Why the religious mindset can be so dangerous

[watsup]

What causes inequality? Is it a lack of forced equality or a difference in quality? Can a something of a higher quality oppress something of a lower quality? I don't think so.

Christianity doesn't say anything about racial hierarchies. It says we're all equal in our dignity before god. Slavery is wrong. Legal *forced* inequality is wrong. But natural inequalities are not necessarily immoral. We can choose through charity and mercy to help those who are worse off, but "inequality" in of itself isn't immoral.

Refer to the posts made my the poster "Logicman" on page 10. He lists several examples of the founding fathers religiosity.

Nothing is wrong with equality of opportunity. "Social justice" is a nebulous term that as multiple definitions, so you'd have to define it more clearly for me.

This entire thread has been me trying to spell this out for you and other people. If you don't get what I mean by this point, you're just dumb.

You spend a lot of time being fuzzy and not directly answering questions. Your first sentence above is an example. It's a lot of words that don't say much at all. Once again I am asking you to be more specific. Who exactly do you mean when you refer to "higher quality" and "lower quality". The terms don't mean anything as they stand unless you define with more preciseness who you mean. You keep expecting us to fight ghosts by being so fuzzy.

And I didn't ask about the religiosity of the FF. You claimed that they used natural law as the foundation of the Constitution. If so, surely there are some quotes that you can provide from some of them undergirding that claim.

And I have read the responses of the other atheists to you, and it is quite clear that they are not dumb. But this happens all the time--the theists/religionists spending a lot of time on ad hom instead of staying on topic. I'll just keep repeating: it make you look bad, not the accused.

The problem with what you have been trying to "spell out" is that it just doesn't gel in terms of reason and logic. For one, you misuse the word "objective" as I have pointed out previously. For another, your basic statement about God and natural law is basically a tautology in that it only works in and of itself and cannot stand up to outside criticism.

Let me explain. Here is a definition that I found as regards tautology and logic: in logic, a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
In your case, the statement is only true by virtue of its "logical form", which is the near little circle of "logic" that you have constructed. When looked at OBJECTIVELY from outside the statement itself, it quickly falls apart.

 

[watsup]

I have faith in god. I have very strong faith in god. I am able to study science and evolution and not lose faith in god. I am an accountant, but I probably would have been a scientist second to this career.

When I was in college and studied science, I remember a girl started having a huge break down in class. Apparently she was struggling with the fact that dinosaurs and humans could not have coexisted. She was also struggling to comprehend how evolutionary science involves laws and facts. Evolutionary science is more than just a theory. She was near tears after one class and waited to talk to the professor.

This is all very insane to me.

Speaking personally, I don't think the problem is belief in god that you're complaining about. I think fundamental religious views are the real problem. Since the beginning of scientific study, the Christians especially felt threatened and persecuted scientists. It seems fundamental religious views avoided influence of the age of enlightenment. There needs to be a religious enlightenment movement. American Christians need to stop feeling so threatened by scientific study and need to encourage critical thinking. IMO, they have an extremely fragile faith in god.

And as a result, many of them vote for the fake "Christian" PT Barnum/Wizard of OZ Shaman.

 

[devildavid]

Things which physically repulse us have nothing to do with our conceptions of right and wrong?

What the hell do they have to do with then?

Things that physically repulse us certainly have to do with our conceptions of right or wrong. Conceptions of right or wrong are based on human emotional reactions to things. Emotional reactions are caused by physical stimulus.

 

[ataraxia]

Nope. Immorality scars and corrupts the soul. If we're thinking pragmatically here, any immoral person isn't just going to sit in their house for their entire period of existence and be immoral by themselves. They necessarily will have to interact with other people and since we value socializing, that person will necessarily influence other human beings.

But that doesn't answer my question: does it even make sense to do anything immoral if there is no one else around? You are making it sound like it could, but they inadvertently hurt others too because it's hard to avoid social interaction. But I am saying it is conceptually impossible. It would be like talking about the sound of one hand clapping. Can you give me an example of how someone can be immoral without anyone else (or any other sentient being like an animal) around to hurt?

Morality only makes sense in a social context. It is not something that has any external existence outside that context.

 

[ataraxia]

I have faith in god. I have very strong faith in god. I am able to study science and evolution and not lose faith in god. I am an accountant, but I probably would have been a scientist second to this career.

When I was in college and studied science, I remember a girl started having a huge break down in class. Apparently she was struggling with the fact that dinosaurs and humans could not have coexisted. She was also struggling to comprehend how evolutionary science involves laws and facts. Evolutionary science is more than just a theory. She was near tears after one class and waited to talk to the professor.

This is all very insane to me.

Speaking personally, I don't think the problem is belief in god that you're complaining about. I think fundamental religious views are the real problem. Since the beginning of scientific study, the Christians especially felt threatened and persecuted scientists. It seems fundamental religious views avoided influence of the age of enlightenment. There needs to be a religious enlightenment movement. American Christians need to stop feeling so threatened by scientific study and need to encourage critical thinking. IMO, they have an extremely fragile faith in god.

Well, the only problem is that these Gods don't just tell us scientific facts. They give us all sorts of moral commands. And if they can be wrong on the scientific questions, as has been repeatedly shown, who's to say they are right on the moral ones? They kept telling us that if we allow women to work/vote/etc.... it would violate the natural order of the universe and society would fall apart (and many of them still do). We have done the social experiments, and their predictions did not come to pass. In fact, I think we can all agree we are doing much better. I'm glad we had the daring to try. We would have never known and would still have been left cowering in the corner. I am not sure why they should have any credibility left at this point.

And if these religions can't give us any scientific/factual insight, and we can't rely on them for moral guidance, I'm not sure why there is any reason left for faith- maybe some vague and nebulous notion of having hope or something like that, which I feel I can get from plenty of other sources.

 

[ataraxia]

In other words, the debate is not about whether or not my theological interpretation is correct. I can't objectively prove that to be true any more than you can prove your morality to be objectively true.

No one can prove that any morality is objectively true. That would mean it would be the Ultimate Truth, spelled with capital letters, eternal, sacred, and unquestionable- there is nothing else you could ever see or learn or come up with that would make you want to improve or reevaluate it.

Just tacking on the label of "objective morality" to your latest personal opinions or cultural biases does not make it objective.

So it seems to me the whole idea of trying to find objective morality is a futile endeavor. But that's OK. It's no license for complete moral relativism either. The scientist doesn't give up their latest, best scientific model just because he refuses to tack on the label of objective morality to it. It's just the best model he's got so far. So he's going to be pretty dogmatic about it. If someone in his class says water is HO2 instead of H2O, you can bet they are going to flunk the class- UNLESS they can come up with some observations or models that can justify the new claim. Then all the scientists will be all ears. Morality can be the same way: being open to new ideas does not mean a license for a stupid moral relativism and hedonism. Behaviors and beliefs have consequences, and often times those consequences are enough to teach us what to do without having to worry if this is something that holds true for all eternity. That seems to be a pretty useless question.

The debate is about whether or not God and natural law exists.

The debate is how you would confidently know you have ever reached the final, authoritative version? wouldn't such a destination mean complete closed mindedness and stagnation? Why learn anything new, be open to any new ideas, or strive for anything further if you believe you have gotten to the final destination?

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

Being correct is not low information.

Very insightful.

Gullibility is the state of being credulous, or easily duped. Does it matter what the con is?

Again, what does it matter? Shouldn't all reasoning be based on evidence?

Faith is the antithesis of science, by definition.

So effectively no answers here. I ask you to lay down where the bible (or even the church) states that it is explicitly anti-science, you fail to do so. I ask how does Christianity encourage gullibility, you fail to do so. I ask how Christian doctrine specifically pushes you away from reasoning, you fail to do so. This isn't looking good so far, but I'll continue to answer... maybe because I'm a masochist.

I absolutely believe in morality. I adhere to rules that are natural to the human condition and the formation of civilizations. I don't kill or steal or rape because God tells me not to. I have no compulsion for these acts, and I have empathy for others. If you need a book to tell you not to murder or rape, I do not consider you a moral person. You're morality is based on fear -- for that you're transgressing God's law and will be punished.

So this post just shows how little of your time you've taken to actually read through my previous posts. First off, I've established numerous times that natural law, which is the topic of discussion, precedes Christian doctrine. To spell that out more clearly for you: a Christian understanding of God and a Christian holy book are not required to acting in accordance with your natural moral principles. It seems to me that you even admit that natural law is real, so are you even contesting my argument or just rambling because you want to be edgy?

Where do the "rules that are natural to the human condition" come from? I'm going to get into the philosophical meanings of "objective" and "subjective" as it relates to the existence of human consciousness, so stay with me here. If it were true, as I claim, that human life is the result of intelligent creation, then objective morality necessarily exists. There is a divine creator who designed every aspect of our nature, which includes our reasoning faculties and intuitive inclination toward a mutually understood concept of morality. This intuitive inclination and reasoning faculties are by intelligent design of an absolute good (God or a creator), which means that intuitive morality is objectively true.

If, however, morality is the result of cosmic randomness and evolution, then nothing can be true. There's no reason why we should trust atoms randomly bumping into one another and matter randomly coalescing to form any kind of objective morality. If cosmic randomness is the only true law of the universe - then there is no objective moral law of the universe. If some guy takes pleasure in blowing your head off with a shotgun, that is his own individual morality. Sure, you might disagree with his morality but that's just your word against his. Since everything is random and there is no higher purpose to human life, he's just reorganizing the matter of your head, which is what the universe had done for billions of years prior to your existence. The only thing that binds him to any "right" or "wrong" is man-made positive law, which is totally subjective.

That's a very low IQ thing to say, and shows that you really don't understand morality.

I think the problem here is that you don't understand philosophy. If there is no universal standard for what can be considered "good" or "evil", then morality is subjective. This is VERY basic to understand.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

God is against slavery? I guess it depends on which version of God you're referring to.

So you don't believe ANY of the Old Testament happened is relevant to Christianity? Is that what you're saying?

Have you read anything I've posted in this thread? I've already addressed both of these questions very specifically on previous pages. I'm done answering people who are too lazy to keep up with the conversation.

So basically, everything you believe could just be pissing off God more and more every day.

Yes, it is your subjective opinion.

Well, yes and no. Natural law would be universal among all religions if it is true and I think I've made a strong case for the existence of some intuitive understanding of morality in this thread. As I said, a Christian understanding of God could absolutely be wrong. There could be aspects of Christian faith which are totally antithetical to the desires of the unmoved mover. None of this, however, says anything about whether or not that unmoved mover exists.

I think, when you consider all of the laws of physics, mathematics, biology, and science broadly, you'd almost have to have more faith in randomness than theists do in the belief of a creator. The probability that every law of science works the same every single time, is never wrong, and is the result of total randomness is so Infinitesimally small that it might as well just be zero. The chances that the universe would eventually reach a point (through total randomness and not intelligent design) where you and I can have this conversation with the level of sentience and reason that we both possess requires an extremely strong faith in a probability that is almost infinitely small. Consider this line of thinking when you posit whether or not the universe is the result of total randomness or some kind of intelligent design.

Which version of the Christian god? And anything outside the corners of the Constitution is not in the Constitution. Regardless of whether they were Christian, they constructed a document that was neutral to religion.

Is this a serious question? Every denomination of Christianity has essentially the same understanding of God. I never claimed we lived in a theocracy - that's obviously very intuitively obvious. All I said was that this country was built men who believed in Christ and God, was perpetuated by men who believed in Christ, and is now trending in a direction where that is not the case. This is not an arbitrary change. Questions need to be answered.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

You spend a lot of time being fuzzy and not directly answering questions. Your first sentence above is an example. It's a lot of words that don't say much at all. Once again I am asking you to be more specific. Who exactly do you mean when you refer to "higher quality" and "lower quality". The terms don't mean anything as they stand unless you define with more preciseness who you mean. You keep expecting us to fight ghosts by being so fuzzy.

Lol... okay we'll walk through this like little babies.

Quality: the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.
Higher: great, or greater than normal, in quantity, size, or intensity.
Lower: less high in position.

A person with an IQ of 100 has a higher intellect than a person with an IQ of 90. A person who can lift 350 pounds, has higher muscle mass than a person that can only lift 150. The point of the post was to suggest that inequality can only exist in situations where a higher quality exists. In an individual sense, can a lower quality person (in any field or social dynamic) oppress a person of a higher quality? Of course not. Does this mean we should oppress lower quality people? No. Does this mean lower quality people are lesser in their dignity before god? No. Does this mean lower quality people are subhuman or somehow less human than higher quality people? No.

Does this mean that, for absolutely no discernable reason at all, we should worship and praise low quality behavior? Absolutely not.

And I didn't ask about the religiosity of the FF. You claimed that they used natural law as the foundation of the Constitution. If so, surely there are some quotes that you can provide from some of them undergirding that claim.

Show me where I claimed that the founding fathers used God and His natural law *directly* as a means for writing law and drawing up the constitution of this nation. You won't be able to, because I never said this. I said that the founding fathers were informed by their Christian religion and belief in God and by extension His natural law.

And I have read the responses of the other atheists to you, and it is quite clear that they are not dumb. But this happens all the time--the theists/religionists spending a lot of time on ad hom instead of staying on topic. I'll just keep repeating: it make you look bad, not the accused.

The problem with what you have been trying to "spell out" is that it just doesn't gel in terms of reason and logic. For one, you misuse the word "objective" as I have pointed out previously. For another, your basic statement about God and natural law is basically a tautology in that it only works in and of itself and cannot stand up to outside criticism.

How is God and natural law a tautology? Lmao what are you even talking about man. People in this thread have repeatedly demonstrated that they haven't gone through my past posts, they have poor philosophical understandings of the words "objective" and "subjective", and they have a poor understanding of the origins of Christian theology. There's nothing I can do about this and I'll call it out when I see it, there's nothing ad hominem about that.

Let me explain. Here is a definition that I found as regards tautology and logic: in logic, a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
In your case, the statement is only true by virtue of its "logical form", which is the near little circle of "logic" that you have constructed. When looked at OBJECTIVELY from outside the statement itself, it quickly falls apart.

Again, you betray your poor understanding of what "objective" means in philosophical terms. You can only come to a conclusion that morality is objective through the existence of a divine creator or God. You cannot come to a conclusion morality is objective through cosmic randomness. It's simple as that. Philosophy.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

Things that physically repulse us certainly have to do with our conceptions of right or wrong. Conceptions of right or wrong are based on human emotional reactions to things. Emotional reactions are caused by physical stimulus.

I don't know where else you want to go with argument man. We're at an impasse. You believe that mans consciousness and ability to reason comes from the infinitesimally small chance that we arrived here through cosmic randomness. Even if that were the case, why would we trust it? If all of our perceptions and stimuli are created by total randomness, what says any of it is true or real? You could argue that 2+2 =/=4 with this logic. This is what I mean when I say that with this interpretation of reality, nothing is objective and everything is subjective.

In fact, if all outcomes were the result of cosmic randomness, you wouldn't be able to make objective statements like this:

There is no god.

You can't make any objective statements despite the fact that you've made many in this thread. If everything is random, there's no reason to trust our sensory perceptions and call something objective or true.

I believe otherwise and I think overwhelming proof points toward some sort of intelligent design. The problem is, if we disagree on this foundational point of the argument, there's no point in arguing further.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

"Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Do not spare them. Kill men and women, infants and nursing babies, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” -God, 1 Samuel 15:3

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

But that doesn't answer my question: does it even make sense to do anything immoral if there is no one else around? You are making it sound like it could, but they inadvertently hurt others too because it's hard to avoid social interaction. But I am saying it is conceptually impossible. It would be like talking about the sound of one hand clapping. Can you give me an example of how someone can be immoral without anyone else (or any other sentient being like an animal) around to hurt?

Morality only makes sense in a social context. It is not something that has any external existence outside that context.

I want to preface my argument with the fact that we've now reached a point where your side of the argument has now been broken down into ridiculous hypotheticals which do not exist in real life. We've now broken down to the point where I have to explain to you if morality exists on a dirt island with no life on it. This is a straw man fallacy if one has ever existed.

According to natural law, a human action can be determined to be "good" or "bad" according to our ability to reason. In this case, "Reason" is the measure by which we evaluate human acts. There is then "eternal law", which in my view is God's providential ordering of all created things to their proper end.

Therefore, we can logically deduce that anything which goes against our ability to reason an intuitive sense of morality on this deserted island is necessarily immoral. In this specific case the question might be "Can a man more immoral toward his own person?". I would argue that, should he go against his reasoning, then yes he can.

No one can prove that any morality is objectively true. That would mean it would be the Ultimate Truth, spelled with capital letters, eternal, sacred, and unquestionable- there is nothing else you could ever see or learn or come up with that would make you want to improve or reevaluate it.

Just tacking on the label of "objective morality" to your latest personal opinions or cultural biases does not make it objective.

Wrong. I don't know how you still manage to not understand this. If a creator is real, if the universe exists due to some kind of intelligent creation, objective morality exists. Religion and theology have different ways of explaining our intuitive inclinations and natural abilities to reason to form different standards of morality through positive law. Religion and theology also contribute philosophically, through ontology and epistemology, the existence of a creator.

The bottom line is whether or not you believe that our ability to reason comes from intelligent design or cosmic randomness. If it's the former, then reality and morality are objective. If it is the latter, then there is no reason to trust that anything is true in an objective sense. If our sensory perceptions are the result of randomness, then reality and morality are totally subjective.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

So it seems to me the whole idea of trying to find objective morality is a futile endeavor. But that's OK. It's no license for complete moral relativism either. The scientist doesn't give up their latest, best scientific model just because he refuses to tack on the label of objective morality to it. It's just the best model he's got so far. So he's going to be pretty dogmatic about it. If someone in his class says water is HO2 instead of H2O, you can bet they are going to flunk the class- UNLESS they can come up with some observations or models that can justify the new claim. Then all the scientists will be all ears. Morality can be the same way: being open to new ideas does not mean a license for a stupid moral relativism and hedonism. Behaviors and beliefs have consequences, and often times those consequences are enough to teach us what to do without having to worry if this is something that holds true for all eternity. That seems to be a pretty useless question.

Again, it's not a question of whether or not we "find" objective morality. It either is, and the universe is the result of intelligent design from a creator outside of time or it isn't, and nothing exists in an objective sense. You very well may believe that everything is the result of atoms randomly bumping into each other and single celled organisms eventually, through total randomness, formed human life. If that's your belief, then there is no higher purpose to human life or existence. There's no such thing as objective statements or an objective understanding of reality. As I've noted in previous posts, I personally believe that even from a scientific perspective this seems highly unlikely. The chances that all laws in the universe worked out as perfectly and consistently as they did to form you and I having this conversations right now are so infinitesimally small that it might as well be zero.

In fact, if you were someone who considered themselves an intellectual and preferred science, mathematics, and statistics over faith or religion, it seems to me the natural position would be to assume intelligent design before cosmic randomness. This is one aspect of atheism, specifically atheists which hold science in such high esteem, that doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Neoliberal Fanfiction]

Imposing their morality on others is the most damage the religious right has done to both this nation and the world.

How do you avoid imposing morality on someone without having total anarchy? If you're secular, are you not necessarily imposing your secular morality on religious people by legislating things they disagree with?

Total lack of self awareness.

 

[ataraxia]

Again, it's not a question of whether or not we "find" objective morality. It either is, and the universe is the result of intelligent design from a creator outside of time or it isn't, and nothing exists in an objective sense. You very well may believe that everything is the result of atoms randomly bumping into each other and single celled organisms eventually, through total randomness, formed human life. If that's your belief, then there is no higher purpose to human life or existence. There's no such thing as objective statements or an objective understanding of reality. As I've noted in previous posts, I personally believe that even from a scientific perspective this seems highly unlikely. The chances that all laws in the universe worked out as perfectly and consistently as they did to form you and I having this conversations right now are so infinitesimally small that it might as well be zero.

I will be the first to admit that these cosmological/teleological arguments for the existence of God are very powerful. They were developed and advanced by such great medieval thinkers such as the great Thomas Aquinas.

They still hold great sway- so much so that they attract even some of our greatest contemporary scientists like the late Stephen Hawking- who was initially amazed at the apparent “fine tuning” of the cosmological constants necessary to bring about life:

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life...For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, could contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.”
-Stephen Hawking

So don’t get me wrong. I get it. I know what you are saying.

But such arguments were dealt a devastating blow philosophically initially by David Hume back in the 18th century. If you have not read his “Dialigues Concerning Natural Religion”, you really should. Very few people in the intellectual community took the cosmological/teleological arguments very seriously anymore after that work. Theologians continued to argue for the existence of God, of course, but it was never really through those arguments anymore. They found other ways. Those arguments have really been quite obsolete in the intellectual and academic communities- even though admittedly they remain very popular with the lay public.

So what about scientists like Stephen Hawking? Well, even they, with the more recent developments in physics, have come around to David Hume’s position, albeit in a different route.

“Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I am an atheist...One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist. But science makes God unnecessary.Physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”
-Stephen Hawking
————-
But anyway, that’s not even my argument here. I will try to lay out my argument in the next post.

 

[ataraxia]

My point on this thread is this: the brute objective existence of the universe gives you no clue for how to organize human societies or morality.

There was a question I asked earlier and which was left on answered. I will ask it again: when you are trying to decorate your home or organize your desk at work, does it help to keep saying that the universe objectively exists, therefore work desks should be organized in the particular manner that I currently think? In other words, does the organization of your task inspired bye the brute, objective existence of the universe?

If it’s not, does that mean that there are no better or worse ways of organizing your desk? Does that mean we should be in tolerant of someone who chooses to organize their task in a different way? Conversely, does this mean that we submit to a complete relativism about how to organize a work desk, and say that no way of doing it is better than any other?

Once you have organized your desk according to the existence of the universe, whatever you think that should look like, would you therefore not be open to any new clever gadgets which, for example, might help you organize your pens and papers in a better way, because you already have it organized in the ultimate way the universe demands?

How would organizing a society be different?

 

[Dans La Lune]

Very insightful.

I learn from your intellectually heavyweight arguments, like: 'You're stupid!' (which you dress up in faux-eloquence)

So effectively no answers here. I ask you to lay down where the bible (or even the church) states that it is explicitly anti-science, you fail to do so.

Every passage that makes reference to religious faith is effectively anti-science. I thought I explained this.

So this post just shows how little of your time you've taken to actually read through my previous posts.

My interaction with your posts begins and ends with what I've responded to. You must think highly of yourself to assume that I've subscribed to your posts.

First off, I've established numerous times that natural law, which is the topic of discussion, precedes Christian doctrine.

The topic of this discussion is not natural law. Did I step into the wrong thread? Nope, I didn't.

To spell that out more clearly for you: a Christian understanding of God and a Christian holy book are not required to acting in accordance with your natural moral principles. It seems to me that you even admit that natural law is real, so are you even contesting my argument or just rambling because you want to be edgy?

I'm contesting your argument that God is required to observe morality.

Where do the "rules that are natural to the human condition" come from?

Evolution. We couldn't have progressed as a species if we couldn't co-exist without killing each other. And this predates religion by millions of years.

If it were true, as I claim, that human life is the result of intelligent creation, then objective morality necessarily exists. There is a divine creator who designed every aspect of our nature, which includes our reasoning faculties and intuitive inclination toward a mutually understood concept of morality. This intuitive inclination and reasoning faculties are by intelligent design of an absolute good (God or a creator), which means that intuitive morality is objectively true.

Or alternatively, they are the result of evolution, which makes infinitely more sense and doesn't require belief in the supernatural.

If, however, morality is the result of cosmic randomness and evolution, then nothing can be true. There's no reason why we should trust atoms randomly bumping into one another and matter randomly coalescing to form any kind of objective morality. If cosmic randomness is the only true law of the universe - then there is no objective moral law of the universe.

If there was objective morality, we wouldn't have been preceded by millions or billions of years of random destruction, murder, and cosmic calamity.

If some guy takes pleasure in blowing your head off with a shotgun, that is his own individual morality.

Here's the rub: the guy would blow your head off regardless of whether or not there's a God. Believing in a deity or genie will not save you. So what is the actual purpose? To punish the shotgun wielder? Perhaps he has a severe form of mental illness. How does that fit into your Intelligent Design?

Sure, you might disagree with his morality but that's just your word against his.

Perhaps the morality for my head getting shot off is equal to that of a supernovae exploding and detonating an entire solar system, depriving it of all potential life.

Since everything is random and there is no higher purpose to human life, he's just reorganizing the matter of your head, which is what the universe had done for billions of years prior to your existence. The only thing that binds him to any "right" or "wrong" is man-made positive law, which is totally subjective.

There is a higher purpose to life. There's just no higher purpose to YOUR life. Meaning that whatever you put into life is what you get out of it, and there's no Eternal Paradise waiting to celebrate your life as a good person (a person who also happens to have a gigantic, unjustified superiority complex).

I think the problem here is that you don't understand philosophy. If there is no universal standard for what can be considered "good" or "evil", then morality is subjective. This is VERY basic to understand.

Evil, such that it exists, is knowing right from wrong and choosing to do wrong. Right is not engaging in harm to another person. These are VERY basic concepts to understand. You don't need to be a pseudo-philosopher, like yourself, to understand them.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Have you read anything I've posted in this thread?

Not before what I responded to.

Well, yes and no. Natural law would be universal among all religions if it is true and I think I've made a strong case for the existence of some intuitive understanding of morality in this thread. As I said, a Christian understanding of God could absolutely be wrong. There could be aspects of Christian faith which are totally antithetical to the desires of the unmoved mover. None of this, however, says anything about whether or not that unmoved mover exists.

How many words do you need to say absolutely nothing of consequence?

I think, when you consider all of the laws of physics, mathematics, biology, and science broadly, you'd almost have to have more faith in randomness than theists do in the belief of a creator.

Obvious question: Who created the creator? All you're doing is passing the buck of a universal origin to another force or starting point. Seems to me you just want the final answer to be: 'Have Faith!' -- which, getting back to the actual topic, can be a very dangerous thing.

The probability that every law of science works the same every single time, is never wrong, and is the result of total randomness is so Infinitesimally small that it might as well just be zero.

Based on what line of reasoning?

The chances that the universe would eventually reach a point (through total randomness and not intelligent design) where you and I can have this conversation with the level of sentience and reason that we both possess requires an extremely strong faith in a probability that is almost infinitely small. Consider this line of thinking when you posit whether or not the universe is the result of total randomness or some kind of intelligent design.

Such arrogance. You are enjoying the end result of a million exploding stars and probably billions if not trillions of destroyed planets. You weren't fashioned out of clay by a divine sculptor. There's been millions of years of destruction, chaos, then order that led to our being here. Lets assume for a second there was an intelligence guiding all of this. Why would it take so long to bring humans into existence, and why was the intelligent design so sloppy in the process?

Is this a serious question? Every denomination of Christianity has essentially the same understanding of God.

But not the same understanding of Jesus, who is also God.

I never claimed we lived in a theocracy - that's obviously very intuitively obvious.

Should we live in a theocracy?

All I said was that this country was built men who believed in Christ and God, was perpetuated by men who believed in Christ, and is now trending in a direction where that is not the case. This is not an arbitrary change. Questions need to be answered.

Which questions?

 

[lurchadams]

How do you avoid imposing morality on someone without having total anarchy? If you're secular, are you not necessarily imposing your secular morality on religious people by legislating things they disagree with?

Total lack of self awareness.

Whatever. Religious right nuts want to dictate what goes on in our personal lives. You know what I mean, I'm not talking about robbery and murder. Jerry Fallwell Jr. preaches against sex outside of marriage then gets caught jerking off in the corner while his wife gets railed on by a young Latino pool boy. You want to submit to these hypocritical religious leaders? That's your problem!

It's you who is either being obtuse or has a total lack of self-awareness.

 

[Valery]

Whatever. Religious right nuts want to dictate what goes on in our personal lives. You know what I mean, I'm not talking about robbery and murder. Jerry Fallwell Jr. preaches against sex outside of marriage then gets caught jerking off in the corner while his wife gets railed on by a young Latino pool boy. You want to submit to these hypocritical religious leaders? That's your problem!

It's you who is either being obtuse or has a total lack of self-awareness.

That doesn't seem to relate to what you quoted. Why didn't you answer the question?:

How do you avoid imposing morality on someone without having total anarchy? If you're secular, are you not necessarily imposing your secular morality on religious people b

 

[lurchadams]

That doesn't seem to relate to what you quoted. Why didn't you answer the question?:

I answered the question, just not the way you wanted me to. Sucks for you.

 

[Valery]

It wasn't my question. You didn't answer it. If you'd like to claim you did, then you answered it in such an indirect way it might just as well be considered a non-answer.

I answered the question, just not the way you wanted me to. Sucks for you.

 

[lurchadams]

It wasn't my question. You didn't answer it. If you'd like to claim you did, then you answered it in such an indirect way it might just as well be considered a non-answer.

I really don't care. You want to dictate other people's activities in their private bedroom. I don't.

Simple enough for you to understand now?

 

[Valery]

I really don't care. You want to dictate other people's activities in their private bedroom. I don't.

Simple enough for you to understand now?

I understand, but it does not answer the question.

 

[lurchadams]

I understand, but it does not answer the question.

Laws need to be enforced. Personal morality does not. If you're not getting it now, you never will.