Atheism more moral?

[AntiTheist]

Well, as you can see from my “Religion” identifier in the upper right, I used to be an atheist – was one for years, actually – and until relatively recently I found all of these points entirely convincing.

So what changed your mind?

I have nothing to say in opposition to them other than (1) I believe

Well, I’ve already covered this.

and (2) I know I’m a better person than I was when I was a convinced atheist, because my faith has in fact enabled me to stop doing certain things that were despicable.

I’m glad you’ve stopped doing things that you consider despicable, but let’s have some credit where credit is due: you yourself stopped doing these things. You may have had a crutch that helped you to do it, but that doesn’t mean that the crutch itself is true or is a reliable guide to the universe.

A fairy tale – like the story of the sandman – might help a child fall asleep, but just because it has useful effects in no way implies that the story is true or that the sandman is real.

If your sole reason for believing is “believing this story helps me to be a better person,” then I’m sure that you recognize that that is not a convincing argument for the story being true.

 

[Langdell]

… If your sole reason for believing is “believing this story helps me to be a better person,” then I’m sure that you recognize that that is not a convincing argument for the story being true.

Of course. I don’t think there is a convincing argument for the skeptical inquirer. One has to be inclined to believe or be brought to belief by events. Things sufficient to cause me to discard my skepticism happened to me.

I mentioned the improvement in my behavior just to indicate that my believing (even if unfounded) has been beneficial to the people I deal with regularly.

.

 

[reggieM]

If only a very small number of people believed in God, then the argument would be:

“Since the majority of people through history have not believed in the existence of God, then it’s obviously not a very convincing proposition.”

But instead, the argument changes. It should be:

“Yes, it’s true that a majority of people through history have believed in God, and that is a very convincing point in favor of belief.”

But it’s not that. Rather, it’s:

“The people who believe in God have different religious views, therefore belief is not a convincing option.”

Then we propose the next logical proposition (trying to catch this shifting argument):

“All believers in God believe exactly the same thing … namely, that God exists”.

Great. That should do it. A vast majority through history, all believe the same thing – that God exists.

But instead …

 

[Hooding_Trees]

If only a very small number of people believed in God, then the argument would be:

“Since the majority of people through history have not believed in the existence of God, then it’s obviously not a very convincing proposition.”

But instead, the argument changes. It should be:

“Yes, it’s true that a majority of people through history have believed in God, and that is a very convincing point in favor of belief.”

But it’s not that. Rather, it’s:

“The people who believe in God have different religious views, therefore belief is not a convincing option.”

Then we propose the next logical proposition (trying to catch this shifting argument):

“All believers in God believe exactly the same thing … namely, that God exists”.

Great. That should do it. A vast majority through history, all believe the same thing – that God exists.

But instead …

But instead… Maybe you should address the issues raised in the thread.

 

[Betterave]

I didn’t present it as something that follows from what you said – I presented it as a paraphrase of what you said (i.e. and explanation of what’s really going on when you interpret your holy book).

You apparently think that some parts of the book are from god and some are from man. I’m saying that the criteria for determining which parts are which comes from the values of the person doing the interpretation (your values, in this case).

It’s very straightforward. If you disagree with the above paragraph, then you clearly think that you have some other means of making the distinction between parts authored by god and parts authored by man. As I explained already, appeals to supernatural aid won’t help because other people also claim supernatural aid and interpret the text differently than you do.

So what is that other means of making the distinction?

It would have been nice if you had granted my last point and had then made the effort to correctly understand what I said in the first place - in the interests of the conversation, that kind of thing might have been rather helpful. However…!

We believe that all parts of the book are from man and from God - I guess that option never occurred to you! As an analogy you can think of the fact that all books come from their individual authors, as well as from the particular *culture *of those authors. So you can see, I hope, that your comments are rather generally off-base. It seems clear from your comments that it hasn’t occurred to you to think about the collection of writings found in the book as a whole. And you seem not to understand that the Bible is not at all like the Qur’an - it wasn’t revealed and recorded to one man in one culture in the space of 23 years. And anyway, even in the case of the Qur’an there is a genuine science (i.e., objective, methodologically determinate approach) of studying the scriptures and, in particular, the abrogation of certain scriptures by others. With some of the comments you have made, you might as well say that the systematic study of the evolution of *secular *law, or secular views of morality, is impossible without divine guidance. That is just intellectually lazy nonsense.

 

[Betterave]

I love this little line from Book 3 of Rousseau’s Du contrat social:
“J’avertis le lecteur que ce chapitre doit être lu posément, et que je ne sais pas l’art
d’être clair pour qui ne veut pas être attentif.”
(I warn the reader that this chapter must be read with care, and that I do not know the art of being clear for those who do not want to be attentive.)

 

[Langdell]

I love this little line from Book 3 of Rousseau’s Du contrat social:
“J’avertis le lecteur que ce chapitre doit être lu posément, et que je ne sais pas l’art
d’être clair pour qui ne veut pas être attentif.”
(I warn the reader that this chapter must be read with care, and that I do not know the art of being clear for those who do not want to be attentive.)

Awesome quote.

.

 

[AntiTheist]

Of course. I don’t think there is a convincing argument for the skeptical inquirer. One has to be inclined to believe or be brought to belief by events. Things sufficient to cause me to discard my skepticism happened to me.

This is refreshingly honest, and I thank you for acknowledging it.

My suspicion is that you and I have different standards of evidence for what would qualify as sufficient for “discard[ing] …] skepticism,” but we can leave the conversation there since it’s really not related to the thread.

Betterave:

We believe that all parts of the book are from man and from God - I guess that option never occurred to you!

I thought it was pretty clear from the context that you are asserting that there are places where the human authors corrupt god’s message or get it wrong in some way – like, for example, the passage where god apparently sanctions his chosen people brutally exterminating others and enslaving foreign women as objects for their amusement.

This sub-discussion began when I pointed out that your book has passages that make the values of your god look monstrous. Your defense, essentially, is that those monstrous passages are places where the human authors are not depicting god accurately.

So you are saying that there are places in the text that we cannot take at face value and other places – like, for example, the story of the resurrection – that you are saying that we should take at face value.

I’m asking how you know the difference between the two. Again, appeals to “divine inspiration” are useless because people who have entirely different interpretations also rely on divine inspiration, thus demonstrating that divine inspiration is highly unreliable.

If someone came along and claimed, on the basis of divine inspiration, that the monstrous passages should be taken at face value and that other passages – like the resurrection story – should be taken as mistakes of the human authors or symbols not be taken literally…on what grounds could you possibly disagree?

You appear to have missed the entire point I’m making. I can’t say that I’m particularly surprised.

I do not know the art of being clear

I agree. Working on your communication skills in this regard would be a positive thing for you.

 

[AntiTheist]

“All believers in God believe exactly the same thing … namely, that God exists”.

You assert that all people who believe in a god believe in the exact same god or the same exact claims?

Even if this were true – and it’s so far from being true that it’s laughable – the number of people who believe in a claim is totally unconnected to the truth of the claim.

 

[reggieM]

You assert that all people who believe in a god believe in the exact same god or the same exact claims?

I notice how the statement shifts under your questioning. You now reference some aspects and characteristics – moving away from the singular fact. It’s just as I pointed out: “People believe different things, therefore it is not convincing”.
But the fact is that they do believe exactly the same thing – that God exists.

It’s like looking at all the people who think that cars are a means of transportation. They all believe exactly the same thing. But the reply here is: “You mean that everyone thinks that every car is exactly the same?” or perhaps “Don’t you realize that people consider four-wheel electric bikes to be cars”? That’s moving from the general fact to the more specific – in order to try to deny the validity of the general fact.

– the number of people who believe in a claim is totally unconnected to the truth of the claim.

Then why reference the number of different beliefs that people have about God? If what you said was correct, then if only one person on earth was a monotheist, that would be essentially the same as if 100% of the population believed it.

This is a very false way of judging data – certainly, it does not work in a court of law.

When trying to determine the truth about claims, witnesses are brought for testimony and experts are consulted.

What I would call “laughable” is the idea that the number of people who testify to something has nothing to do with the truth of matters.

Although, I admit – it could very well be true in the atheistic mindframe.

In other words, an atheist could not accept the statements of scientists, for example, unless he actually performed every experiment and research project himself. Why? Because the number of scientists claiming things “is totally unconnected to the truth of the claim” – right?

Science itself requires judgement and interpretation of data. Conclusions are reached through what we call “consensus”.

Consensus is another term for “the number of people who believe in a claim”.

Now, you’re denying that this has anything to do with the truth of matters.

 

[reggieM]

But instead… Maybe you should address the issues raised in the thread.

What will happen when I point out how my post directly and precisely addressed the issues raised in this thread?

What do you hope to gain from your participation in this forum?

 

[Hooding_Trees]

What do you hope to gain from your participation in this forum?

I hope to have discourse with the members of the forum that are educated. I have no interest in discussion with the scientifically illiterate. However i am truly fascinated by people that have an IQ over 120 and are educated. I want to understand how such individuals can hold such irrational primitive beliefs.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Atheism means only one thing: there is no God. It means nothing else. Therefore atheism is useless in crafting a moral system that can obtain a moral consensus, at least not without the use of force. Look at all the atheist tyrannies of the 20th Century. Atheists don’t mind playing God and commanding submission to a moral system they have invented.

 

[reggieM]

I want to understand how …

You’re seeking to overcome your ignorance.
The first step is to admit your ignorance, and accept correction when you have been proven wrong.
I gave you a very good opportunity for that just previously – and you avoided accepting the responsibility.
With that, you will not achieve the understanding that you claim to seek, and you’ll continue to make faulty judgements.

 

[reggieM]

Atheism means only one thing: there is no God. It means nothing else. Therefore atheism is useless in crafting a moral system that can obtain a moral consensus, at least not without the use of force. Look at all the atheist tyrannies of the 20th Century. Atheists don’t mind playing God and commanding submission to a moral system they have invented.

I find that to be irrefutable. Atheism is useless in building a moral system that can hold a consensus. This is easily seen. A consensus must support fixed moral norms. If the norms can change upon the subjective decision of any individual, then there cannot even be a system to speak of.

The atheist himself is at the same time the Judge, Jury, Prosecutor and Defense in any arbitration of morality. He takes those roles against himself as the defendant.

He applies moral norms that he has created, to his own decisions and actions. If he deceives himself, for example, how can he also judge himself as being wrong? What punishment does he apply or when does he show mercy? He consults the Jury (himself) to determine the sentence. The Judge in this case, is as dishonest as the one being judged – they are the same.

If he doesn’t approve of his own norms, he can change them. If he doesn’t change them, but still breaks them – who insists that he is not permitted to change them? But what if he is a false judge – who judges the judge?

It’s a circular and ego-centric relationship with one’s own self. It’s schitzophrenic also – creating laws for himself, breaking those laws, absolving himself, changing his own laws, rebelling against his own laws, punishing himself for rebelling …

Or, perhaps punishing himself for not changing his own moral laws when he should???

What results from all of this insanity is slavery and entrapment. Rules created by an ignorant human being (himself) are imposed by the same ignorant being (himself) and enforced and prosecuted by himself. But then he breaks his own moral laws.

Thus, the logical result is to claim that whatever he does – anything and everything – is “moral”. Thus he need not ever punish himself for breaking laws that he created, or having to change his own moral laws because he doesn’t want to (or can’t) keep them.

That’s what happens with claims of “atheistic morality”. It’s an arbitrary morality that has no binding power or authority and no real consequence.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

You’re seeking to overcome your ignorance.

Actually ignorance has very little to do with it, hence why i only really seek discourse with the educated members of the community.

 

[The_Catholic]

The issue is not whether or not there is to be any picking and choosing going on. The Christian Fundamentalists will accuse Catholics of doing just the same thing. The issue is only your personal choice of who ought to be doing the picking and choosing. You have personally decided to allow the Church hierarchy to do that picking and choosing and interpretingt for you.

Best,
Leela

Interestingly put, but flawed. Fundamentalists start by picking and choosing Biblical verses to come up with their doctrines . . . from an already existing Bible. The Catholic Church perserved and compiled that Bible.

Also, the Catholic Church / Orthodox Church teachings are much more in line with the teachings of the early Christians, which holds a more logical argument on who may be closer to the Truth.

 

[The_Catholic]

I hope to have discourse with the members of the forum that are educated. I have no interest in discussion with the scientifically illiterate. However i am truly fascinated by people that have an IQ over 120 and are educated. I want to understand how such individuals can hold such irrational primitive beliefs.

You are not going to understand it, not in the sense you are seeking. Human Beings are not all “one mind.” It is something you have to experience for yourself, in order to grasp a “taste.”

‘Irrational’ according to who, you? ‘Primitive’ according to who, yourself? Just because you and your fellow “brights” see things from a different perspective, and in a different light, does not mean the rest of us are ignorant, stupid or “illiterate,” for obviously not every single individual with an IQ over 120 arrives at *your *conclusion.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

for obviously not every single individual with an IQ over 120 arrives at *your *conclusion.

Exaclty but i understand why the uneducated and people with an IQ of 95 believe in god.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Atheism means only one thing: there is no God. It means nothing else. Therefore atheism is useless in crafting a moral system that can obtain a moral consensus, at least not without the use of force. Look at all the atheist tyrannies of the 20th Century. Atheists don’t mind playing God and commanding submission to a moral system they have invented.

Actually atheism and the evolution of cooperative societies not only makes far more sense when it comes to morality, but is actually the only way to make sense of the complexity of morals withing society.

Christianity as a basis for morality makes zero sense, and we can see progression of morals throughout the history of humanity. Many of the moral absolutes of christianity do not only make no sense, but are now quite rightly considered immoral in modern society.

The problem is when people are unable to see the world for what it really is. The world is not black and white, but shades of grey. The simplistic moral guidelines of Christianity are often redundant when applied to the complexity of many real world decisions.