (because the wives can't produce sons), death, etc for the Bible to receive an NC-17 rating. The people who base their lives upon this book and the people who are threatened by Spongebob cartoons and won't let their kids view anything past a 'G' rating, are sometimes one and the same. I don't understand how people who 'over-protect' their children to the point of blocking out parts of reality for them are also able to accept the Bible as a reality.

I try very hard to remain open-minded about the subject of god in general; but I tend to hope that even if there is a god, it isn't the one depicted in the Christian Bible.

Red Wine

September 25th 2007, 02:42 PM

'Respect?' Please clarify. If the 'Source' that some call God exists it is the creator, and definitely knows creation exists. Intelligence is a human relative concept involving the brain and the mind.

I've read references from these sources mentioned above, and basically nothing new. I like Sherrington and Eccles for their pioneering early advances in neuroscience, but nonetheless they are a bit dated, and we have moved beyond this work in modern science. I like Sherrington's writings concerning 'Natural Theology', which would more akin to my view of a non-miraculous origin for the nature of existence, but modern science and philosophy has openned more windows since..

Most arguements for God lean heavily on various assumptions that are on auto pilot that God exists, and depend too much on an older outdated view of existence in the philosophies of Aristotle, St. Augustine, and St. Thmas. First, everyone needs to realize that 'actual infinities' in time and space are a reality. The nature of existence that includes our universe does not have to have a physical beginning. Based on our modern knowledge of the nature of existence there need not be an intelligent 'Source' for our universe and us.

Popper does nothing to justify the existence of God..

I just had some questions about your belief in a Source. How you came by the belief, what elements the Source consisted of, and how it differed from the biblical God conception. Intelligent humans possess brains and minds, does this speak to the qualities of the Source, perhaps, or maybe not.

Zeluvia mentioned consciousness after death so I gave her some possible avenues for study. I'm curious though Shun how we have furthered Eccles' 'dated' work. I mean what did Eccles believe he proved about the mind/brain dichotomy/relationship etc?

And the essence of your last paragraph implies that EITHER we humans are not intelligent or we're accidentally so. Quite fortunate IMO.

joel

September 25th 2007, 06:09 PM

It sounds like you are likely filled with a sense of horror when you immagine that any other world view were true other than your own.
Nope, just naturalistic atheism. I am not aware of any other world view that I find more horrifying. Even if I were to come across conclusive proof that it were true, I would not want to share it with anyone. I would not want to subject anyone else to it.

joel

September 25th 2007, 06:15 PM

The people who base their lives upon this book and the people who are threatened by Spongebob cartoons and won't let their kids view anything past a 'G' rating, are sometimes one and the same.
Just a quick comment: I don't know anything about Spongebob cartoons, but I agree that not everything in the Bible is appropriate for young children. I'm not sure why you feel it should be.

shunyadragon

September 25th 2007, 09:32 PM

This actually goes further off the thread topic. How about a seperate thread?

I just had some questions about your belief in a Source. How you came by the belief, what elements the Source consisted of, and how it differed from the biblical God conception. Intelligent humans possess brains and minds, does this speak to the qualities of the Source, perhaps, or maybe not.

Maybe, ah . . . maybe not. Another thread?

Zeluvia mentioned consciousness after death so I gave her some possible avenues for study. I'm curious though Shun how we have furthered Eccles' 'dated' work. I mean what did Eccles believe he proved about the mind/brain dichotomy/relationship etc?

He pioneered many aspects of neurology, I do not feel he proved anything. Another thread on the brain/mind relationship?

And the essence of your last paragraph implies that EITHER we humans are not intelligent or we're accidentally so. Quite fortunate IMO.

I have several old threads on Popper, and I have studied him for years, but nonetheless you would have to selectively quote his older works to draw such conclusions. His later works and more specific statements of how he viewed the deductive/inductive concepts of investigation of the nature of reality are important, because his philosophy eolved over time, and any conclusions of his intent would have to include all he wrote. I would gladely address this in another thread.

shunyadragon

September 25th 2007, 09:38 PM

Nope, just naturalistic atheism. I am not aware of any other world view that I find more horrifying. Even if I were to come across conclusive proof that it were true, I would not want to share it with anyone. I would not want to subject anyone else to it.

Are you saying that if you found or came asross conclusive proof that it was true, you would not accept it and live with the lie?

Do you realize that the objective methods of science reveal only nature, nothing else?

Zeluvia

September 25th 2007, 10:14 PM

Zeluvia

September 25th 2007, 10:15 PM

I just had some questions about your belief in a Source. How you came by the belief, what elements the Source consisted of, and how it differed from the biblical God conception. Intelligent humans possess brains and minds, does this speak to the qualities of the Source, perhaps, or maybe not.

Zeluvia mentioned consciousness after death so I gave her some possible avenues for study. I'm curious though Shun how we have furthered Eccles' 'dated' work. I mean what did Eccles believe he proved about the mind/brain dichotomy/relationship etc?

And the essence of your last paragraph implies that EITHER we humans are not intelligent or we're accidentally so. Quite fortunate IMO.

I think I read Eccles work some years ago, but my own personal experiences have affected my view to the point where I can no longer accept a mind without a physical body.

familyof6

September 25th 2007, 11:03 PM

Just a quick comment: I don't know anything about Spongebob cartoons, but I agree that not everything in the Bible is appropriate for young children. I'm not sure why you feel it should be.

Perhaps I shouldn't have referenced children as an example. I suppose what I'm trying to articulate is that I know many Christians who are horrified by movies, TV, etc, (and sometimes rightly so), but readily accept the Bible as the basis for their entire lives; and that just doesn't make sense to me. IOW, it's not just that not everything in the Bible is appropriate for young children, I would say not everything in the Bible is appropriate for anyone.

In fact, I attempted to discuss the Bible with a family member a few months back, and she absolutely had no idea what I was talking about. So I retrieved my Bible and looked it up, and she was shocked. I wonder how many other Christians haven't even read the book that their faith is based upon.

EvoUK

September 26th 2007, 12:31 AM

Nope, just naturalistic atheism. I am not aware of any other world view that I find more horrifying. Even if I were to come across conclusive proof that it were true, I would not want to share it with anyone. I would not want to subject anyone else to it.

I found this extremely amusing. What, specifically, do you find so horrifying? That there's no life after death? I'd love to find this out.

I could not vote in the poll, because none of the options really described my feelings towards christianity. I find it so self-evidently absurd, I have to come into sites like this now and again to remind myself that people actually believe this stuff. As to whether or not I wish the standard version of christianity to be true or not- I find the bible god to be morally abhorrent- but if he/she/it actually existed, then I'd have no choice but to believe to excape hellfire. A more bruital salvation doctrine doesn't exist.

flipper

September 26th 2007, 11:03 AM

I don't believe Christianity (or any supernatural theology) is true but why would anyone have any objection if it could somehow be shown to be true? The promise of a blissful eternal life and the solution to all of life's mysteries seems appealing. And it certainly promises more than some of the other pantheons; the Nordic tradition, for example, was especially depressing. Also, if going to heaven or hell was a certainty, I think it would be a lot easier to modify one's beliefs and behaviors accordingly.

technomage

September 26th 2007, 11:09 AM

...the Nordic tradition, for example, was especially depressing.

But made for some really great stories to tell around the fire! :hehe:

flipper

September 26th 2007, 11:15 AM

True enough! However, the prospect of an eternity in Valhalla doesn't seem all that rewarding to me, except when the only alternative is being stuck in Hel. At least there's food and drink and carousing in Valhalla, even if you are constantly getting killed in painful ways.

technomage

September 26th 2007, 11:43 AM

Oh, I agree that that's depressing, but Ragnarok is positively despair incarnate. Imagine a near-eternity of training for a battle--training that involves fighting and dying on a daily basis--that you know, in advance, you will lose. Ouch!

:hehe:

Red Wine

September 26th 2007, 11:54 AM

Point taken Shunya I don't want to go off thread. I'll try and navigate t-web. If you get bored I was wondering if you could post the link to some of those discussions, please? But no stress :)

Lili

September 26th 2007, 01:11 PM

Lili

September 26th 2007, 01:15 PM

[quote=EvoUK;2083700]I found this extremely amusing. What, specifically, do you find so horrifying? That there's no life after death? I'd love to find this out.

I could not vote in the poll, because none of the options really described my feelings towards christianity. I find it so self-evidently absurd, I have to come into sites like this now and again to remind myself that people actually believe this stuff.quote]What do you find absurd about Christianity?

joel

September 26th 2007, 03:13 PM

Are you saying that if you found or came asross conclusive proof that it was true, you would not accept it and live with the lie?
What do you mean by "accept it"?

joel

September 26th 2007, 03:25 PM

I could not vote in the poll, because none of the options really described my feelings towards christianity. ... As to whether or not I wish the standard version of christianity to be true or not- I find the bible god to be morally abhorrent- but if he/she/it actually existed, then I'd have no choice but to believe to excape hellfire. A more bruital salvation doctrine doesn't exist.
It sounds as though you should vote option 2, then.

joel

September 26th 2007, 03:27 PM

IOW, it's not just that not everything in the Bible is appropriate for young children, I would say not everything in the Bible is appropriate for anyone.
Ah, kinda like south park. :smile:
BTW, what is "IOW"?

In fact, I attempted to discuss the Bible with a family member a few months back, and she absolutely had no idea what I was talking about. So I retrieved my Bible and looked it up, and she was shocked. I wonder how many other Christians haven't even read the book that their faith is based upon.I agree that it is a shame that so many Christians don't know many basic things about their own faith. I hope to work towards rectifying that, by educating Christians about Christianity.

joel

September 26th 2007, 03:27 PM

I think the Biblical hell is even worse (at least, if it involves literal fire.)
I don't think it involves literal fire.

technomage

September 26th 2007, 03:36 PM

BTW, what is "IOW"?

In Other Words. :wink:

joel

September 26th 2007, 04:05 PM

joel

September 26th 2007, 04:07 PM

In Other Words. :wink:
Oh, okay. But there was already an old standard abbreviation for that. It's "i.e." :wink:

technomage

September 26th 2007, 04:19 PM

As for the questions about why I find naturalistic atheism horrifying:
I have attempted to explain this in other threads on tweb. It's something like the following:

If atheism is true, then there is no objective beauty, right and wrong, or meaning. There is no real will, hope, or love. It casts doubt on my consciousness, my ability to reason, and my own existence. We are but a speck, merely a result of natural processes, floating in a immense vacuum that will end in the eventual heat death of the universe. There is no essential difference between Man and a rock. They both meet the same end. There is nothing that we can do in our fleeting lifespans that is objectively good or profitable. Our deepest desires can never be satisfied. All is futility and striving after wind.

But if that's what's true, then best to face the facts and make the best of it.

Surely there can be no harm in taking care of the Universe, for in this way we take care of ourselves. Does the Universe crave order? Then we have common cause with Her, for so do we. Does the Universe delight in diversity, as it indeed appears to? Then we, too can cast our our fear and help it be diverse; we can also learn to be diverse ourselves. As we move through the world, we change the world: this is unavoidable. If we must move through the world and change it, then let us be kindly caretakers: let us be toward the Universe as we would have the forces that move through our own lives be toward us. It is no guarantee of preferential treatment by the Universe, or even by the people around us. But we will at least know we acted with magnanimity and honor, and if the universe--or our neighbors--sometimes seem insensible to this, let us keep acting that way until they notice.

familyof6

September 26th 2007, 06:47 PM

Ah, kinda like south park. :smile:
BTW, what is "IOW"?

I agree that it is a shame that so many Christians don't know many basic things about their own faith. I hope to work towards rectifying that, by educating Christians about Christianity.

HA! Yes, like Southpark.

IOW is 'in other words'. I thought i.e. meant 'for example'....apparently I'm incorrect.

I think it's great that you want to educate Christians about Christianity. I have met many that really don't even know why they go to church. Best wishes!

joel

September 26th 2007, 07:05 PM

But if that's what's true, then best to face the facts and make the best of it.

Surely there can be no harm in taking care of the Universe, for in this way we take care of ourselves. Does the Universe crave order? Then we have common cause with Her, for so do we. Does the Universe delight in diversity, as it indeed appears to? Then we, too can cast our our fear and help it be diverse; we can also learn to be diverse ourselves. As we move through the world, we change the world: this is unavoidable. If we must move through the world and change it, then let us be kindly caretakers: let us be toward the Universe as we would have the forces that move through our own lives be toward us. It is no guarantee of preferential treatment by the Universe, or even by the people around us. But we will at least know we acted with magnanimity and honor, and if the universe--or our neighbors--sometimes seem insensible to this, let us keep acting that way until they notice.

But if there's no such thing as "the best of it"...
If there is something transcendent (there being such a thing as magnanimity and honor) in connection with the universe, then that would be a less horrifying worldview, but it would go beyond mere naturalism.

joel

September 26th 2007, 07:08 PM

IOW is 'in other words'. I thought i.e. meant 'for example'....apparently I'm incorrect.
"e.g." means "for example", literally exempli gratia
"i.e." means "that is" or "in other words", literally id est.

familyof6

September 26th 2007, 07:23 PM

"e.g." means "for example", literally exempli gratia
"i.e." means "that is" or "in other words", literally id est.

Thanks!

technomage

September 26th 2007, 08:11 PM

But if there's no such thing as "the best of it"...
If there is something transcendent (there being such a thing as magnanimity and honor) in connection with the universe, then that would be a less horrifying worldview, but it would go beyond mere naturalism.

No Joel. Even if there is absolutely nothing to the universe but the matter and energy that scientists can evaluate, magnanimity, honor, and good still exist. We decide. We decide what honor, magnanimity, and good are, because even if there is a God, we cannot know Him.

I know--it sounds very much like I'm advocating for the situation told of in Judges, where "Each man did what was right in his own eyes." You probably also find such a situation distasteful, at best. But Joel, I challenge you--look Christianity today, especially Protestant Christianity. Each man already does that which is right in his own eyes--the only difference is that many of those who are doing wrong are claiming God's sanction in their wrong doing.

By saying all this, I'm not trying to persuade you to stop being a Christian--you becoming an atheist, or even becoming Wiccan, would upset me terribly. But if you are going to debate us, even in the respectful manner that you do, then you must understand us. Fail to do that, and communication fails altogether.

Red Wine

September 27th 2007, 11:49 AM

I think I read Eccles work some years ago, but my own personal experiences have affected my view to the point where I can no longer accept a mind without a physical body.

No problem, they were just some suggestions :smile: Gliedman a writer said of Eccles "At age 79, Sir John Eccles is not going “gentle into the night.” Still trim and vigorous, the great physiologist has declared war on the past 300 years of scientific speculation about man’s nature. Winner of the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his pioneering research on the synapse—the point at which nerve cells communicate with the brain—Eccles strongly defends the ancient religious belief that human beings consist of a mysterious compound of physical and intangible spirit." And Sherrington, Nobel Laureate and Eccles' mentor confided to him before his death "For me now, the only reality is the human soul". What anecdotes imply is an individual's conclusion to be sure.

Zeluvia

September 27th 2007, 12:38 PM

As for the questions about why I find naturalistic atheism horrifying:
I have attempted to explain this in other threads on tweb. It's something like the following:

If atheism is true, then there is no objective beauty, right and wrong, or meaning. There is no real will, hope, or love. It casts doubt on my consciousness, my ability to reason, and my own existence. We are but a speck, merely a result of natural processes, floating in a immense vacuum that will end in the eventual heat death of the universe. There is no essential difference between Man and a rock. They both meet the same end. There is nothing that we can do in our fleeting lifespans that is objectively good or profitable. Our deepest desires can never be satisfied. All is futility and striving after wind.

I have not met anyone holding a worldview with ramifications more horrifying than that. That is hell.

Yep, its way dark, and way cold, and way lonely out there. And the party will end. All we know for sure we have is this planet and each other.

My favorite book of the bible is Ecclesiastes, because that is what the book says, and the guy that wrote it realized this thousands of years ago.

But instead of finding this horrifying, like you, I find it exhilarating. Our future is what WE make it.
Every person matters to that future. No matter where we are coming from, or going to, we are alive and aware RIGHT NOW, and that all I need.

I once spent a moonless night at sea in a small boat, whose engine had died, out of site of land and lights.....alone. I recommend the experience to everyone, providing you know that you can fix the engine when the sun comes up, or that someone will come looking for you = )

joel

September 27th 2007, 02:16 PM

We decide. We decide what honor, magnanimity, and good are,
But then we are only imagining it or making it up. If we are in the business of truth, then we ought to reject such fiction. Otherwise, if we are going to embrace fiction, why not the Christian God? And if that is the case, then there's no point in trying to seek out the truth of atheism in the first place.

because even if there is a God, we cannot know Him.I probably disagree with you on that point, depending on exactly what you meant.

But Joel, I challenge you--look Christianity today, especially Protestant Christianity. Each man already does that which is right in his own eyes--the only difference is that many of those who are doing wrong are claiming God's sanction in their wrong doing.There seems to me to be a subtle, important difference there. Primarily that the Christian prays "Thy will, not mine, be done." And secondly, the Christian doesn't seek to make up what is right, but to discover what is right. The second issue is what is being referred to when the Bible refers to "doing what is right in his own eyes." It's referring to being a law unto yourself, rather than seeking out what the law actually is (or in spite of it.).

But if you are going to debate us, even in the respectful manner that you do, then you must understand us. Fail to do that, and communication fails altogether.Oh, by all means, all of you, help me understand you better. That is the reason I started this thread. :smile:

technomage

September 27th 2007, 04:40 PM

But then we are only imagining it or making it up.

No, Joel--we are creating it. This is not some fictional honor or imaginary magnanimity: indeed, from an atheist's view it might even be better because it is of human crafting, rather than leaning on some God for divine ispiration. To my view, since humanity comes from the Gods as rain comes from the clouds, it makes not one whit of difference: what we create is very, very real, and all the more precious for its ephemeral, temporary nature.

I probably disagree with you on that point, depending on exactly what you meant.

I don't think we disagree on this, believe it or not--or if we do, it's not by much. Both you and I posit that God is an absolute, far beyond our comprehension or understanding. I posit that, because our senses are finite and fallable, that even if God revealed Himself to us, our comprehension would not avail to anything remotely resembling an accurate understanding. Paul seems to hold a similar view when he says "Now we see through a glass darkly," but it is also possible that I am misapplying his statement where hewould not have agreed with the application.

There seems to me to be a subtle, important difference there. Primarily that the Christian prays "Thy will, not mine, be done."

Optimally, this should be true. But that is why I chllenged you to look at Christendom. There are so many conflicing claims as to what the "Will of God" actually is, is a skeptic truly to be blamed if they assume that nobody knows it?

And secondly, the Christian doesn't seek to make up what is right, but to discover what is right.

Tell me, my friend--again, looking at Chrisianity critically, from the outside--is there any actual difference?

joel

September 27th 2007, 05:43 PM

No, Joel--we are creating it. This is not some fictional honor or imaginary magnanimity: But how would it be any more than us merely creating some words for such and such feelings we feel?

I don't think we disagree on this, believe it or not--or if we do, it's not by much. Both you and I posit that God is an absolute, far beyond our comprehension or understanding. I posit that, because our senses are finite and fallable, that even if God revealed Himself to us, our comprehension would not avail to anything remotely resembling an accurate understanding. Paul seems to hold a similar view when he says "Now we see through a glass darkly," but it is also possible that I am misapplying his statement where hewould not have agreed with the application.I think we do disagree. You seem to be saying that we cannot know anything about God. And that God is utterly dissimilar from us. Within Christianity, however, man is made in the image of God. That means that there is some basis of similarity. So, there is a basis for apprehension of God. However, we cannot know God perfectly (thus "through a glass darkly"), because He is infinite and we are finite. (One might even argue that we cannot know anything perfectly.)

Tell me, my friend--again, looking at Chrisianity critically, from the outside--is there any actual difference?I can only assume that by looking "from the outside" you mean "supposing that it's not true." Well, if naturalism is true, for instance, then it seems that the only difference is that the Christians are unknowingly deluded, whereas the naturalists know that they are only following their biological impulses. But if Christianity is true, then there is an actual difference.

technomage

September 27th 2007, 06:09 PM

But how would it be any more than us merely creating some words for such and such feelings we feel?

Because whether or not God exists, we exist. We may be insignificant to the point of complete and total obscurity on the cosmic scale, we may be ephemeral to the point of vanishing away to nothing in cosmic time, but neither you nor I think or live on a cosmic scale--we think, and we live, in the local here-and-now. As such, the feelings that we feel, and the actions that we do, are real.

I think we do disagree. You seem to be saying that we cannot know anything about God. And that God is utterly dissimilar from us.

Not quite. Because of the fallibility and finite nature of our senses and comprehension, we lack absolute certainty of any knowledge, but we might et a clue here and there. And no, I don't feel there is utter similarity between us and God, though the difference in scale makes the differences between us and ants look minuscule.

Christians believe that we are made in the image of God, though there is no little agreement on what "in the image of God" means. I believe we originate from the Divine, in rather a similar manner as a drop of water originates from the oceans, and upon death we return to that "ocean." In that sense, yes, we are partakers of a vanishingly small portion of the Divine nature--vanishingly small when seen from God's scale, perhaps, but again, we do not think on God's scale, we think on our own, and on our scale, that "dim, small spark" of divinity can make a massive and dramatic difference in how we interact with the people around us.

And that is the difference, Joel. Our actions may never matter one whit as far as the universe as a whole, but they matter to the people around us. We live and breathe and act and interact with other people--and in doing so, we live, and breathe, and act, and interact with other sparks of the Divine.

I can only assume that by looking "from the outside" you mean "supposing that it's not true."

No--I'm not asking you to suppose, even for a moment, that Christianity is not true. I'm asking you to, if you can, step outside of your particular sub-sector of Christendom and look at the Christian community as a whole. Look at how many different, competing, even contradictory views there are to what God wants us to do. Look at the arguments, the fighting, the divisions between people who all claim to follow the same God, and who all claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. Dearest Gods, Joel, it has been said of Wiccans that if you get twelve of us in a room and ask us what we want on a pizza you'll get fifteen different opinions--if you do the same with Christians, history shows us more often than not that blood would be spilled!

Can God have prompted that much confusion? Could God be the author of that much disorder? Or is the truth of Christendom that "Each man does what is right in his own eyes?"

ScottM

September 27th 2007, 07:23 PM

Nope, just naturalistic atheism. I am not aware of any other world view that I find more horrifying. Even if I were to come across conclusive proof that it were true, I would not want to share it with anyone. I would not want to subject anyone else to it.
Joel:

If there is no God, and if naturalism is the correct lens through which to view our world, and if you had conclusive proof of these two things (especially that the Christian God doesn't exist), why would you hold back from accepting this reality?

Does it not seem just a bit odd to you that someone can reject the truth of something when presented with conclusive proof of that truth? It seems to me the only right way to approach the revelation of conclusive proof that there is no God is to accept this truth and change your attitude about God accordingly.

Conversely, an atheist who receives conclusive proof that God does exist would certainly be wise to shed their atheist world view for a theistic world view. To do otherwise would be foolish, no?

Scott

shunyadragon

September 28th 2007, 11:22 AM

What do you mean by "accept it"?

accept the conclusive proof.

joel

September 28th 2007, 01:16 PM

What do you mean by "accept it"?

accept the conclusive proof.
:sigh: No, I mean what do you mean by "accept"?
(This is also my response to Scott's post. I assume you two are probably trying to ask me the same thing.)

freethinker

September 28th 2007, 03:17 PM

As for the questions about why I find naturalistic atheism horrifying:
I have attempted to explain this in other threads on tweb. It's something like the following:

If atheism is true, then there is no objective beauty, right and wrong, or meaning. There is no real will, hope, or love. It casts doubt on my consciousness, my ability to reason, and my own existence. We are but a speck, merely a result of natural processes, floating in a immense vacuum that will end in the eventual heat death of the universe. There is no essential difference between Man and a rock. They both meet the same end. There is nothing that we can do in our fleeting lifespans that is objectively good or profitable. Our deepest desires can never be satisfied. All is futility and striving after wind.

I have not met anyone holding a worldview with ramifications more horrifying than that. That is hell.

To the contrary it is a most awesome world view. You may call yourself a speck, but you are a thinking speck and you are your own speck. If an infinite superbeing exists you become nothing: a finite object is always nothing compared to an infinite object. Even worse, you would not be your own nothing.
Like it or not, here is some beauty (http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/mozart_piano_con23_2.mp3) , guaranteed no supernatural content

joel

September 28th 2007, 04:15 PM

To the contrary it is a most awesome world view. You may call yourself a speck, but you are a thinking speck and you are your own speck.I'm not sure how much I want to get into this in this thread (getting off topic, and I'm sort of already discussing this in a different thread), but that is not the conclusion I come to, given naturalism. It seems that naturalism casts a great doubt on the proposition that I am a "thinking speck." I also find no basis for being "my own" speck, ownership being something underivable from naturalism.

If an infinite superbeing exists you become nothing: a finite object is always nothing compared to an infinite object. Even worse, you would not be your own nothing.This is not true for Christianity. Yes, on our own, we are nothing. But God condescends to make us something. In Him, we become more ourselves than otherwise possible. Also, in a delightful paradox, we become more our own than otherwise possible, only by giving ourselves up to Him. Furthermore, under naturalism, if the universe is, in fact, infinite, then we are nothing, by your explanation.

Like it or not, here is some beauty (http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/mozart_piano_con23_2.mp3) , guaranteed no supernatural contentThat is beautiful. But I don't see how objective beauty can be reconciled with naturalism.

technomage

September 28th 2007, 04:19 PM

That is beautiful. But I don't see how objective beauty can be reconciled with naturalism.

Joel, even as a theist, I reject the concept of "objective beauty."

joel

September 28th 2007, 04:32 PM

As such, the feelings that we feel, and the actions that we do, are real.But merely natural phenomena, no greater or lesser in significance than any other.

Can God have prompted that much confusion? Could God be the author of that much disorder? Or is the truth of Christendom that "Each man does what is right in his own eyes?"I don't doubt that there is much doing "what is right in his own eyes" in Christendom. But it would be the result of the failings of humans.

Zeluvia

September 28th 2007, 04:41 PM

Naturalism and atheism are not exactly the same thing, but that is besides my point.

But it seems to me you are looking for something that gives YOU personally significance, meaning, and exterior reasons to think things are beautiful and probably moral too.

But what you don't seem to understand about an atheist world veiw, which in my case allows for pantheism, deism, and panantheism even, is that to us, religion is just a human concept that is giving theists all this stuff they think they need.....personal significance, a meaning for life, and "objective" standards.

To me, none of that exists, you are just BELIEVING what some OTHER HUMAN made up, because you need too, and that is exactly why that other guy made it up, cause he needed too.

There, that is the simplest way I can explain the difference = )

technomage

September 28th 2007, 04:43 PM

But merely natural phenomena, no greater or lesser in significance than any other.

I've already acknowledged that, depending on scale, they are not significant to the cosmos. But theyare significant to the person who experiences them.

I don't doubt that there is much doing "what is right in his own eyes" in Christendom. But it would be the result of the failings of humans.

Again, this is why I asked you to look at Christendom as a whole. Can you, as a human being, judge if anyone has it right?

And if you think that's difficult as a Christian, try to think about how a non-Christian sees the situation.

joel

September 28th 2007, 05:32 PM

I've already acknowledged that, depending on scale, they are not significant to the cosmos. But theyare significant to the person who experiences them. I'm still not seeing how to get to that point. Granted, certain phenomena may be more apparant or "attention grabbing" to me than others (whatever "me" means). But that doesn't mean that they are more significant. Indeed, I can determine that something that is "in my face" is actually insignificant, and that I ought to struggle to avoid its influence.

Again, this is why I asked you to look at Christendom as a whole. Can you, as a human being, judge if anyone has it right?

And if you think that's difficult as a Christian, try to think about how a non-Christian sees the situation.It seems to me that you are heading towards areas of epistemology in which I lack expertise. At present, it seems to me that one can gather in the facts and use reason to come to conclusions that will likely correspond to reality. Also, checking these conclusions against common experience of others will likely be a benefit. Some variation among individuals is to be expected and may actually be beneficial, in that it causes one to dig deeper and to reexamine things or to increase confidence in the truth. This is one of the reasons I like tweb.

So, no, I do not think that the mere fact of disagreement on a subject is grounds for despairing that truth on the matter is unknowable. Though perfect knowledge may be impossible, a reasonable, working knowledge is likely attainable. And that would provide a platform from which to strive to know reality ever more nearly.

ScottM

September 28th 2007, 05:52 PM

:sigh: No, I mean what do you mean by "accept"?
(This is also my response to Scott's post. I assume you two are probably trying to ask me the same thing.)
By “accept,” I mean to recognize and acknowledge as true, to believe.

If you're presented with conclusive proof that the atheist view that there is no God and naturalism as a world view are both the correct ideas, and that theistic ideas are wrong because it's been proven that God doesn't exist, why would you not accept this reality?

If someone tells you your spouse or significant other is cheating on you, I assume you would probably demand proof. If that proof is offered, such as incriminating photos and taped conversations, you'd be foolish to deny the truth of the situation. You'd probably accept the truth that your spouse/sig other is cheating on you, and you'd take whatever action you deemed fit in response.

Similarly, if someone offered you conclusive proof (your words) that God doesn't exist, would you accept the reality that God doesn't exist and change your thinking accordingly? Or would you deny the conclusive proof? You seem to have hinted that you would deny the conclusive proof, that you would refuse to accept it. Why else would you try to hide this information if not for being in a state of denial about it? I don't understand why you would reject the conclusive proof.

Scott

joel

September 28th 2007, 06:40 PM

By “accept,” I mean to recognize and acknowledge as true, to believe. Yes, if I was presented with conclusive proof, then I would be forced to believe it. I think that I would despair and may spend as much of my time as possible trying to distract myself from that realisation of truth.

You seem to have hinted that you would deny the conclusive proof, that you would refuse to accept it. Why else would you try to hide this information if not for being in a state of denial about it?It doesn't seem that unreasonable to conceal the truth from others if the truth is that "there is no hope".

technomage

September 28th 2007, 08:03 PM

I'm still not seeing how to get to that point. Granted, certain phenomena may be more apparant or "attention grabbing" to me than others (whatever "me" means). But that doesn't mean that they are more significant.

Joel, I think you're striving to place personal phenomena on an absolute scale. One of the fundamental issues with atheism is that there are no (or no knowable) absolutes: if you seek to actually understand atheism, you're doing so with an invalid frame of reference.

This is also an important issue in understanding Wicca. We do believe that there may be absolutes, but we are also aware that our knowledge of those absolutes is distorted by our preconceptions. For example: you and I both believe in Deity, but (to my mind) your awareness and understanding of Deity is badly distorted by your insistance that Deity conform to your frame of reference. For you, if there is no God (or not your God), the universe has no hope--andplease dnottake offense when I say that to me, that's utter foolishness.

That's one important aspect of Wicca: the ability to change frames of reference. It's not something I can explain here in full, but one fundamental facet is that I demand of myself that my awareness conform to the truth, not the other way around.

Indeed, I can determine that something that is "in my face" is actually insignificant, and that I ought to struggle to avoid its influence.

But that's the point, Joel--we choose. We determine what is and is not important. We determine what is and what is not worthy of honor.

So, no, I do not think that the mere fact of disagreement on a subject is grounds for despairing that truth on the matter is unknowable.

Waitasecond, Joel--I've never argued that truth is unknowable. I argue that certainty is unobtainable, and that's a whole different critter.

shunyadragon

September 28th 2007, 09:45 PM

:sigh: No, I mean what do you mean by "accept"?
(This is also my response to Scott's post. I assume you two are probably trying to ask me the same thing.)

accept it as true. I have, and still believe.

EvoUK

September 29th 2007, 05:10 AM

Joel: So if it's not "objective" (whatever that means- I assume it has something to do with your god), then it's therefore meaningless? How quaint.

Zeluvia

September 29th 2007, 11:06 AM

Yes, if I was presented with conclusive proof, then I would be forced to believe it. I think that I would despair and may spend as much of my time as possible trying to distract myself from that realisation of truth.

Doesn't the fact you would "despair" tell you that you have psychological issues with what you want to be "true"?

It doesn't seem that unreasonable to conceal the truth from others if the truth is that "there is no hope".

Hope for what exactly? In the last 100 years, the population of the world has tripled. Many people enjoy a life style significantly better than their forebears....if you define better as working less and eating more and having more leisure time, and living longer and healthier lives, and access to more education.

Our understanding of things, and our applications of technology advance at a geometric rate. I see no reason, despite the gloom and doom of global warming and overpopulation, to think that this general progression will not continue.

joel

September 29th 2007, 02:20 PM

Joel: So if it's not "objective" (whatever that means- I assume it has something to do with your god), then it's therefore meaningless? How quaint.
If there is no objective meaning, then everything is, by definition, objectively meaningless.

joel

September 29th 2007, 02:25 PM

Doesn't the fact you would "despair" tell you that you have psychological issues with what you want to be "true"?Absolutely we can want the truth to be different than it is. The example was given earlier of a wife cheating on a husband. Of course the husband will wish it weren't so.

joel

September 29th 2007, 02:25 PM

But that's the point, Joel--we choose. We determine what is and is not important. We determine what is and what is not worthy of honor.Perhaps I shouldn't have said "determine". "discern" is closer to my meaning.

technomage

September 29th 2007, 05:35 PM

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "determine". "discern" is closer to my meaning.
How can one "discern" some universal standard that does not exist, Joel?

shunyadragon

September 29th 2007, 11:07 PM

I'm not sure how much I want to get into this in this thread (getting off topic, and I'm sort of already discussing this in a different thread), but that is not the conclusion I come to, given naturalism. It seems that naturalism casts a great doubt on the proposition that I am a "thinking speck." I also find no basis for being "my own" speck, ownership being something underivable from naturalism.

In context to the original thrust of the thread concerning ones feelings concerning the 'source' some call God in the hopes, desires or other inclanations to existence based on feelings. The universe that we observe does not change.

Furthermore, under naturalism, if the universe is, in fact, infinite, then we are nothing, by your explanation.

The fact that atual infinites are a reality in space and time of math and cosmology in today's view of existence has nothing to with whether God exists or not.

That is beautiful. But I don't see how objective beauty can be reconciled with naturalism.

The esthetic nature of beauty in the nature of our physical existence is a reality regardless of whether a 'Source' some call God exists or not. The bottom line is the nature of existence does not change relative ot how humans believe or not believe.

wattsr1

October 1st 2007, 04:01 AM

It goes without saying that you don't believe that it is true. I'm not asking for your feelings about the "false Christian religion." My question is the comparison of your feelings supposing the claims of Christianity were true versus your feelings about there being no God.

Please explain your answer.Like all polls, can be hard to decide at times.

It seems sensible to go for the first option (being told what to do to live a good life and to get eternal bliss).

However, I accept my own belief as being the reality, so I went for the third option. I guess I am voting for my own version of reality. I am content with it. If I were not, I guess I would not accept it.

After having danced between 1 and 3 while writing this, I think I settle on 3. One simply has to be content with, learn to live with, what one sees to be reality. Option 3 captures that notion.

However, you poll does not quite encapsulate the title of the thread?

How do I feel about Christianity? Well it depends on the kind of theology being offered to me? If it makes sense as to how I think God really would be, if Christianity were true, then I think that particular theology is a sensible one.

Regards, Roland

shunyadragon

October 1st 2007, 07:55 AM

How can one "discern" some universal standard that does not exist, Joel?
Universal standards are believed to exist from both the naturlist and the theist perspective, but from the fallible human it is difficult to define the universal standard in any absolute manner.

technomage

October 1st 2007, 12:08 PM

Universal standards are believed to exist from both the naturlist and the theist perspective, but from the fallible human it is difficult to define the universal standard in any absolute manner.

In this case, we're speaking of absolute standards of morality and honor. I'm not aware of any atheists who hold that such exist, and I (even as a theist) have severe doubts.

joel

October 1st 2007, 01:26 PM

However, you poll does not quite encapsulate the title of the thread?I came up with the poll first, and had difficulty coming up with an appropriate title. So, rather, it is the title that does not quite encapsulate the poll. :wink:

joel

October 2nd 2007, 12:07 AM

But instead of finding this horrifying, like you, I find it exhilarating. Our future is what WE make it.
Every person matters to that future. No matter where we are coming from, or going to, we are alive and aware RIGHT NOW, and that all I need.
Let me try to articulate it in another way. How can I decide how (or if) to exert effort in anything? If I spend time and effort in, say, a car, and it gets demolished (as it certainly will, eventually), then my investment in the car itself was wasted, except inasmuch as it benefited me or others. Similarly, if I invest effort and love in another person, if that person is "demolished" (as they certainly will, eventually), and they are gone forevermore, then that investment in that person is wasted, except inasmuch as they benefited me or others. But the last example can be applied to anyone, including posterity. So this means that investing in others, directly or indirectly, is a waste. So, the only thing left worth investing in is myself. And, since I am fleeting, the only thing available is pleasure. So, the only rational course left is to seek to maximize my own pleasure, at whatever cost to anyone or anything else.

But the great literature througout history, and my own experience shows me that this is futile--that there is no satisfaction to be found down that road. We cannot accomplish anything of worth with our efforts.

joel

October 2nd 2007, 12:24 AM

How can one "discern" some universal standard that does not exist, Joel?
I looked back a few posts at what you were responding to, and I see that in the first paragraph of my post #55 that I sort of shifted from examining the issue from one world view to another. If anything, it was more of a commentary on the fact that the existence of an objective standard of significance appears intuitively true to me, and so its nonexistence appears absurd. Either it exists or I (and probably the majority of humanity) is deceived.

So, if it doesn't exist, then "significant" in regards to the natural phenomena that one might assign names like "honor" or "magnanimity" can only mean either (1) how "in your face" one perceives that phenomena and/or (2) how much time one chooses to think about it. But since both perception and choice are, themselves merely natural phenomena, and perception itself can be mistaken, there is still no basis from which to say meaningfully that one phenomenon is more significant than another, even on a local scale.

technomage

October 2nd 2007, 01:17 AM

I looked back a few posts at what you were responding to, and I see that in the first paragraph of my post #55 that I sort of shifted from examining the issue from one world view to another. If anything, it was more of a commentary on the fact that the existence of an objective standard of significance appears intuitively true to me, and so its nonexistence appears absurd. Either it exists or I (and probably the majority of humanity) is deceived.

Well, I've said before that believing in a false thing can be beneficial to the believer and to the believer's society. If you (and the majority of humanity) are deceived, the net results seem to be positive.

So, if it doesn't exist, then "significant" in regards to the natural phenomena that one might assign names like "honor" or "magnanimity" can only mean either (1) how "in your face" one perceives that phenomena and/or (2) how much time one chooses to think about it. But since both perception and choice are, themselves merely natural phenomena, and perception itself can be mistaken, there is still no basis from which to say meaningfully that one phenomenon is more significant than another, even on a local scale.

So close.... :wink:

Seriously, if no objective standard does exist, we still deal with a subjective standard--indeed, we deal with two: the intersubjective standard of cultural morals, and the subjective standard of individual ethics.

And remember, if there is no objective standard of "meaningful," then "meaningful" is still viable, because it is a human concept. If meaning can be defined--even on an intersubjective culture-based level--then "meaningless" becomes a false argument.

freethinker

October 2nd 2007, 02:48 AM

Let me try to articulate it in another way. How can I decide how (or if) to exert effort in anything? If I spend time and effort in, say, a car, and it gets demolished (as it certainly will, eventually), then my investment in the car itself was wasted, except inasmuch as it benefited me or others. Similarly, if I invest effort and love in another person, if that person is "demolished" (as they certainly will, eventually), and they are gone forevermore, then that investment in that person is wasted, except inasmuch as they benefited me or others. But the last example can be applied to anyone, including posterity. So this means that investing in others, directly or indirectly, is a waste. So, the only thing left worth investing in is myself. And, since I am fleeting, the only thing available is pleasure. So, the only rational course left is to seek to maximize my own pleasure, at whatever cost to anyone or anything else.

But the great literature througout history, and my own experience shows me that this is futile--that there is no satisfaction to be found down that road. We cannot accomplish anything of worth with our efforts.

This is the old question about the meaning of life. The theist solution is to leave the answer to a hypothetical superbeing. This is a delaying tactic which will get people through life without trouble. It is not very satisfactory for non believers for several reasons:
- It offers no incentive to actually do anything.
- The superbeing could have its own doubts about the meaning of life, be it on a higher level.

It is completely untrue that we cannot accomplish anything by the way. Humanity has already produced works of art and ideas that may outlive it.

Zeluvia

October 2nd 2007, 03:51 AM

Let me try to articulate it in another way. How can I decide how (or if) to exert effort in anything? If I spend time and effort in, say, a car, and it gets demolished (as it certainly will, eventually), then my investment in the car itself was wasted, except inasmuch as it benefited me or others. Similarly, if I invest effort and love in another person, if that person is "demolished" (as they certainly will, eventually), and they are gone forevermore, then that investment in that person is wasted, except inasmuch as they benefited me or others. But the last example can be applied to anyone, including posterity. So this means that investing in others, directly or indirectly, is a waste. So, the only thing left worth investing in is myself. And, since I am fleeting, the only thing available is pleasure. So, the only rational course left is to seek to maximize my own pleasure, at whatever cost to anyone or anything else.

But the great literature througout history, and my own experience shows me that this is futile--that there is no satisfaction to be found down that road. We cannot accomplish anything of worth with our efforts.

Wow, you really take a very narrow view of human history, "accomplishment", and pleasure. Pleasure does NOT necessarily mean dissapation, immorality, and general hedoism.
I find great pleasure in my dog, and my garden, and music.

And you seem hung up on "value" and "investment".....and for the LIFE of me, I can not think how you can say love for another person is ever a waste.

Everything you say is so extremely self focused and capitalist...you must be young.

But if I understand your objections, then you don't feel this life is worth living unless you can spend it working toward something more eternal....unless you can "invest" in a future life...

Do you realize how silly THAT sounds to me? = )

joel

October 2nd 2007, 01:25 PM

Well, I've said before that believing in a false thing can be beneficial to the believer and to the believer's society. If you (and the majority of humanity) are deceived, the net results seem to be positive.
Positive in what sense?

Seriously, if no objective standard does exist, we still deal with a subjective standard--indeed, we deal with two: the intersubjective standard of cultural morals, and the subjective standard of individual ethics.

And remember, if there is no objective standard of "meaningful," then "meaningful" is still viable, because it is a human concept. If meaning can be defined--even on an intersubjective culture-based level--then "meaningless" becomes a false argument. I have the feeling that we are going to just go around in circles here. First, I still can't get around the issue that if it is all subjective, then we are either imagining it or misperceiving it. And secondly, if it is all subjective then why should I care about it?

joel

October 2nd 2007, 01:31 PM

- It offers no incentive to actually do anything.
- The superbeing could have its own doubts about the meaning of life, be it on a higher level. I assume that it goes without saying that I disagree with that assessment, and that it seems you have a misconception of Christian theology.

It is completely untrue that we cannot accomplish anything by the way. Humanity has already produced works of art and ideas that may outlive it.Not past the eixtinction of life in the universe. All the effects of all our efforts will be lost or destroyed.

technomage

October 2nd 2007, 01:54 PM

Positive in what sense?

Positive in the sense that the vast majority of Christians live satisfied lives filld with love, and even the occasional moment of joy.

I have the feeling that we are going to just go around in circles here. First, I still can't get around the issue that if it is all subjective, then we are either imagining it or misperceiving it.

Joel, how can we be "imagining" or "misperceiving" something that is subjective? The very definition of "subective" is "based in a subjects point of view." One cannot misperceive what they perceive-one may misunderstand or misinterpret their perceptions, but any claim that we may be "misperceiving" is illogical.

And secondly, if it is all subjective then why should I care about it?

Because that's what we have--indeed, that's all we have.

Joel, let's imagine for a moment that Christianity is correct, and there is absolute meaning for our lives. Even if those absolute standards exist, we must still interpret and understand them subjectively. We are not capable of absolute knowledge (though we can, and many people do, imagine themselves capable of absolute certainty in the knowledge they have). Understood from that framework, then, the only difference between atheist and theist is still entirely subjctive.

joel

October 2nd 2007, 03:55 PM

And you seem hung up on "value" and "investment".....and for the LIFE of me, I can not think how you can say love for another person is ever a waste.Say you invest time and effort and love in an individual. If that person dies and is gone forevermore, then anything that goes with them is gone forevermore. It cannot be retrieved. Your efforts certainly do not benefit them at all--they are gone.

Everything you say is so extremely self focused and capitalist...you must be young.I hope everyone realises that I heartily disagree with these conclusions (which leads me to reject the premise on which they are based).

How can you start with only subjectivism and not end up self focused?

But if I understand your objections, then you don't feel this life is worth living unless you can spend it working toward something more eternal....unless you can "invest" in a future life...

Do you realize how silly THAT sounds to me? = )Silly because you don't think it is actually possible, or it would be silly even if it were true? Even if eternal life were impossible for us, life could be worth living if there were an objective standard of worth.

joel

October 2nd 2007, 04:09 PM

Joel, how can we be "imagining" or "misperceiving" something that is subjective? The very definition of "subective" is "based in a subjects point of view." One cannot misperceive what they perceive-one may misunderstand or misinterpret their perceptions, but any claim that we may be "misperceiving" is illogical.
Not necessarily. If I perceive that such-and-such is good, and I know for a fact that nothing is good (or bad), then I know my perception is mistaken--I am perceiving a quality that is in fact nonexistent. But I assume the point you were trying to make is that they are just feelings, and you can't be mistaken about how you feel, because it is just that. But I have the ability to nurture or suppress certain feelings. One day mankind may develop the technology to modify, create, or abolish any or all of these feelings. What basis can we use to decide what such course of action to take? If all we have is our feelings, then how can we make a decision about our feelings?

Because that's what we have--indeed, that's all we have.
You seem to be assuming that "whatever we have" is something I should care about. It's not clear to me that that is true.

Joel, let's imagine for a moment that Christianity is correct, and there is absolute meaning for our lives. Even if those absolute standards exist, we must still interpret and understand them subjectively. We are not capable of absolute knowledge (though we can, and many people do, imagine themselves capable of absolute certainty in the knowledge they have). Understood from that framework, then, the only difference between atheist and theist is still entirely subjctive.
But this conclusion can only be reached if the standard is utterly unknowable, which of course, as a Christian, I deny.

technomage

October 2nd 2007, 04:29 PM

Not necessarily. If I perceive that such-and-such is good, and I know for a fact that nothing is good (or bad), then I know my perception is mistaken--I am perceiving a quality that is in fact nonexistent.

Ah, but that's a fundamental mistake, Joel. Whether one is speaking of moral quality or value, "good" and "bad" are not perceived directly: they are value judgements we, as human beings, make. This is true for the theist and the atheist alike: both make value judgements, based on their understanding of morals or values.

Now, is it possible that one party or the other (or both) are incorrect in their understanding of value or morals? Of course it's possible--indeed, since they contradict, one or both must be wrong. But if we judge something as "good" or "bad," then we are engaging in an activity that is separate from perception.

You seem to be assuming that "whatever we have" is something I should care about. It's not clear to me that that is true.

There are those who agree with you--who go through life not caring about the people around them. This is probably not a positive experience either for the person, or for the people around that person, but it is their choice.

But this conclusion can only be reached if the standard is utterly unknowable, which of course, as a Christian, I deny.

Incorrect--that conclusion can be reached if error is possible. It must be reached if error or incomplete knowledge is inevitable, which both theist and nontheist agree is the case. Utter ignorance is not required--all that is required is error.

joel

October 2nd 2007, 05:51 PM

Now, is it possible that one party or the other (or both) are incorrect in their understanding of value or morals? Of course it's possible--indeed, since they contradict, one or both must be wrong. But if we judge something as "good" or "bad," then we are engaging in an activity that is separate from perception.You'll have to explain this some more. I don't see how this jives with what you have been saying up to this point.

Incorrect--that conclusion can be reached if error is possible. It must be reached if error or incomplete knowledge is inevitable, which both theist and nontheist agree is the case. Utter ignorance is not required--all that is required is error.So you are saying that because there is the potential for error, because we don't know the standard perfectly means that the existence of the standard is completely irrelevant to the point of it being no different than if it did not exist? I don't see how that follows.

technomage

October 2nd 2007, 07:31 PM

You'll have to explain this some more. I don't see how this jives with what you have been saying up to this point.

If two people make a truth claim, and the truth claims are conflicting, at most one can be true. Both may be false, but both cannot be true. This goes right back to the Law of Non-contradiction.

In this case, the truth claims are:
Atheist: "There is no absolute standard of meaning."
Theist: "There is a specific absolute standard of meaning."

Both can be wrong--but both cannot be right.

So you are saying that because there is the potential for error, because we don't know the standard perfectly means that the existence of the standard is completely irrelevant to the point of it being no different than if it did not exist? I don't see how that follows.

I'm sorry, I thought I had explained this previously. All knowledge we hold has a subjective bias: all data and sensory perception is filtered through our sensory limitations, cognitive limits, preconceptions, and worldview. We can sometimes overcome some of these limits, and indeed modern education attempts to allow people to think past these limitations (with a greater or lesser degree of success).

We have a potential for error. In trying to understand God, we are trying to comprehend the Infinite with our finite minds--this is impossible to do perfectly, but we may possibly gain some accurate information. The problem is, what information we gain is filtered through our subjective bias, rendering objective knowledge of God impossible.

With naturalistic subjects (such as science), we can strive to overcome this subjective bias by consensus: if the consensus agrees on a specific assertion, we have a high degree of confidence that the assertion is accurate (within the limits of our understanding), but even if, say, every scientist on earth agreed that the sky is blue, that's not absolute knowledge--that's just knowledge with a very high degree of confidence.

Unfortunately, we cannot experience God in any manner that allow a universal consensus. God cannot be tested scientifically, or by any discipline even remotely approaching the consensus-style knowledge within science. Understanding of God is solely an individual affair, and therefore we caannot escape our subjective bias in that understanding.

EvoUK

October 3rd 2007, 05:27 AM

Joel- why does something have to be objective, to exist, or have any meaning to human beings? And what do you infact mean by "objective"?

But to go back to your main objections to atheism, the fact that you don't like it has no bearing what so ever on whether or not it is accurate. Your objection reaks of emotionalism, which should have no bearing on the discussion.

Lili

October 3rd 2007, 07:43 AM

I found this extremely amusing. What, specifically, do you find so horrifying? That there's no life after death? I'd love to find this out.

I could not vote in the poll, because none of the options really described my feelings towards christianity. I find it so self-evidently absurd, I have to come into sites like this now and again to remind myself that people actually believe this stuff.What are some of the things that you find absurd about Christianity?

freethinker

October 3rd 2007, 08:10 AM

I assume that it goes without saying that I disagree with that assessment, and that it seems you have a misconception of Christian theology.
Hardly surprising that we disagree. My first statement (- It offers no incentive to actually do anything) is clumsy in any case. It should read - It offers no incentive to actually do anything in the long-term interest of the human race.

Not past the eixtinction of life in the universe. All the effects of all our efforts will be lost or destroyed.
That is by no means certain. New Scientist has an article about a new satellite that is going up to detect signs from the previous universe, before the big bang. If any signs come through, information can also in theory come through. It will be several months before we know for sure. We sure live in exciting times.

joel

October 3rd 2007, 02:45 PM

But to go back to your main objections to atheism, the fact that you don't like it has no bearing what so ever on whether or not it is accurate. Your objection reaks of emotionalism, which should have no bearing on the discussion.
True, my feelings about something do not make it true or false. But, the central topic of this thread is our feelings. I'm not trying to argue for or against atheism or Christianity in this thread. (Although there has been some debate over whether my (or others') feelings are unfounded or based on faulty reasoning.) I created the thread so people could be free to express their feelings.

joel

October 3rd 2007, 02:49 PM

That is by no means certain. New Scientist has an article about a new satellite that is going up to detect signs from the previous universe, before the big bang. If any signs come through, information can also in theory come through. It will be several months before we know for sure. We sure live in exciting times.
Interesting. What reason do they have to believe that there was a previous universe before the big bang? And if there is how do you recognize information from it?

joel

October 3rd 2007, 02:55 PM

Unfortunately, we cannot experience God in any manner that allow a universal consensus. God cannot be tested scientifically, or by any discipline even remotely approaching the consensus-style knowledge within science. Understanding of God is solely an individual affair, and therefore we caannot escape our subjective bias in that understanding.
I don't think that assessment is necessarily correct. And if we can gain any apprehension of the "standard" then it is beneficial, and a different situation than if it did not exist.

freethinker

October 3rd 2007, 04:46 PM

Interesting. What reason do they have to believe that there was a previous universe before the big bang? And if there is how do you recognize information from it?

I can't get access to the full article which is in Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=FAF5BEAC-E7F2-99DF-3F0F33F68F3C238B&sc=I100322) no less.
There is also an article in Itwire (http://www.itwire.com/content/view/13301/1066/)

It's too early to call the shots. Is there a way to preserve information for 13.7 billion years? Not on a DVD I guess. Still, yesterday theist could with certainty say life is futile without the supernatural. Not anymore.

technomage

October 3rd 2007, 06:01 PM

I don't think that assessment is necessarily correct.

Well, I can respect that you disagree. If you can point to a specific problem, perhaps it can help me refine my views, or discard them if the problem is insurmountable.

And if we can gain any apprehension of the "standard" then it is beneficial, and a different situation than if it did not exist.

Butbecause of the tendency of subjective bias, do we truly have any apprehension of the proposed stadard ... or do we only understand what we believe?

joel

October 3rd 2007, 06:38 PM

Well, I can respect that you disagree. If you can point to a specific problem, perhaps it can help me refine my views, or discard them if the problem is insurmountable.Okay here's my response: There may be things regarding the standard on which there is universal consensus. Universal consensus is not required to apprehend something. We can apprehend things that cannot be tested scientifically. And I deny that understdanding God is solely an individual affair. In fact I would agree with you that it ought not be done in isolation.

technomage

October 3rd 2007, 07:02 PM

There may be things regarding the standard on which there is universal consensus.

The evidencevidence (the tremendous disparity on what the Divine wants) seems to dispute that.

Universal consensus is not required to apprehend something.

No, on this we agree--but without consensus, we have no certainty that we actually understand the thing itself, or only the thing as filtered by our preconceptions.

We can apprehend things that cannot be tested scientifically.

While I agree, I have far less confidence in subjective apprehension.

And I deny that understdanding God is solely an individual affair. In fact I would agree with you that it ought not be done in isolation.

Well, that works once a doctrine is established and an orthodox position is staked out. But most religions start wih the insight of one individual, and in many religions that insight is not to be questioned. Ever try to get a group of prophets to work together?

joel

October 3rd 2007, 08:30 PM

The evidencevidence (the tremendous disparity on what the Divine wants) seems to dispute that.Within Christianity there is tremendous disparity on certain points. But there is general agreement on the large bulk of it. That's not surprising to me. Furthermore, I would say that there are points that seem to be universally agreed across humanity.

No, on this we agree--but without consensus, we have no certainty that we actually understand the thing itself, or only the thing as filtered by our preconceptions.It seems that you are stretching this too much. Universal consensus is rare. Most of our beliefs are based on far less than that. It is neither necessary nor sufficient. Also, the Christian answer is that the situation is helped out greatly when the One who is the Truth communicates with us, i.e. it's even better than just us discussing amongst ourselves.

Well, that works once a doctrine is established and an orthodox position is staked out. But most religions start wih the insight of one individual, and in many religions that insight is not to be questioned. Ever try to get a group of prophets to work together?
But that's not how Christians believe that Christianity "started".

technomage

October 3rd 2007, 09:01 PM

Within Christianity there is tremendous disparity on certain points. But there is general agreement on the large bulk of it.

Joel, I must state that this is afalse statement based on fallacious reasoning. Remember--for the context of this discussion, we are looking at how an atheist sees Christianity. To an atheist, all people who claim the name Christian must be considered Christian--there is no externally objective standard to call one group "true Christians" and another group "pseudo-Christians."

Taken from that view, we see that there is no single doctrine to which all Christians agree. Not the Trinity, not the inspiration of the Bible, not the Virgin Birth, not even the Resurrection--nothing. Thirty-six percent of the United States population considers themselves Christian, but do not agree on at least one major doctrinal issue. (If you want hard statistics, the Barna Group did a survey cataloguing beliefs in America--a synopsis (http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=231) is available.)

Furthermore, I would say that there are points that seem to be universally agreed across humanity.

I would be interested if there was any single point universally agreed upon.

It seems that you are stretching this too much. Universal consensus is rare.

Oh, I quite agree--indeed, I give some examples above. And even if there were universal consensus,that's not proof of the truth of any proposition (though it does give a very high degree of confidence). But you must admit that from an outsider's point of view, the severe degree of factionalism within Christianity gives cause for reasonable doubt.

But that's not how Christians believe that Christianity "started".

Again, Joel--we are looking at things from an atheist's point of view.

joel

October 3rd 2007, 09:36 PM

Taken from that view, we see that there is no single doctrine to which all Christians agree.Point taken, but that's an issue of semantics. Supposing Evangellical/Catholic/Orthodox Christians are right on their points of agreement. What should they do when an outside group hijacks the name "Christian", in order to avoid this appearance of fractionalism? There's nothing that can be done but to provide evidence of the truth. But does that only increase the appearance of fractionalism?

I would be interested if there was any single point universally agreed upon.General themes is where we should expect agreement. (And disagreement on particulars.) Some universal (or near-universal) agreement:
That there is a duty to fellow men (Every culture has agreed that we ought to love our neighbor (though there is disagreement over who, if anyone, is excluded from "neighbor"))
That there is a duty to parents/elders/ancestors
That there is a duty to children/posterity
That there is a law of justice.
That there is a duty of honesty/integrity

Again, Joel--we are looking at things from an atheist's point of view.Okay, maybe that's where you are losing me. I'm pretty sure this line of reasoning came from supposing that I am right about Christian doctrine, or at least the existence of certain "standards." So now are you asking me to suppose the standard exists and look at it from the point of view of an atheist, or look at it from the point of view of an athiest who is supposing that the standard exists? Either way, it seems that the atheist should take on the Christian claims that are actually held, rather than attacking a straw man.

EvoUK

October 4th 2007, 12:32 AM

What are some of the things that you find absurd about Christianity?

The basic claim of Christianity is that a perfect loving God created an imperfect fallen creation, that this God then impregnated a woman and was born as a human and crucified as a sacrifice to himself to save his fallen creation from himself and came back from the dead, and that if you believe this story, you get to go to Heaven after you die and if you don't, this loving God will burn you in hell for all eternity.

This claim is so ridiculous and contrary to real world experience that atheists are under no burden whatsoever to disprove it. It is, rather, the responsibility of those making such outrageous claims to show why they shouldn't be regarded as raving lunatics.

Here is the bit where you tell me that I must have the wrong religion/don't understand the bible. :ahem:

gharfish

October 4th 2007, 12:48 AM

Here is where I'd ask you why you are parked on a website that is owned and operated by people who trust in a person whose truth claims are outrageous and ridiculous ? Why do you frequent a site that is so largely populated by people who should prove to the world that they aren't raving lunatics ?

EvoUK

October 4th 2007, 01:01 AM

It's incredibly interesting. Not to mention a lot of them are suprisingly nice people.

technomage

October 4th 2007, 01:03 AM

Here is the bit where you tell me that I must have the wrong religion/don't understand the bible. :ahem:

Evo, Lili is a non-Christian. :wink:

gharfish

October 4th 2007, 01:09 AM

It's incredibly interesting. Not to mention a lot of them are suprisingly nice people.Yeah, yeah. "Good answer."

EvoUK

October 4th 2007, 03:32 AM

EvoUK

October 4th 2007, 03:34 AM

Evo, Lili is a non-Christian. :wink:

Heh, when someone starts a thread asking people the best evidence against a global flood, as though it wasn't self-evident, I tend to assume they're christian. This time I happened to be wrong, but.

gharfish

October 4th 2007, 06:47 AM

What- it is incredibly interesting to watch people try to defend these beliefs- even more so to watch them make arguments against other viewpoints as though we're the odd ones. Splinter in the eye vs the plank. Mostly these days it's to look at conservative viewpoints, and this is a ready place to get them from. Plus like I said earlier, I have to remind myself sometimes that people do actually believe this stuff.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't treat them with the respect they think their viewpoints and beliefs deserve.You are interested in monitoring the conservative view. So, you are telling me that you are here mostly 'these days' about politics ? ...sort of in the wings, observing from England the conservative movement. Don't get me wrong; I can appreciate why the political teachings of Jesus merit your study.

As for the rest, why wouldn't I--we all--excuse this expressed lack of respect for the truth claims that Jesus Christ made too, that don't have anything to do with [your] country's politics ?

It's all so outrageously ridiculous after all ! You can remain this cooly detached and again 'remind yourself' of that 'stuff.' That's good.

Well then, I guess just let this be another day added to your (4 years, right ?) of watching what you're sure are only the babblings of many head cases, about the big Headcase at it's center.

Maybe you could stay a little more behind the one-way glass in the future when a non-Christian asks for your diagnosis of the Christian problem. (But you didn't know that, now at 7 pages in.) See, this time you are right in 'it's' face.

technomage

October 4th 2007, 11:41 PM

Hey, Ghar--what is that inyour avatar. It looks like a "Stab Me C'thulhu"! :hehe:

EvoUK

October 4th 2007, 11:43 PM

Wow- that is SUCH a cool picture! :smile:

Ahem- back to the post:

You are interested in monitoring the conservative view. So, you are telling me that you are here mostly 'these days' about politics ? ...sort of in the wings, observing from England the conservative movement.

Yes and no- only a few topics interest me these days- and they don't even directly effect me over here in England. Just a matter of mild interest.

Don't get me wrong; I can appreciate why the political teachings of Jesus merit your study.

The political views of self-professed christians, even on this board, let alone all of them, are so many and varied that I'm not even sure what this means.

As for the rest, why wouldn't I--we all--excuse this expressed lack of respect for the truth claims that Jesus Christ made too, that don't have anything to do with [your] country's politics ?

I don't see what my countries politics have to do with these so-called truth claims.

Well then, I guess just let this be another day added to your (4 years, right ?) of watching what you're sure are only the babblings of many head cases, about the big Headcase at it's center.

Heh- I started out a bit more militant. I'd probably still be like that if it wasn't for conversing with such "headcases" for 4 years. I've mellowed out quite a lot.

Maybe you could stay a little more behind the one-way glass in the future when a non-Christian asks for your diagnosis of the Christian problem.

My response remains the same whether or not it was a christian or non-christian asking it- the only gaff I made was the last sentence, and that was making an (incorrect this time, as it turns out) assumption based on a previous post made by said poster.

Lili

October 5th 2007, 05:35 PM

bit where you tell me that I must have the wrong religion/don't understand the bible. :ahem:Nope, I was not going to tell you that you don't understand the Bible. I also find some claims of Christianity to be absurd.

joel

October 5th 2007, 06:18 PM

Joel- why does something have to be objective, to exist, or have any meaning to human beings?
Suppose I can conjure up (create, as opposed to discover) "meaning" (or beauty or goodness, etc.) for something in my mind. Suppose I can also conjure up a unicorn in my mind. Under naturalism, the "meaning" is no more real than the unicorn.

shunyadragon

October 5th 2007, 06:29 PM

In this case, we're speaking of absolute standards of morality and honor. I'm not aware of any atheists who hold that such exist, and I (even as a theist) have severe doubts.

I do not believe it that simple from the atheist perspective. The absolute standards of the Natural nature of existence, that ultimately lead to morals, ethics and honor, may well exist from an atheist perspective, but not necessarily attainable from the human perspective. Many atheists believe absolutely in the underlieing natural cause for everything, and that natural redox can potentially explain everything without a supernatural alternative.

The metaphysical naturalist would absolutely believe that there is a natural explanation for everything including morals, ethics and honor, and deny absolutely that there could be a supernatural explanation for such things, or for that matter everything.

On the other hand, many theists will proposs that there is an absolute foundation for true morals, ethics, and honor, their God.

The agnostic may have more uncertainty concerning these question or may be indifferent to it all.

EvoUK

October 5th 2007, 10:56 PM

Nope, I was not going to tell you that you don't understand the Bible. I also find some claims of Christianity to be absurd.

My apologies, as has been pointed out to me after I wrote the post, I wrongly assumed you to be christian. Pardon my mistake. :smile:

EvoUK

October 5th 2007, 11:01 PM

Suppose I can conjure up (create, as opposed to discover) "meaning" (or beauty or goodness, etc.) for something in my mind. Suppose I can also conjure up a unicorn in my mind. Under naturalism, the "meaning" is no more real than the unicorn.

Probably not, in that meaning, and goodness exist in our minds, much like an imaginary unicorn or sky-daddy. When several people agree with something- a beautiful sunset, killing innocent people is a bad thing, etc- then we have a general consensus.

It doesn't have to be objective to work. Though I fully agree objective standards that we can use would be a much easier system. Problem with your objective standards is that they bear no practical difference to my non-objective ones. Everyone who believes in objective standards and morals tend to disagree with one another what they are! How useful :ahem:

joel

October 6th 2007, 04:21 PM

When several people agree with something- a beautiful sunset, killing innocent people is a bad thing, etc- then we have a general consensus.

It doesn't have to be objective to work.
What do you mean "work"? When several people "agree" on the imagined unicorn (whatever that means) does that "work"?

Everyone who believes in objective standards and morals tend to disagree with one another what they are!
I don't know what this sentence means. Do you mean that every pair of two people, who believe in a particular objective standard, utterly disagree on the standard? Surely not. Or you just mean that there are a large number of such pairs of people who utterly disagree on the standard? I doubt it. I would imagine the number of such pairs is low, if any exist at all. On the other hand if you just mean that people disagree somewhat, well that is true of everything. For every pair of people, the two will not have the same apprehension of reality.

Vital Forces

October 6th 2007, 11:15 PM

I find the options limited with respect the question asked in the poll.

joel

October 7th 2007, 05:29 PM

I find the options limited with respect the question asked in the poll.
How so? What other option(s) should there be?

Paranoia21

October 7th 2007, 07:44 PM

If Chistians did not try to convert me, I would not have a problem, but since they do, I do.

shunyadragon

October 7th 2007, 08:46 PM

How so? What other option(s) should there be?

To be indifferent to the whether the God of Christianity exists or not. Not to hope, desire, want or fear whether they are true or not.

I believe in a 'Source' some call God and i am indifferent to whether the Christian God exists or not, and whether the claims of Christianity are true or not. I am very concerned about people that believe in ancient books as the exclusive word of God for today like Jews, Christians and Moslems, because they are potentially very dangerous, violent, and unpredicable. Considering the potential of modern weapons its kind of scary.

EvoUK

October 8th 2007, 02:47 AM

What do you mean "work"? When several people "agree" on the imagined unicorn (whatever that means) does that "work"?

I'm discussing things like beuty and morality, which exist primarily in our minds and as a consensus. You're discussing what should be a physical object- a unicorn, which exists outside of our minds.

I don't know what this sentence means. Do you mean that every pair of two people, who believe in a particular objective standard, utterly disagree on the standard? Surely not. Or you just mean that there are a large number of such pairs of people who utterly disagree on the standard? I doubt it. I would imagine the number of such pairs is low, if any exist at all. On the other hand if you just mean that people disagree somewhat, well that is true of everything. For every pair of people, the two will not have the same apprehension of reality.

I'm saying that people with so-called "objective morality" behave in the same way as people with subjective morality. If morals were objective and exists regardless of thinking beings to make use of them, then why do so many people disagree on what is moral, both today and in the past? Why has human morality changed so much over the last couple of hundred years if morality is absolute and objective?

And what do you mean, specifically, by objective anyways? Does it exist outside of human minds? Was killing another innocent human being morally wrong in those millions of years before human beings even existed? Have you even thoght about objective morality in any real depth before?

Lili

October 8th 2007, 07:57 AM

Heh, when someone starts a thread asking people the best evidence against a global flood, as though it wasn't self-evident, I tend to assume they're christian. This time I happened to be wrong, but.Well, I started that thread because I do NOT believe in the global flood but I know very little about geology and I wanted to know more about the evidence that falsifies the global flood.

joel

October 8th 2007, 01:17 PM

What other option(s) should there be?

To be indifferent to the whether the God of Christianity exists or not. Not to hope, desire, want or fear whether they are true or not.
That's what I intended option 3 to be.

joel

October 8th 2007, 01:44 PM

I'm discussing things like beuty and morality, which exist primarily in our minds and as a consensus. You're discussing what should be a physical object- a unicorn, which exists outside of our minds.
This seems to be getting closer to the core of our disagreement. You are asserting some kind of difference here, and I see no justification for it. In fact, as you know, I believe that the unicorn does not exist outside of our minds but beauty and morality do.

I'm saying that people with so-called "objective morality" behave in the same way as people with subjective morality. If morals were objective and exists regardless of thinking beings to make use of them, then why do so many people disagree on what is moral, both today and in the past? In the first sentence you claim that everyone generally agrees on morality, and in the second sentence you claim that everyone generally disagrees on morality. Which is it? I go with the former.

Why has human morality changed so much over the last couple of hundred years if morality is absolute and objective? Because humans have invented this notion (in the last couple hundred years) that morality is not objective, and thus people can do whatever they feel.

And what do you mean, specifically, by objective anyways? Does it exist outside of human minds?How about this for a working definition: "subjective" refers to that which is conjured up by the human mind and resides only in the human mind (such as feelings and imagined things). Anything else is objective. (If we come up with problems with this definition, we can refine it.)

Was killing another innocent human being morally wrong in those millions of years before human beings even existed?Ummm, it's not possible to kill a human being if none exists. That doesn't even make sense. But I think you are asking whether the moral rule popped into existence only once there were two human beings. My answer is no, the moral standard, from which "thou shall not murder" is derived, eternally exists. Just because particular circumstances (to which the standard applies) come and go, does not mean that the standard comes and goes.

Have you even thoght about objective morality in any real depth before?Yes, I have.

freethinker

October 9th 2007, 03:43 AM

I'm not sure what the term objective moral standards means.
Does it mean that children are born with standards built in?
Or does it mean that all children develop the same moral standards as they grow up?
I think the cornerstone of moral standards is the capacity to feel embarrassment.

nickcopernicus

October 9th 2007, 06:53 AM

It goes without saying that you don't believe that it is true. I'm not asking for your feelings about the "false Christian religion." My question is the comparison of your feelings supposing the claims of Christianity were true versus your feelings about there being no God.

Please explain your answer.
Nick:
Well, I find the religion of Christianity as found in the bible and during the age of faith to be......so repusive that if there were truly a hell where one burned for eternity, I would rather go there then spend an eternity with the god of Christianity.

If this universe was the best that the god of Christianity could do then....well, let's just say that I'm not impressed.

Besides that I've come to the conclusion(s) that
1. The bible and Christianity are Mysoginic
2. The god of Christianity likes to toot his own horn way too often (see the longest book in the bible)
3. Christianity despises free will and demonizes humanity.

Well, that's my honest opinion of Christianity.

Cheers,

Nick

gharfish

October 9th 2007, 08:59 AM

technomage

October 9th 2007, 12:21 PM

I'm not sure what the term objective moral standards means.

Fundamentally speaking, it means that God has moral preferences, and these preferences are absolute. The argument for "absolute moral standards" presupposes a Deity with moral preferences and the capacity to enforce those preferences. It has little or nothing to do with human behavior, and cannot be proven or evinced from human behavior.

shunyadragon

October 10th 2007, 06:41 PM

That's what I intended option 3 to be.

Being content with either choice would not be indifference even to the potential truth for existence of the Christian God..

joel

October 10th 2007, 10:54 PM

Being content with either choice would not be indifference even to the potential truth for existence of the Christian God..
So the choices may have been worded badly. They were intended to be:
-I would prefer A over B
-I would prefer B over A
-I prefer neither over the other (or they are about the same)

shunyadragon

October 10th 2007, 11:23 PM

So the choices may have been worded badly. They were intended to be:
-I would prefer A over B
-I would prefer B over A
-I prefer neither over the other (or they are about the same)

I think your wording of choice three was okay, because many people would be content with their world either way, for example, some weak agnostics would be perfectly content if the claim were true, and then again they would be content if it were not true..

Indifference would be the 4th choice.

No Trust

October 11th 2007, 12:38 AM

Fundamentally speaking, it means that God has moral preferences, and these preferences are absolute. The argument for "absolute moral standards" presupposes a Deity with moral preferences and the capacity to enforce those preferences. It has little or nothing to do with human behavior, and cannot be proven or evinced from human behavior.

That's essentially the Abrahamic theist's account of objective morality. Of course it doesn't really amount to an account of objective moral standards, it amounts to saying just this, "It is an objective fact that there is a being that can enforce its preferences totally", which is not the same thing.

No Trust

October 11th 2007, 12:41 AM

Why has human morality changed so much over the last couple of hundred years if morality is absolute and objective?

Why has human understanding of physics changed over the past couple of hundred years if there's a real physical world out there?

No Trust

October 11th 2007, 12:57 AM

I'm not an atheist but from the standpoint of the Christian I might as well be. I guess I'd be disappointed if Christianity were true, as I'd have to accept that I and many people I care about are but 'depraved' puppets, or chamber pots, merely playing our parts in a cartoon-like fantasy. But, I don't invest much emotion in my cosmic significance, so it wouldn't be that strong a feeling. I'd mostly be content to keep living as I wish.

technomage

October 11th 2007, 01:01 AM

That's essentially the Abrahamic theist's account of objective morality.

It's most commonly exemplified by Abrahamic religions in our culture, but it's not unique to them: Germanic pre-Christian Paganism had arguments for absolute morals, though the specifics were (of course) radically different from the Abrahamic. And there are other examples.

Of course it doesn't really amount to an account of objective moral standards, it amounts to saying just this, "It is an objective fact that there is a being that can enforce its preferences totally", which is not the same thing.

I do have to disagree here, because (as part and parcel with the abilty to enforce preferences), Christian theism assumes that God has the just authority to enforce said preferences.

No Trust

October 11th 2007, 01:20 AM

It's most commonly exemplified by Abrahamic religions in our culture, but it's not unique to them: Germanic pre-Christian Paganism had arguments for absolute morals, though the specifics were (of course) radically different from the Abrahamic. And there are other examples.

True.

I do have to disagree here, because (as part and parcel with the abilty to enforce preferences), Christian theism assumes that God has the just authority to enforce said preferences.

Many theists do seem to equate ability to enforce with justice of authority, but this commits the naturalistic fallacy. They are clearly two separate things. Of course Christians are free to believe that God has both the infinite ability to enforce his preferences, and that his preferences are also always just, but then we're starting to stray from command ethics.

technomage

October 11th 2007, 01:23 AM

Many theists do seem to equate ability to enforce with justice of authority, but this commits the naturalistic fallacy. They are clearly two separate things. Of course Christians are free to believe that God has both the infinite ability to enforce his preferences, and that his preferences are also always just, but then we're starting to stray from command ethics.

I don't equate "ability" and "authority"--but it must be acknowledged that in Christian teaching, God has both as intrinsic traits.

Oh, and I probably need to mention that I am not a Christian: I understand Christian theology (Protestant better than Catholic or Orthdox), but I am not advocating it. :wink:

No Trust

October 11th 2007, 01:29 AM

I sorta gathered that from that thingy next to your forum handle that says 'wicca'. :tongue:

technomage

October 11th 2007, 01:36 AM

Eh, some folks don't read that. It's especially confusing because I am knowledgeable of Christian theology and beliefs. It's gotten me in a bit of trouble at some Pagan forums. :hehe:

freethinker

October 11th 2007, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by freethinker
I'm not sure what the term objective moral standards means.

Fundamentally speaking, it means that God has moral preferences, and these preferences are absolute. The argument for "absolute moral standards" presupposes a Deity with moral preferences and the capacity to enforce those preferences. It has little or nothing to do with human behavior, and cannot be proven or evinced from human behavior.

Fair enough. As long as these standards are not absolute. God is known to have changed his mind often. So objective moral standards should change over time. In fact they would look a lot like subjective moral standards.

shunyadragon

October 11th 2007, 10:36 AM

Fair enough. As long as these standards are not absolute. God is known to have changed his mind often. So objective moral standards should change over time. In fact they would look a lot like subjective moral standards.

Because, they are subjective moral standards.

A while back some asked 'Why have moral standards changed so much over the years?'

The reality is that they have not really changed that much. The vary from culture to culture over time, but basic standards of human behavior enforced by the family and community seems to be present in the early Neolithic. The family and community hierarchy seems to be very consistent. There seems to have always been standards for murder, theft and appropriate punishments, even found in primate societies today. Things like poligamy and slavery comes in and out of vogue. Human sacrifice faded in the toward the end of the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age. Morals and ethics seem to have evolved within a framework of what is necessary for the survival of the species.

technomage

October 11th 2007, 11:06 AM

Fair enough. As long as these standards are not absolute. God is known to have changed his mind often.

Actually, God as depicted in the Bible changes his mind from time to time (depending on interpretation), but no--the argument from absolute moral standards usually states that these standards are, indeed, absolute and unchanging.

I'm a theist who does not hold to the concept of absolute moral standards, as I hold that Deity has not revealed whether or not He/She/It has moral preferences, and most certainly has not acted to enforce any possible preferences.

joel

October 11th 2007, 05:35 PM

I think your wording of choice three was okay, because many people would be content with their world either way, for example, some weak agnostics would be perfectly content if the claim were true, and then again they would be content if it were not true..

Indifference would be the 4th choice.
So what exactly is the difference? Are you saying choice 3 is that you feel the same about both, whereas choice 4 would be that you feel nothing about either? If so, wouldn't choice 4 still be a subset of choice 3? If you feel nothing about either, then you have the same feeling for both.

gharfish

October 12th 2007, 09:42 AM

"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."

~ Jesus.

shunyadragon

October 12th 2007, 09:54 AM

So what exactly is the difference? Are you saying choice 3 is that you feel the same about both, whereas choice 4 would be that you feel nothing about either? If so, wouldn't choice 4 still be a subset of choice 3? If you feel nothing about either, then you have the same feeling for both.

The difference is jn choice 3 one is content with either choice. I am not content with either choice.

Zeluvia

October 14th 2007, 12:32 AM

I didn't like the use of the emotional modifiers in the poll either.

1. It would be nice if it was true.

2. It is impossible that it is true.

3. I am indifferent to it's truth.

joel

October 15th 2007, 02:46 PM

I didn't like the use of the emotional modifiers in the poll either.

1. It would be nice if it was true.

2. It is impossible that it is true.

3. I am indifferent to it's truth.
If that's the case, then you missed the entire point of the poll. The point is the emotion. Not whether you believe Christianity is true, false, etc., but the comparison of your feelings if it were true, false, etc.

shunyadragon

October 15th 2007, 07:51 PM

If that's the case, then you missed the entire point of the poll. The point is the emotion. Not whether you believe Christianity is true, false, etc., but the comparison of your feelings if it were true, false, etc.

I understand that, but the emotions described are okay for some, but many are still 'indifferent' to these emotions in terms of these choices. There are emotions involved here, but in my case it is a deep concern for the consequences of these ancient theistic beliefs, and the hope that people come to their senses and make more reasonable choices.

joel

October 15th 2007, 09:38 PM

I understand that, but the emotions described are okay for some, but many are still 'indifferent' to these emotions in terms of these choices. There are emotions involved here, but in my case it is a deep concern for the consequences of these ancient theistic beliefs, and the hope that people come to their senses and make more reasonable choices.
But I already tried to point out that that is irrelevant to this thread. unless of course you are saying that you think that the "ancient theistic beliefs" are dangerous and ought to be avoided even if they are true.

Zeluvia

October 15th 2007, 11:43 PM

shunyadragon

October 16th 2007, 11:18 AM

But I already tried to point out that that is irrelevant to this thread. unless of course you are saying that you think that the "ancient theistic beliefs" are dangerous and ought to be avoided even if they are true.

I was referring to what my 'emotional' responses were to Christian beliefs.

Indifference is still a genuine response as a lack of one's hope, desire, or being content with either choice.

joel

October 16th 2007, 08:14 PM

It's really difficult for me to evalute the truth value of a claim using emotion, and when I think a claim is false, it would be hard for me to "feel" something as though it was true.
Really? Probably not a day goes by that I don't think of some proposition and feel glad or sorrow that it is true or that it is false. For example, if a loved one was killed in a tragic accident, I would feel sorrow that it was true and would believe that the accident not having happened would make me glad. I can think of things that I know aren't true and feel emotion about those possibilities. We do this all the time. This applies to varying levels of certainty. If a loved one were mountain climbing and got lost and there were a search crew looking for them, and I didn't know whether my loved one were dead or alive, I'm certain I would feel positive and negative emotions regarding the various truth possibilites. Now I'm not asking you to evaluate the truth of a proposition using your feelings, I am asking for just the feelings.

I myself agree that Christianity is diabolical and ought to be abolished if it isn't true. But I also would prefer it to be true even if it weren't true.

Put another way, given proposition X, if X is false, then my feelings will likely be negative towards those who believe X to be true. But at the same time, I could still wish that X were true or be glad that it is false, or niether prefer X to be true or false.

Zeluvia

October 16th 2007, 08:43 PM

Really? Probably not a day goes by that I don't think of some proposition and feel glad or sorrow that it is true or that it is false. For example, if a loved one was killed in a tragic accident, I would feel sorrow that it was true and would believe that the accident not having happened would make me glad. I can think of things that I know aren't true and feel emotion about those possibilities. We do this all the time. This applies to varying levels of certainty. If a loved one were mountain climbing and got lost and there were a search crew looking for them, and I didn't know whether my loved one were dead or alive, I'm certain I would feel positive and negative emotions regarding the various truth possibilites. Now I'm not asking you to evaluate the truth of a proposition using your feelings, I am asking for just the feelings.

I myself agree that Christianity is diabolical and ought to be abolished if it isn't true. But I also would prefer it to be true even if it weren't true.

Put another way, given proposition X, if X is false, then my feelings will likely be negative towards those who believe X to be true. But at the same time, I could still wish that X were true or be glad that it is false, or niether prefer X to be true or false.

Both your scenarios however require an existing emotional relationship and then you evaluate the changes in emotions given different circumstances.

I will try to answer with a similar analogy. You don't know me, you have never heard of me, but I am lost in the mountains hiking. I am not a child, I am not famous, I am not a helpless woman, I am not an elderly person.

How much of a stretch do you have to make to feel an emotion?

joel

October 16th 2007, 09:51 PM

Both your scenarios however require an existing emotional relationship and then you evaluate the changes in emotions given different circumstances.

I will try to answer with a similar analogy. You don't know me, you have never heard of me, but I am lost in the mountains hiking. I am not a child, I am not famous, I am not a helpless woman, I am not an elderly person.

How much of a stretch do you have to make to feel an emotion?
I would have some emotion, but probably not as much as if it were someone dear to me.
Certainly, for different things you will have different feelings and different quantities of feeling. Having no feelings one way or the other to a proposition is also a possible response. In this particular case, you may in fact have little or no feelings regarding the truth of Christian claims. If so, then you ought to vote option 3, because that is what I intended it to mean.

shunyadragon

October 17th 2007, 12:41 AM

Well I really have no emotion about Christianity's truth value....

During some discussions about specific claims of Christianity, I have emotional reactions, but that is specific to discussions and posters.

It's really difficult for me to evalute the truth value of a claim using emotion, and when I think a claim is false, it would be hard for me to "feel" something as though it was true.

I share similar views here. To better understand and evaluate truth claims and remain as unbiased as possible, an emotional involvement is something that I can not afford. Detachment in the search for truth does not come easy, and it is full of ego triping, mines and mad monkeys that may distract the search. That is why, . . . everything is in pencil.

joel

October 17th 2007, 04:47 PM

I share similar views here. To better understand and evaluate truth claims and remain as unbiased as possible, an emotional involvement is something that I can not afford. Detachment in the search for truth does not come easy, and it is full of ego triping, mines and mad monkeys that may distract the search. That is why, . . . everything is in pencil.
So we should all become like Vulcans on Star Trek?

shunyadragon

October 17th 2007, 07:01 PM

So we should all become like Vulcans on Star Trek?

There is a balence of emotion and reason in our journey, and there is a time for emotion, particularly love and compassion, and there is a time for reason and logic, especially when trying understand the nature of existence and truth from the fallible human perspective. Oh yeah! and there is also the love and compassion for knowledge and truth regardless of the source.

Carrying around a sack of bowling ball biases attached to our emotions is a very painful way.

Zeluvia

October 17th 2007, 07:24 PM

I think what I am trying to express to you is an understanding of the complete LACK of emotion I have about religion in general.

I think that is something you need to see and understand. I know it is sometimes difficult to walk a mile in someone else's shoes, but it would help if you could see that non-belief also entails emotional indifference, whereas belief usually comes with emotional involvement.

joel

October 17th 2007, 10:12 PM

non-belief also entails emotional indifference
It can, but not always. For example, I have unbelief about the proposition that my grandmother is still living in this world, but I would be extremely glad if she were.

But I can certainly understand how you might have no emotion about this particular unbelief. (That is why I included option 3, however badly worded it is.)

shunyadragon

October 18th 2007, 07:37 AM

It can, but not always. For example, I have unbelief about the proposition that my grandmother is still living in this world, but I would be extremely glad if she were.

But I can certainly understand how you might have no emotion about this particular unbelief. (That is why I included option 3, however badly worded it is.)

This one point where I agree with you, indifference is only one option for non-belief. Non-belief may have a strong emotional element in the decision process and result.

joel

October 18th 2007, 03:10 PM

This one point where I agree with you, indifference is only one option for non-belief. Non-belief may have a strong emotional element in the decision process and result.One further note is that it is possible to believe contrary to your emotions. Just because someone has strong emotions regarding a proposition, it is not necessary that the emotions cause them to believe one way or the other. A person can reason in spite of emotions (although it is often the case that emotions to make reason difficult).

shunyadragon

October 18th 2007, 08:26 PM

One further note is that it is possible to believe contrary to your emotions. Just because someone has strong emotions regarding a proposition, it is not necessary that the emotions cause them to believe one way or the other. A person can reason in spite of emotions (although it is often the case that emotions to make reason difficult).

Yes, it is possible to believe in anything contrary to emotions, but becareful playing emotions against each other. that is why detachment is a way to distance oneself from emotional attachment. Claims of acting against ones emotions, or claims of detachment are not necessarilly valid. An interesting thread started by gmorton in science called 'group think' is an interesting form of emotional attachment many people do not consider as an emotional force in our lives.