Let's Talk About Sin

[FLVOL69]

:loco: Did you get that warm & fuzzy feeling when you heard that?

He's still spanking it...

 

[rjd970]

Some were religious motivations. Most were political, cultural, etc, masked as religious motivations. For instance, history shows that the great crusades were very politically motivated-- as were the inquisitions, etc...

The thing is, one can read each religion's writings and see if that religion's teachings were being upheld. With atheism, that isn't available to test or judge.

I was not saying that religion is better than atheism on that front. I was saying that atheism isn't inherently 'safer' than religion. Bad people will do bad things, whether they have a name to do it in or not. History has been pretty clear on this.

Again, find me an example of widespread bad human behavior where atheism was specifically quoted. And that's not saying atheism is better, not at all. It is saying it doesn't even belong in the conversation. A belief is what the driving force is, whether it be cultural, religious, political, or social. Not a non-belief. Saying Hitler and Stalin were both atheists and killed is the same has saying both had mustaches and killed. It is simply a coincidence. Their beliefs and dogmas is what drove them to do what they did. Same with all bad human behavior in history. I think you even said this in your post.

(And I will just state that Hitler's "atheism" I believe has been overstated, but that is another discussion)

As for the bolded, again, I can't stress this enough. Atheism is not a belief, it is a statement of non-belief. The qualifier is what you believe, not what you don't. When somebody asks what you believe, do you say non-islam, non-hindu, non-alchemist, non-astrologer, etc....going down a list of things you don't believe, or do you just say "I'm Christian."? "Atheism is a refusal to deny the obvious. "Atheism" is a word that shouldn't even exist.

 

[Roustabout]

Atheism" is a word that shouldn't even exist.

Hey! Something we agree upon.

God doesn't beleive in atheists.

Again, find me an example of widespread bad human behavior where atheism was specifically quoted.

We could definately look at all the postmodern philosophical positions. Of course it is said that a philosophy should never be judged by its abuse.

 

[MercyPercy]

Again, find me an example of widespread bad human behavior where atheism was specifically quoted. And that's not saying atheism is better, not at all. It is saying it doesn't even belong in the conversation. A belief is what the driving force is, whether it be cultural, religious, political, or social. Not a non-belief. Saying Hitler and Stalin were both atheists and killed is the same has saying both had mustaches and killed. It is simply a coincidence. Their beliefs and dogmas is what drove them to do what they did. Same with all bad human behavior in history. I think you even said this in your post.

(And I will just state that Hitler's "atheism" I believe has been overstated, but that is another discussion)

As for the bolded, again, I can't stress this enough. Atheism is not a belief, it is a statement of non-belief. The qualifier is what you believe, not what you don't. When somebody asks what you believe, do you say non-islam, non-hindu, non-alchemist, non-astrologer, etc....going down a list of things you don't believe, or do you just say "I'm Christian."? "Atheism is a refusal to deny the obvious. "Atheism" is a word that shouldn't even exist.

They just can't comprehend our non participation in religious belief. It's like if they were playing kickball, and we chose not to play, but they still insist we're part of the game. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[rjd970]

Lazy? I'm not the one who will never address a criticism of my worldview. THat's you. What if God never existed at all? Fine, I've already addressed that in the previous post and you skipped over it. You can't even argue your own worldview because you know where it leads. Untenable, contradictory and self-defeating. You are content to attack our view and not even realize that you have to trespass on theistic ground to smuggle in any meaning when speaking of evil or justice. Have it your way. We are all just molecules in motion. Relgious people are just acting out of their genetic programming. And, you are just reacting out of yours. Unpurposed, undirected, processes resulted in you and me arguing over purpose. You win. You have no purpose. Congratulations. So, now that we've settled that.
-Who is responsible for the holocaust?
-Who is responsible for human suffering
-Injustice?


Yes, what if God started with you? It's a question. You demand a God who will relieve all suffering and ALL wrong doing, etc. So, I'm suggesting, great, what if he started with you.

I don't have to. I've already shown as such, you just aren't willing to admit that your theistic worldview is nothing more than an opinion and decision you have made. I'm not smuggling anything. My position has been all along that you are simply putting a bow around your opinions and claiming some moral superiority over others.

The answers to your questions are simple. Either the person(s) perpetrating the harm or injustice, or bad luck. That's my opinion, yours is different. That's fine. But with your position of a supreme being that can do anything and nothing, the answer to all those same questions is that same supreme being is responsible.

Again, I don't care what you believe. But it is lazy philosophy to simply say "sure its bad, but things could have been worse, and besides, God let people do good in this situation so we should just trust him with how it turned out."

This is why I have said the problem of theodicy is insurmountable. Seriously, here it is again, read what you wrote:

How do we know that the holocaust was as bad as it could have been? God also allowed people to do the right thing, which of course brought those atrocities to justice.
These are obvious, but why should God stop there? It is interesting that everyone wants God to intervene in these egregious episodes. But what if God started with you?

I wouldn't go so far as to call this intellectually bankrupt, but your sitting on the edge.

 

[rjd970]

They just can't comprehend our non participation in religious belief. It's like if they were playing kickball, and we chose not to play, but they still insist we're part of the game. It doesn't make any sense.

This is actually not a bad way to put it.

 

[rjd970]

We could definately look at all the postmodern philosophical positions. Of course it is said that a philosophy should never be judged by its abuse.

Have at it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is actually not a bad way to put it.

Everyone operates within a worldview, and those worldviews define them. To claim a lack of belief in a deity is not to deny the effects that their worldview beliefs have on them.

One could argue that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, etc... were so cavalier about the concentration camps, gulags and senseless deaths were directly attributed to their lack of moral guidance-- the very lack of religion that you are defending them by. Roustabout has argued, in my opinion rightfully so, that there is no inherent objective morality, nor an inherent value to human life in atheism. It must be smuggled in from elsewhere. Who is to say that these atheistic dictators weren't just promoting Darwinism through their death camps and murders?

We've had this discussion before and I'd venture the guess you don't want to enter it again. Your atheism gives no objective moral standard, so you're in no better position to say that the deaths in history, whether religious in nature or at the hands of atheists, were objectively wrong.

So, this is one more wasted argument and accusation against religion from the side of the 'new atheists'.

 

[Roustabout]

This is actually not a bad way to put it.

It's almost kind of sad that what you fail to realize is that your participation in these type of debates blows that up.

I don't have to.

Convenient.

I've already shown as such, you just aren't willing to admit that your theistic worldview is nothing more than an opinion and decision you have made. I'm not smuggling anything. My position has been all along that you are simply putting a bow around your opinions and claiming some moral superiority over others.

Sorry friend, but unless you can account for OM then yes, you are smuggling it in. You are saying in fact that what you believe and the opinion you hold is the objective truth. At least I am appealing to some standard that isn't me. You are just appealing to you.
I don't claim moral superiority, just objective moral grounding. An atheist can choose to be moral, even more moral than a Christian. They just aren't acting consistent with what they actually believe to be true.

The answers to your questions are simple. Either the person(s) perpetrating the harm or injustice, or bad luck. That's my opinion, yours is different. That's fine. But with your position of a supreme being that can do anything and nothing, the answer to all those same questions is that same supreme being is responsible.

Hey, an answer. well kind of. So, you don't believe in God, therefore we can conclude that no matter what position we may hold (such as God existing) that man is wholly responsible for evil and suffering in the world, according to you. (excluding natural disaster of course) "You can't ultimately say God doesn't exist, and at the same time not like him." It's a contradictory position.
But, in admitting this you've tried to support your position with a false dichotomy. Either God does not exist and man is responsible or God exist and He is responsible. The third alternative is that God exist and man is responsible. The reality is that under a supreme being man can still be responsible for all of those things.

Just think of it as a multiverse. If there are unlimited multiverses, then inside one them this MUST be the case. I love atheistic metaphysics!!

Again, I don't care what you believe. But it is lazy philosophy to simply say "sure its bad, but things could have been worse, and besides, God let people do good in this situation so we should just trust him with how it turned out."

Not really sure where the lazy part comes in, but hey, if it makes you feel better. It's simply a philosphical absurdity to say what you are saying. If God created this world, then by His nature He must allow it to be what it is. There is no you without the capacity to chose.

This is why I have said the problem of theodicy is insurmountable. Seriously, here it is again, read what you wrote:

It's difficult, I agree. Insurmountable? No.
I really don't think you are grabbing what I wrote.

I wouldn't go so far as to call this intellectually bankrupt, but your sitting on the edge.

It's called a rhetorical question.

Like I said, you win. You have no purpose. congrats.

 

[rjd970]

Everyone operates within a worldview, and those worldviews define them. To claim a lack of belief in a deity is not to deny the effects that their worldview beliefs have on them.

One could argue that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, etc... were so cavalier about the concentration camps, gulags and senseless deaths were directly attributed to their lack of moral guidance-- the very lack of religion that you are defending them by. Roustabout has argued, in my opinion rightfully so, that there is no inherent objective morality, nor an inherent value to human life in atheism. It must be smuggled in from elsewhere. Who is to say that these atheistic dictators weren't just promoting Darwinism through their death camps and murders?

We've had this discussion before and I'd venture the guess you don't want to enter it again. Your atheism gives no objective moral standard, so you're in no better position to say that the deaths in history, whether religious in nature or at the hands of atheists, were objectively wrong.

So, this is one more wasted argument and accusation against religion from the side of the 'new atheists'.

And again, I have argued, that I am not smuggling anything. We all have opinions and we make conscious decisions that define what our morality subscribes to. I have my opinion based on my experiences, you have an opinion based on a holy book. At the end of the day, whether it is written down is inconsequential and it is a matter of opinion that is driving us. Calling either "objective" is wrong. If any smuggling is going on, it is that of the believers, using a moral code that they have the opinion is right, and smuggling it in as "objective". Islam, Christianity, and secular humanism can all argue moral questions, but the foundation of each is still opinion. I can just as easily state civil/criminal law is my position and argue from that "objectivity".

You guys can scream "objectivity" all you want. It is still a matter of opinion at the end of the day.

 

[Roustabout]

And again, I have argued, that I am not smuggling anything. We all have opinions and we make conscious decisions that define what our morality subscribes to. I have my opinion based on my experiences, you have an opinion based on a holy book. At the end of the day, whether it is written down is inconsequential and it is a matter of opinion that is driving us.

OM actually has nothing to do with whether it's written down. Do you really think that we are arguing that murder is wrong because it's written down? Seriously?

Calling either "objective" is wrong.

You just did!!. You said it IS wrong to call something objective. Well, is your statement objectively true or subjectively. If subjective, then it's no more valid than me stating the opposite. Opinion.

If any smuggling is going on, it is that of the believers, using a moral code that they have the opinion is right, and smuggling it in as "objective". Islam, Christianity, and secular humanism can all argue moral questions, but the foundation of each is still opinion.

Again, you don't even realize that you are making truth claims here. Objective ones BTW.

I can just as easily state civil/criminal law is my position and argue from that "objectivity".

Uh, no you can't. Civil law is subjective within a society. You do know what objective means, right?

You guys can scream "objectivity" all you want. It is still a matter of opinion at the end of the day.

Is that it is a matter of opinion objectively true or subjectively true? If it's subjective, then it is not true that it's a matter of opinion in all times and places. If it's is, then you have just claimed objective morality. You are an enigma!!:lolabove:

 

[Orange_Crush]

And again, I have argued, that I am not smuggling anything. We all have opinions and we make conscious decisions that define what our morality subscribes to. I have my opinion based on my experiences, you have an opinion based on a holy book. At the end of the day, whether it is written down is inconsequential and it is a matter of opinion that is driving us. Calling either "objective" is wrong. If any smuggling is going on, it is that of the believers, using a moral code that they have the opinion is right, and smuggling it in as "objective". Islam, Christianity, and secular humanism can all argue moral questions, but the foundation of each is still opinion. I can just as easily state civil/criminal law is my position and argue from that "objectivity".

You guys can scream "objectivity" all you want. It is still a matter of opinion at the end of the day.

I'm not too keen on rehashing all of this, but I will say this... Your play to Christian morality as 'opinion' does your argument no good and reinforces mine. If my 'opinion' is that morality is objective-- the same everywhere and given by a transcendent God-- then my worldview has given me an objective morality to constrain me. Atheism does not give this. It gives you nothing more than a personal morality and the belief that no person's individual morality is any better than anyone else's.

We see what Hitler, Stalin and Lenin did with that.

Christianity's 'opinion' about that objective morality is written in scripture, so when a professing Christian does something, it can be judged against their objective morality to see if it is consistent with their worldview. Atheism does not provide that. So, when Stalin, Lenin and Hitler acted according to their individual morality, they are acting as consistent atheists.

There is your dilemma when trying to claim that atheism is a 'safer' worldview. The second, as we have stated, is that you can't in good conscience say that anyone is wrong. You can't get any further than to say that they did something that you disagreed with. It was just their moral opinion, which is equally as valid as yours.

I can say that they were objectively wrong. You can disagree with my opinion on the objectivity, but at least I can in good conscience appeal to it and say in good conscience that the holocaust was a horrible thing, no matter what anyone thinks. You? All you can do is state that it was an opinion you disagree with-- oh, and then use it to try to disprove God.

lulz.

 

[rjd970]

OM actually has nothing to do with whether it's written down. Do you really think that we are arguing that murder is wrong because it's written down? Seriously?

You just did!!. You said it IS wrong to call something objective. Well, is your statement objectively true or subjectively. If subjective, then it's no more valid than me stating the opposite. Opinion.


Again, you don't even realize that you are making truth claims here. Objective ones BTW.

Uh, no you can't. Civil law is subjective within a society. You do know what objective means, right?


Is that it is a matter of opinion objectively true or subjectively true? If it's subjective, then it is not true that it's a matter of opinion in all times and places. If it's is, then you have just claimed objective morality. You are an enigma!!:lolabove:

How did the Isrealites know murder was wrong before Sinai? Did god impart them with this wisdom, like all of us? That is dangerously close to the subjectivity you claim you are above.

Is the Biblical morality not subjective within different Christian denominations?

I'm seriously questioning how you are determining "objective". Let's be clear we are in agreement with what we are arguing, because you are crossing back and forth over a line as it suits your argument.

There is an objective morality.

There is an interpretation of said objective morality. Christianity is one of many, would you agree?

Answer this simple question for me. Are you consciously choosing to adhere to Christian morality over, say, that of Islam, or secular humanism? And is that decision free from personal or religious bias?

 

[rjd970]

I'm not too keen on rehashing all of this, but I will say this... Your play to Christian morality as 'opinion' does your argument no good and reinforces mine. If my 'opinion' is that morality is objective-- the same everywhere and given by a transcendent God-- then my worldview has given me an objective morality to constrain me. Atheism does not give this. It gives you nothing more than a personal morality and the belief that no person's individual morality is any better than anyone else's..

I understand why your not keen on it, because you keep crossing lanes, as your friend roustabout, as it suits you.

Saying there is a transcendent objective morality is one thing. Saying your worldview isn't a matter of opinion is another. Calling it "objective" is inaccurate.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I understand why your not keen on it, because you keep crossing lanes, as your friend roustabout, as it suits you.

Saying there is a transcendent objective morality is one thing. Saying your worldview isn't a matter of opinion is another. Calling it "objective" is inaccurate.

Sorry rjd, you still seem to be having trouble with the concept of 'objective'-- this time in the area of truth. At the very least you are guilty of equivocating your use of 'opinion'. I'll explain.

I am not stating an opinion (as you have used it) when I say that Christianity is true. I am making a truth statement about an objective fact. Christianity is either true or false. It can't be both true and false. It can't be true for me and false for you. It is an objective statement because it references an objective fact.

Your use of 'opinion', in regards to morality, is that it is your opinion that murder is wrong. It can be wrong for you and not wrong for someone else, because it makes no objective truth claim-- it does not reference an objective moral truth. It is a preference and has no objective hold on anyone else.

You can not make moral truth statements. I can.

 

[Roustabout]

How did the Isrealites know murder was wrong before Sinai?

Moses murdered someone before the written law was given and he knew it was wrong. Cain mudered his brother and knew it was wrong. Really, you don't know if something is right or wrong unless it's written down for you?
Let me ask you this. Is it wrong to murder because there is a written rule? Or is the rule written because it really is wrong?

Did god impart them with this wisdom, like all of us? That is dangerously close to the subjectivity you claim you are above.

Huh? Humans are moral beings. I don't think you'd disagree. And yet, we appeal to logic and morals (metaphysical) as if they are things that govern what we should and ought to do or not do. I's say it's fairly intuitive.

Is the Biblical morality not subjective within different Christian denominations?

Not even sure what you are asking here? People can always make subjective interpretations. Either way they are still attempting to interpret a fixed point. I think of it as a painting. If someone paints an object from real life, are they going to get it perfect? No. But I promise that you can judge whether one painting does a better job of capturing the truth than another. The ultimate point is that the buidling does exist.

I'm seriously questioning how you are determining "objective". Let's be clear we are in agreement with what we are arguing, because you are crossing back and forth over a line as it suits your argument.

I'll be happy to clarify the terms.
Objective moral values are moral values that are true independent of the belief of human beings. I would illustrate it like this. If everyone today decided to agree that torturing puppies for fun was a good thing, would it make it so? Regardless of consensus or opinion it would not be good.

There is an objective morality.

Have you changed your position?

There is an interpretation of said objective morality. Christianity is one of many, would you agree?

Yes and no. The question seems to presume that all interpretations are valid. That is contradictory. If OM exist, then either an interpretation gets it right or wrong. That by definition is relativism. Cultures do interpret, and yes, sometimes they get it wrong. And yes, there are many cultural elements that fall under the Christian umbrella. A compass does not determine whether magnetic north exists. A broken compass neither negates it.

Answer this simple question for me. Are you consciously choosing to adhere to Christian morality over, say, that of Islam, or secular humanism? And is that decision free from personal or religious bias?

Any decision I make is biased. Sometimes my compass is off. Sometimes, beleive it or not, I make decisions that are in conflict with what I know to be right. We call that sin. And sometimes I also choose to do things that are contrary to my base desires. We call that obedience. Here is a simple question. Should people always act according to their natural desires and proclivities? If we understand the basis of civilization then we would say that people OUGHT not always act this way. We can't appeal to nature, because we are dealing with natural desires. So, OM has to be something that trancends nature.

I am choosing to appeal to a system that is internally consistent. Let's examine one moral interpretation. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Now, the interesting thing is that you do not have to be a believer to recognize that this is BETTER than kill or be killed. I would say it's obvious. So, I would say that in all times and in all places 'Do unto others' is objectively bettern than 'kill or be killed.' At this point, we can begin to ask that since there is an objective morality, then what is the source. It must transcend nature and we must also assume that the source is a moral being. The early Greek philosphers who were not Theist, BTW, said this must be what we refer to as God.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Sorry friend, but unless you can account for OM then yes, you are smuggling it in. You are saying in fact that what you believe and the opinion you hold is the objective truth. At least I am appealing to some standard that isn't me. You are just appealing to you.
I don't claim moral superiority, just objective moral grounding. An atheist can choose to be moral, even more moral than a Christian. They just aren't acting consistent with what they actually believe to be true.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I am not stating an opinion (as you have used it) when I say that Christianity is true. I am making a truth statement about an objective fact. Christianity is either true or false. It can't be both true and false. It can't be true for me and false for you. It is an objective statement because it references an objective fact.

You can not make moral truth statements. I can.

Amazing stuff given the sword of skepticism you raise with other arguments that are not your own.

 

[Roustabout]

Wow. That is a profound answer. opcorn:

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Source

The fact that you would consider this a valid study and quote it as reference is ludicrous.

Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."

First off, lets take all "religions" and throw them into the same basket. You may want to do some research on the most dangerous countries in the world and check what "religion" is being practiced. I'll give you a hint... it is not part of Christianity.

Within the United States, we see the same pattern. Citing census data, he writes: "And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."

And as to the above, I can't imagine there might be any other (i.e. more relevant) factors as to the difference in murder rates other than religion. (yes... sarcasm). This would almost be the same as suggesting that the "least religious" states receive more snowfall than the "highly religious" states, therefore religion must have an impact on the weather.

 

[Roustabout]

I'm not watching a 57 minute video tonight. I'll watch tomorrow.

I was just working off the premises and conclusion you posted.

And btw.....


Awaiting your report.

 

[rjd970]

Sorry rjd, you still seem to be having trouble with the concept of 'objective'-- this time in the area of truth. At the very least you are guilty of equivocating your use of 'opinion'. I'll explain.

I am not stating an opinion (as you have used it) when I say that Christianity is true. I am making a truth statement about an objective fact. Christianity is either true or false. It can't be both true and false. It can't be true for me and false for you. It is an objective statement because it references an objective fact.

Your use of 'opinion', in regards to morality, is that it is your opinion that murder is wrong. It can be wrong for you and not wrong for someone else, because it makes no objective truth claim-- it does not reference an objective moral truth. It is a preference and has no objective hold on anyone else.

You can not make moral truth statements. I can.

That makes zero sense. And I am honestly trying to understand this. Simply referencing what you believe to be an moral truth, doesn't mean that reference itself is objective.

Look at the two bolded sections. How are you not using a different standard arguing each case? You have a preference that Christianity represents an objective truth. That is separate from what the actual objective truth is. If Christianity is objective truth, it would be universal. 1+1=2 is universally objective truth. It's true no matter what. Are you saying your position of the objective truth of Christianity is the same?

This needs to be quoted again, with my edits:

I am not stating an opinion (as you have used it) when I say that Christianity is false. I am making a truth statement about an objective fact. Christianity is either true or false. It can't be both true and false. It can't be false for me and true for you. It is an objective statement because it references an objective fact.

Unless you agree with my edit (which you don't), we are at an impasse of opinions. Simply calling a reference an "objective fact" doesn't mean that reference is indeed a fact.

 

[Roustabout]

If anyone is really intersted, I think this paper does a great job at explaining the position. Not saying you will agree, but he does an excellent job of articulating the position.

Do Objective Moral Values Exist?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Wow. That is a profound answer. opcorn:

Honestly, I was flabbergasted when I read it; that was my facial expression. Had to reread it a couple times to make sure I was reading it correctly.

And btw.....

Awaiting your report.

Watched the video and read the link you posted to another poster. Both were disappointing.

 

[rjd970]

Amazing stuff given the sword of skepticism you raise with other arguments that are not your own.

A-f'n-men.

The dual standard exhibited here, and not realizing it, is crazy. Charging everyone else will smuggling ideas from believers is irony to the nth degree.