So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[JimL]

Why would one care about the neighbor's best interest especially if taking advantage of your neighbor increased your wealth or position? This is all based on your say so Jim, and nothing else.

Why? Can you really not figure that out, seer, or do you just not want to face it? Because if it can be done unto your neighbor it can just as easily be done unto you. Moral laws, and the instilling of moral behavior, make that much less likely.

[JimL]

It comes down to God's say so or man's say so. But that is the point Jim has a problem with "say so" when that is all there is.

A god has nothing to lose, morals would have no effect on a god, they only effect man, ergo we, according to our own best interests, by reason, find and establish them in our own best interests.

[seer]

Why? Can you really not figure that out, seer, or do you just not want to face it? Because if it can be done unto your neighbor it can just as easily be done unto you. Moral laws, and the instilling of moral behavior, make that much less likely.

Jim that is just stupid, it can be easily done to me in either case. But sure, I wish all men followed God's golden rule since He want us to live in peace.

[seer]

A god has nothing to lose, morals would have no effect on a god, they only effect man, ergo we, according to our own best interests, by reason, find and establish them in our own best interests.

Jim, that does change the fact that it is all base on "say so." Your very reasons are merely "say so." Why is my best interest a moral good? Or yours? Our "say so" alone - plain and simple.

[JimL]

Jim, that does change the fact that it is all base on "say so." Your very reasons are merely "say so." Why is my best interest a moral good? Or yours? Our "say so" alone - plain and simple.

"Moral" is irrelevant, your best interests are prima facie a "good" for you. Definitions of words (morality) come from humans as well seer. Its defined as behaviors that are either good or bad, either in our best interests or not in our best interests.

[seer]

Sorry, Seer, but that's pretty serious hair splitting. If I send someone to convey something I know to be a deception, I am participating in the deception (ergo, I am lying).

It is not hair splitting Carp, He allowed wicked spirits to do what they do, just as He allows the Devil do what He does.

If this were true about god, then your god is weaker than I am. Every sentient being can make choices that run counter to their "nature." If god cannot, then god is constrained in ways that I am not. That flies in the face of "all powerful." The whole thing is a house of cards.

That does not make Him weaker Carp just different. I mean if you were incapable of lying how would that make weaker or just more trustworthy?

On the basis that it does not align with what I value. I've answered this already.


Yep. And yet it remains what I value.

So basically what you value is based on ignorance. OK...

It's not clear to me they are "circular." It is clear to me they eventually get to, "because that is my preference."

You have yet to show "circularity." And I do not see how it would be any more or less circular for me than it would be for a god.

Carp, you said that God defining good would be circular reasoning on His part. If it is that argument would also apply to you. You said that good was defined as what you consider desirable or beneficial, but why is what you consider desirable or beneficial a good? I could say the same thing about God, He defines good as what He considers desirable or beneficial. If it is circular for Him, it is for you too.

Re-asking the question is not going to get you a different answer, Seer.

No you didn't Carp, we agree that God's law is subjective to Him, you did not say how it is relative, you just asserted that.

Of course. But the assumptions I make are grounded in experience and reasoning from that experience. No one has a demonstrable "experience" of god.

And Christian don't ground their beliefs in experience and reasoning from that experience?

Nope. I understand that we have to begin somewhere - so trusting that there is an objective reality and we live within it is a baseline assumption. The philosophers can play with doubting it - and then proceed to live as if the assumption is true. I prefer to simply accept it as true. Accepting the evidence my senses provides me with is a different thing than clinging to a belief in a being for which there is simply no experience and no compelling evidence. You can go there if you wish. I managed to escape and I will not be returning without a VERY good reason.

Yet it is an assumption that can not be demonstrated logically or empirically. Everything you experience could be equally true if you live in a Matrix, or if your whole life has been lived in a dream. Or if you were a brain in vat. This most basic and fundamental assumption, is a mere assertion that can not be demonstrated on any level. Yet you believe it with all your heart.

[seer]

"Moral" is irrelevant, your best interests are prima facie a "good" for you. Definitions of words (morality) come from humans as well seer. Its defined as behaviors that are either good or bad, either in our best interests or not in our best interests.

Right, it is all based on say so. What I say my best interest is.

[carpedm9587]

It is not hair splitting Carp, He allowed wicked spirits to do what they do, just as He allows the Devil do what He does.

The texts don't say "allow," Seer - they say "send." But we're in the middle of a bible debate - and I said I don't do them. There is always an explanation/defense. The exercise is pointless. I'll leave the last word on this to you.

That does not make Him weaker Carp just different. I mean if you were incapable of lying how would that make weaker or just more trustworthy?

It would mean that my will is constrained. My trustworthyness would not be due to any moral character - it would be due to an inability to do differently After all - which do you admire more: the man who COULD lie to you and won't - or the man that simply can't?

So basically what you value is based on ignorance. OK...

What I value is based on my experiences - which are limited. That is MY nature - but it is still what I value. Someone else telling me that I "SHOULD value X" won't make a great deal of difference if I actually don't value X.

Carp, you said that God defining good would be circular reasoning on His part. If it is that argument would also apply to you. You said that good was defined as what you consider desirable or beneficial, but why is what you consider desirable or beneficial a good? I could say the same thing about God, He defines good as what He considers desirable or beneficial. If it is circular for Him, it is for you too.

The difference, Seer - is that I do not attempt to define what is good for everyone. I define what is good for me. Each sentient being does exactly that. If your god were to exist, presumably it would do the same thing for itself.

No you didn't Carp, we agree that God's law is subjective to Him, you did not say how it is relative, you just asserted that.

First - every statement is an assertion. Second, re-asking the question is not going to get you a different answer. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote. It's a waste of my time to keep repeating myself.

And Christian don't ground their beliefs in experience and reasoning from that experience?

To a point. But I have never met a Christian who has had a bonafide experience of the god they believe in. When pressed to relate, they relate some "miraculous" event in their life (which usually not much more than a misunderstanding of probabilities), or they point to the bible and begin weaving explanations that depend on an incredible number of unsubstantiated assumptions. When it comes to their religions, I do not find most theists ground their beliefs in experience and reason. I find they ground them in wishful thinking and unsupportable arguments.

Yet it is an assumption that can not be demonstrated logically or empirically. Everything you experience could be equally true if you live in a Matrix, or if your whole life has been lived in a dream. Or if you were a brain in vat. This most basic and fundamental assumption, is a mere assertion that can not be demonstrated on any level. Yet you believe it with all your heart.

"All my heart" is a bit of a stretch. Such philosophical meanderings are fun over coffee and/or a beer. They have little practical application. Fundamentally, there is NOTHING we can hold to be true with absolute certainty. We examine the available evidence, reason to the best of our abilities, and come to conclusion that we hold until we have evidence to believe otherwise. If you have evidence that I am a "brain in a vat," by all means present it. Until then, it goes on the shelf as a "insignificant possibility" and life goes on.

I find theists do this a lot. They take a "way out on the edge" reality (e.g., you cannot prove you aren't a brain in a vat) and then use it to justify beliefs like, "there is an all powerful, all knowing supreme being that loves me and I will spend eternity with it." If that is how you wish to function, Seer, it's certainly no skin off my nose. Each of us is free to follow what we believe to be true. Just don't expect me to be following you anytime soon.

[seer]

The texts don't say "allow," Seer - they say "send." But we're in the middle of a bible debate - and I said I don't do them. There is always an explanation/defense. The exercise is pointless. I'll leave the last word on this to you.

Read 1 Kings 22, in any case God did not lie.

It would mean that my will is constrained. My trustworthyness would not be due to any moral character - it would be due to an inability to do differently After all - which do you admire more: the man who COULD lie to you and won't - or the man that simply can't?

I would trust the guy who could not lie more, and so would you. Since a mutable moral character can and does change.

What I value is based on my experiences - which are limited. That is MY nature - but it is still what I value. Someone else telling me that I "SHOULD value X" won't make a great deal of difference if I actually don't value X.

Like I said, based on ignorance.

The difference, Seer - is that I do not attempt to define what is good for everyone. I define what is good for me. Each sentient being does exactly that. If your god were to exist, presumably it would do the same thing for itself.

Not the point Carp, we are speaking to your claim that God's definition of good would be circular - it would be no more or less circular than yours.

First - every statement is an assertion. Second, re-asking the question is not going to get you a different answer. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote. It's a waste of my time to keep repeating myself.

All you said:

Relative, as I am using it, means essentially the same thing: it is relative to an individual or group. Are you using the term differently?

Again how would God's law be merely relative to a particular individual or group if His law is universal and binding on all men?

To a point. But I have never met a Christian who has had a bonafide experience of the god they believe in. When pressed to relate, they relate some "miraculous" event in their life (which usually not much more than a misunderstanding of probabilities), or they point to the bible and begin weaving explanations that depend on an incredible number of unsubstantiated assumptions. When it comes to their religions, I do not find most theists ground their beliefs in experience and reason. I find they ground them in wishful thinking and unsupportable arguments.

Well Carp, I know my experiences and they are not merely misunderstanding of probabilities (that is an assertion that you can not confirm). Never mind that the Christian worldview makes sense of the world.

"All my heart" is a bit of a stretch. Such philosophical meanderings are fun over coffee and/or a beer. They have little practical application. Fundamentally, there is NOTHING we can hold to be true with absolute certainty. We examine the available evidence, reason to the best of our abilities, and come to conclusion that we hold until we have evidence to believe otherwise. If you have evidence that I am a "brain in a vat," by all means present it. Until then, it goes on the shelf as a "insignificant possibility" and life goes on.

You could never prove these thing either way. If we were both in the Matrix we probably would be having the same discussion. We take our experience by faith.

I find theists do this a lot. They take a "way out on the edge" reality (e.g., you cannot prove you aren't a brain in a vat) and then use it to justify beliefs like, "there is an all powerful, all knowing supreme being that loves me and I will spend eternity with it." If that is how you wish to function, Seer, it's certainly no skin off my nose. Each of us is free to follow what we believe to be true. Just don't expect me to be following you anytime soon.

No Carp, it is a fact. You can not demonstrate it empirically or logically, yet you believe it. And I'm not using it to justify anything, just pointing to the fact that we all rely on unprovable assumptions in life, even at the most basis level.

[carpedm9587]

Read 1 Kings 22, in any case God did not lie.

I would trust the guy who could not lie more, and so would you. Since a mutable moral character can and does change.

Note I did not say "trust." I said "admire." An honest man who does not HAVE to be honest but IS is truly acting morally. The word "morality" has no application to a being that cannot choose otherwise. Morality is about choice.

Like I said, based on ignorance.

You are a very binary thinker, Seer. The opposite of "all knowing" is not "ignorant." Limited knowledge and "ignorance" are not the same things. But it frankly doesn't matter - god will arrive at a moral framework based on what god values, and Michel based on what Michel values - that's how morality works. Where I differ with god (assuming the being exists at all) may be because god has knowledge I do not have, or may be because, based on the same knowledge, I arrive at a different valuing. After all, I am not a god - and I am not going to value as a god does.

Think of it this way. If the ant had a rudimentary sentience and began to moralize, the moral framework the ant arrived at would likely be very different than the moral framework a human arrives at. They have significantly different natures and contexts. That doesn't make me more right than the ant. It makes me different.

Not the point Carp, we are speaking to your claim that God's definition of good would be circular - it would be no more or less circular than yours.

Ultimately, Seer - that's the point. There is nothing you can say about your beliefs I cannot say about mine, and vice versa. We all reach a point of unsupported assertions. We all reach a point of circularity. Heck - even the dictionary is "circular" because all definitions of words depend on the definitions of other words and eventually you end up back where you started.

All you said:

Again how would God's law be merely relative to a particular individual or group if His law is universal and binding on all men?

You have not made the case for "binding on all men" in a way that is any different from how personal and social moral norms are "binding on all men." When you can make that distinction, you will have shown that god's moral rules are not relative in the way that all of our moral rules are relative. So far, you have appealed to power and knowledge. Neither one of those confers "binding."

Well Carp, I know my experiences and they are not merely misunderstanding of probabilities (that is an assertion that you can not confirm). Never mind that the Christian worldview makes sense of the world.

I'm not having any difficulty making sense of the world, Seer, so I have no idea what you are referring to. And I noted that most shared experiences are misunderstandings of probability - not ALL of them. I have no idea what your experiences are, so I have no comment until I do. I am reasonably sure you have never had a demonstrable, unequivocal experience of your god. If you have, feel free to share.

You could never prove these thing either way. If we were both in the Matrix we probably would be having the same discussion. We take our experience by faith.

All humanity functions by faith, Seer. I have never thought otherwise. We can reason to a point, but the leap to a particular belief always entails an act of faith. Faith is not a dirty word. The question is, is it an informed faith - a reasoned faith - or is it a faith of habit and emotion. The former is desirable. The latter is not. IMO.

No Carp, it is a fact. You can not demonstrate it empirically or logically, yet you believe it. And I'm not using it to justify anything, just pointing to the fact that we all rely on unprovable assumptions in life, even at the most basis level.

I have acknowledged this multiple times. I'm not sure what point you think you're making, but you appear to be agreeing with me (or I with you) violently. Life requires faith - and a certain degree of assumption. No question about it. But we should not be making any more assumptions than are strictly necessary to arrive at our beliefs.

I assume my sensory experience of the world in which I live is reasonably accurate - and there is a corresponding objective reality. I assume this because I am dead in the water if I do not - and because it is reasonable. Yes, I cannot "prove" in any absolute sense that this assumption is true. But it is the basic assumption pretty much all humans make.

For me to assume "god is" is not a reasonable assumption. It is not a necessary assumption. We are continually uncovering how the universe works, and the idea of a god is not required to render the universe intelligible, as far as I can tell. If someone can show me evidence that supports the existence of such a being, I will certainly look at it. However, most of the evidence that has ever been provided to me takes the form of assumptions, many of which are simply misapplications of probability (as previously noted).

[Doug Shaver]

It comes down to God's say so or man's say so.

I don't have God's say-so for anything. I have some books that some men tell me contain God's say-so, and those men have a history of killing each other to settle their disputes over how those books should be interpreted.

[Tassman]

Right, it is all based on say so. What I say my best interest is.

[seer]

Note I did not say "trust." I said "admire." An honest man who does not HAVE to be honest but IS is truly acting morally. The word "morality" has no application to a being that cannot choose otherwise. Morality is about choice.

You are just creating your own definitions. Morality by definition is simply: a doctrine or system of moral conduct. The idea of choice may or may not enter in, but it is not key to its definition. So yes, it would have application. God by nature always intends to do right, is always loving and just. He will not change His mind on a whim, as is so common with men. And that is comforting and generates deep trust. Whether you admire that or not.

You are a very binary thinker, Seer. The opposite of "all knowing" is not "ignorant." Limited knowledge and "ignorance" are not the same things. But it frankly doesn't matter - god will arrive at a moral framework based on what god values, and Michel based on what Michel values - that's how morality works. Where I differ with god (assuming the being exists at all) may be because god has knowledge I do not have, or may be because, based on the same knowledge, I arrive at a different valuing. After all, I am not a god - and I am not going to value as a god does.

Stop with the binary stuff Carp. There is no way it could be otherwise, we are all severely limited in knowledge and experience. We are not working with anything close to a full tool box. God is.

Think of it this way. If the ant had a rudimentary sentience and began to moralize, the moral framework the ant arrived at would likely be very different than the moral framework a human arrives at. They have significantly different natures and contexts. That doesn't make me more right than the ant. It makes me different.

Is this before or after you step on him? Or kill his whole colony because it is messing up your garden?

Ultimately, Seer - that's the point. There is nothing you can say about your beliefs I cannot say about mine, and vice versa. We all reach a point of unsupported assertions. We all reach a point of circularity. Heck - even the dictionary is "circular" because all definitions of words depend on the definitions of other words and eventually you end up back where you started.

Then why on earth did you bring up the whole circular thing concerning God in the first place? You meant it as a slam.

You have not made the case for "binding on all men" in a way that is any different from how personal and social moral norms are "binding on all men." When you can make that distinction, you will have shown that god's moral rules are not relative in the way that all of our moral rules are relative. So far, you have appealed to power and knowledge. Neither one of those confers "binding."

The point is Carp there are certain God given moral laws that don't change from culture to culture are not relative to cultures. And binding in the sense that men will one day be judged by these standards.

I'm not having any difficulty making sense of the world, Seer, so I have no idea what you are referring to. And I noted that most shared experiences are misunderstandings of probability - not ALL of them. I have no idea what your experiences are, so I have no comment until I do. I am reasonably sure you have never had a demonstrable, unequivocal experience of your god. If you have, feel free to share.

The Christian worldview tells us why something rather than nothing exists, why we have a life permitting universe, why life actually showed up in this life permitting universe, why this life reached self-awareness, and why this life is morally aware. As far as my experiences of God, these are things I generally can not convey, but they were deep, real (real as this computer in front of me) and completely life changing. But there is no way I could take these experiences and down load them into your mind and heart. And there are no words that could do them justice.

All humanity functions by faith, Seer. I have never thought otherwise. We can reason to a point, but the leap to a particular belief always entails an act of faith. Faith is not a dirty word. The question is, is it an informed faith - a reasoned faith - or is it a faith of habit and emotion. The former is desirable. The latter is not. IMO.

Well I'm glad you agree that we all have faith, you just think that your faith is superior to mine. Got it...

[seer]

You always have that power seer, but so does everyone else. If someone murders you, then you obviously can't retaliate, right? And vice versa, it works both ways. What you don't seem to want to grasp is that morals are founded upon human interelationships, i.e. behaviors that serve the best interests of all involved, in the best interests of the group, because if everyone had the attitude that you suggest in the above, everyone would always be at risk the one from the other. Even dictators and tyrants are always at risk and are often overthrown and imprisoned or worse. The adage "do unto others........." should make it clear to you that morals are not arbitrary divine rules, but are human based behaviors that, based on human reason, have come to be understood to be in the best interests of everyone involved, to be in the best interests of the group. Again, if you lived alone, isolated on an island, morality, moral laws concerning behavior, wouldn't even make sense.

That is nonsense Jim, a Mao or Stalin can live to rip old ages. Even if they don't, that is a risk they and their followers are willing to accept for power. And again I will ask, why is the best interest of the group a moral good apart from your arbitrary say so? Why isn't the the best interest of the majority at the expense of the minority a moral good? Or the best interest of a powerful elite, at the expense of the less powerful a moral good?

[JimL]

That is nonsense Jim, a Mao or Stalin can live to rip old ages. Even if they don't, that is a risk they and their followers are willing to accept for power. And again I will ask, why is the best interest of the group a moral good apart from your arbitrary say so? Why isn't the the best interest of the majority at the expense of the minority a moral good? Or the best interest of a powerful elite, at the expense of the less powerful a moral good?

Seer, you are making my point. The majority is still a group! The powerful elite is still a group! Whatever the group is, the moral rules pertain to all the members thereof. Do morals have any application to you when living on an island all by your lonesome? No? Why not?
And btw, yes, greedy people do take risks, thats why we both teach moral behavior and codify moral laws. That doesn't mean that murderous, thieving, narcisistic psychopaths like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Idi, Putin or a Trump won't come along and try to lord it over the people. They do exist, they do sometimes rise to power, and that ugly side of human nature is why we need morals.