Atheists delusional?

[Paddy1989]

I think your confusing ones measure of their loving relationship with another and applying it to dictate the value of someone’s very being. This is dangerous, surely you can see that and only leads to tribal dominance over others of which there is no limits. It certainly isn’t the values of the west. A employer who values one employee over the other may do so only based on the value that employee brings to their business yet the employer would hardly attribute this to mean that both these individuals have inequal value in life of which one is superior to the other. Our inequalities in our abilities and merits have no bearing on our human value and dignity. In terms of sport for example we will prefer some athletes over others and our value of them will be based on how much we value the sport so I may value one player over another based on what they bring to the team yet would one of these individuals hold more human value and dignity that the other?? Again their value is only subjective by measure of what they bring to the team, this has no correlation with their intrinsic value and dignity of which the worst and best athletes contain as do all people. If so however then treating people as if they have equal value and dignity is foolish. Human rights, social justice, any pursuit whatsoever to pursue a society where everyone is treated with intrinsic value and dignity is to be abolished and let only the most loved to be treated with respect and dignity even at the expense of others. Society recognizes the differences in these things, I may love someone more than a stranger or value a sports player more than another in relation to his/her sport but none of this correlates to their human value and we dont act this way for if we did we may even be justified in punishing the athlete who acts in a way that degrades their value in relation to the sport in any way we see fit. I love my mother more than a stranger from Italy but does my mother’s life have more value than theirs, of course not. Do I treat people with intrinsic value and respect all the time, unfortunately not, not even those whom I love though we are called to treat all people in this way. By doing so we propagate a love that only multiplies within each other and spreads further and further until it encompasses all peoples and what shall manifest in law shall be the recognition of the truth that all people have equal intrinsic value and dignity.

 

[Paddy1989]

As for your part about the OT. I find the less educated atheists or their audience becomes in relation to the bible the more wild their claims, the atheists of yesterday preaching their message to a society still very much engulfed in biblical understanding could not twist or take out of context the scripture as a means to attack it as the regular person had enough understanding to see that it was nonsense, the atheist therefore accepted the Christian message and attempted to attack it Head on by claiming that its virtues were weak and unnatural. Today the atheist comes from a different position in a society not so much in tune with biblical understanding so the atheist can make more wild claims such as God being a tyrant and Christian’s being only interested in war and power. How different their interpretations have taken them and they preach to a people who endorse what they say mainly out of having little to no biblical understanding. I have to say I much preferred the atheist who had the balls to not redefine Gods message but accept what it was and attack it head on, as foolish as they were

 

[pocaracas]

I love my mother more than a stranger from Italy but does my mother’s life have more value than theirs, of course not.

That’s the thing.
To you, your mother’s life has more value.
To me, both your mother and the Italian guy are on equal footing… while my mother has more value than both.
You seem to assume that there’s some intrinsic value that is the same for every human being… but that’s not the case, no matter how much you may twist words to turn “value” into what it’s not.

As for your part about the OT.

Lots of words to try to insult me, but they don’t change the fact that, context or not, slavery is encoded in the OT - not as an outright condemnation due to your (and the religion’s) present-day understanding of humanity’s equal value, but as an admission of the societal status-quo at the time the thing was written… and claimed to be inspired by the divine, when that flies in the face of today’s metaphysics.

 

[Paddy1989]

The love i have for one person over another has no correlation to the intrinsic value and dignity they or someone else contains, someone is not superior in terms of value and dignity by measure of our love towards them, our measure of love is dictated by the subject, their human value and dignity is not and is in no way connected with such a thing. If you felt your mother is truly superior in value and dignity to others would you feel it just therefore to act against others to save her life or her well being? We see in movies and games all the time gangsters killing and stealing from the rich and poor to enrich themselves and the people they care about, they do this because they see the value of others as less than their own and the people they care about but how does the law respond to them? By treating their acts as diabolical and doing it’s duty to protect the lives of it’s people as having equal intrinsic value and dignity, i’m sure you recognize this. A father’s duty is to protect his family and a governments duty is to protect it’s people, the government especially in west is merely the collection of people coming together and the law it is built upon is very much in recognition that all people have intrinsic value and dignity. The father therefore would hardly see his own family as having more value than others while at the same time endorsing a government who recognizes ALL people as having equal value and dignity. His duties does not contradict the truth for isn’t government representing all families uniting and coming together in a community. You stated we treat people in a way that doesn’t always recognize this and i agree but we are called to do so constantly and acting in a way that see’s human value as subjective is usually deplored, when people use their view that human value and dignity is subjective to the extreme they often find themselves on the wrong side of the law that protects all human life as having equal value. I’m sure you recognize all this and can see the difference by your subjective measure of loving someone and actually going as far as use this to place their value as superior to others.

 

[Paddy1989]

As for your part about the OT, i wasn’t personally insulting you but critiquing how the atheists change their tone if one tactic fails by creating another that actually contradicts their old tactic. One tactic being Christian virtue is weak and unnatural and the other newer tactic is that Christians and Jews follow a tyrant and are highly violent people. It would ignorant to think the Jews fully understood moral law, even today our understanding of it is only measurable by the past till the present day. I’m sure one could agree we have great strides to go. Justice, rights and moral law progress in consistency with the truth, the truth that we are created equally in the image and likeness of God and in which our dignity is sacred. Now if we look at early Christian societies where slavery was present, something that had been practiced as being the norm for thousands of years they seen it as a great progression that slaves were not to be treated merely as property but as human beings with a value and dignity, we can’t ignore however that some early Popes and Church leaders seen slavery as early at this period as being unnatural in light of the truth but society at large for example progresses bit by bit, this is why it was years later in progression with this understanding it was finally abolished. We progress in our moral understanding bit by bit just as we progress in our scientific understanding of nature, we do so with the right instruments so with science in may be mathematics and with moral law it would be using metaphysical truths. The Jews millenniums ago lived in a very different time not relatable by you and me today so it’s easy to look upon their behaviors as quite savage however lets understand why it was like this and what caused them to move forward towards love of God and their neighbor which like us they didn’t always live up to. God didn’t endorse the Jew’s sin but tolerated their weakness out of love and mercy and always was demanding of them to live up to the law, a law that would be fulfilled by Jesus as foretold through the Jewish Prophets, this is why those who listened and accepted the teachings of Jesus were Jews who seen his fulfillment of the law while it wasn’t until after the resurrection that the Gentiles also recognized this.

 

[pocaracas]

The love i have for one person over another has no correlation to the intrinsic value and dignity they or someone else contains,

See, when you talk of “value” of a person, you always preface it with “intrinsic”.
I think that what you call “intrinsic value” is what I’m calling the baseline value I attribute to every human.
But you probably consider that this “intrinsic value” flows from the divine, while I reason that it resides in me and most other humans mostly because it provides genetic variety and thus a better chance at survival of the species.

Your love for a few humans then enhances the value you put upon anyone else. Just like with me.

Governments can’t put different value upon their citizens, of course… That’s a whole different matter.

As for your part about the OT, i wasn’t personally insulting you but critiquing how the atheists change their tone if one tactic fails by creating another that actually contradicts their old tactic.

I admit to sometimes speak from the atheist point of view and, some other times, from the point of view that admits the possibility of a divinity that, somehow, inspired the writings on the book. Usually, this second point of view drives right into trouble with that inspiration part.

We progress in our moral understanding bit by bit just as we progress in our scientific understanding of nature, we do so with the right instruments so with science in may be mathematics and with moral law it would be using metaphysical truths.

I agree that there has been a progression. The part that baffles me is how this divine being failed to progress much faster in morality, thus leading humanity to slavery, and only centuries (or millennia) after the first slaves, did humanity reach the stage of doing away with it.
It’s as if there’s no actual divinity and we’re all alone trying to figure out the best way to treat each other in an ever shrinking planet.
Do I need a god to know that other people suffer if I treat them “badly”? Or can I infer their feelings based on my own?
Morality, or how people should treat each other, is a feature that belongs to humans alone. No god required. No god is even apparent.

That said, I agree that the belief in the Christian God does help people to consider others as equal human beings. So, if that’s the one things that’s keeping you (broad sense “you”) from harming other humans, then please remain firmly in your belief.
It is also true that many belief systems, religions, cults, etc, lead to an “us vs them” scenario which, while protecting its own members, it completely devalues people from the “them” camp.

 

[Paddy1989]

The meaning of intrinsic value is that life is inherently meaningful and immeasurably valuable in and of itself. It’s an objective truth under the Christian worldview but under a naturalist worldview it is contrary to it for the objective truth is that life has no value, atheists have an issue with this truth of their worldview however so on this issue prefer their subjective desires over an objective truth. Under a naturalist worldview placing such subjective value of humanity is contrary to the objective truth. Under the Christian worldview it is consistent with it. Governments dont put value on humanity, it is their duty to recognize this intrinsic value otherwise it falls into error.

 

[Paddy1989]

As for discussing slavery, I’d say there are as many arguments for slavery that are as strong if not stronger than against slavery under the naturalist worldview. When I hear therefore atheists argue against slavery which are emotional at best it is clear to see their mindset is nothing more then a product of a society that moulded them and changes on a whim. St Augustine taught that slavery was a result of sin and against the natural order. We as a society so influenced by Christian values understand this more today but it took many years and much struggle to change this mindset and also slavery took on many different forms throughout the ages where some were more harmful to human dignity than others so we must be clear what type of slavery we are talking about as the taking of African peoples from their homes and using them as property with no rights or value is quite different from slavery that recognises certain rights to its slaves to be treated as essentially as indentured servants who in fact were freed after several years of labour. This was done to prisoners or those who owed a debt. This was more common in the bible while the more savage and racist slavery was practiced by nations of a Christian background that justified the practice of it by claiming the people they were enslaving were more animal than human, this type of appeal was done by those bound by the Christian truth and so attempted to work around it, their efforts were finally thwarted and alas no nation which condones human rights endorses slavery. I’d argue that the conditions however today among the poor in some cases is actually worse than slavery so there is much progression still to go and to think of slavery as the evil in and of itself is overlooking the conditions that forced it to exist. As for asking how it took so long for society to progress, first society didn’t start to progress until it endorsed God and his law which before Christianity this was mainly confined to Judaism, while non Jewish nations could still recognise some essence of natural law that is innate in all of us it was also twisted from Sin.

 

[Paddy1989]

Does your love over certain athletes enhance their human value over other athletes or would you not agree the subjective value you give them is only measurable in relation to what they bring to the sport? In other words does the value you place over certain athletes in relation of what they bring to the sport mean they are also superior in their human value? Of course not, it’s the same with those whom I love in other ways in terms of a family member, friend, stranger etc. Its in relation to something but has no bearing nor contradicts the objective truth of all humanity having intrinsic value and dignity. As I said if human value was subjective we would live in a very different society though with assisted suicide and abortion in we can already see the danger of such an ideology. In fact I’d say we are morally going backwards, our progression will be for nothing if we continue in the killing of the unborn and start to judge the value of someone by circumstance such as if they are sick or disabled, we are becoming more like the ancient Greeks and Roman’s who didn’t see humanity as having equal value and who would abandon their infants if they were deformed and believed certain people had more rights to life than others.

 

[pocaracas]

The meaning of intrinsic value is that life is inherently meaningful and immeasurably valuable in and of itself.

Yep

It’s an objective truth under the Christian worldview but under a naturalist worldview it is contrary to it for the objective truth is that life has no value,

No intrinsic value.
If you start with a particular expression, you should apply it throughout your discourse, lest you start using a different word with a meaning that it doesn’t have, and end up with a garbled message and accused of misrepresenting things.

atheists have an issue with this truth of their worldview however so on this issue prefer their subjective desires over an objective truth.

Perhaps because the real objective truth is not the objective truth claimed by the faithful? At least, as atheists perceive it, there is no such thing as an intrinsic value.
But they recognize that each person attributes some degree of value, subjectively, to everyone else. The shared value that comes by is the value that each and every human has given by the society… and that value can easily be mistaken for an “intrinsic value”… and whole philosophies can be constructed on that basis that seem consistent but maybe aren’t.

As for discussing slavery, I’d say there are as many arguments for slavery that are as strong if not stronger than against slavery under the naturalist worldview. When I hear therefore atheists argue against slavery which are emotional at best it is clear to see their mindset is nothing more then a product of a society that moulded them and changes on a whim.

Once more, thanks for the insult.
If all I’ve said on the subject comes across as a merely emotional argument, then I might as well excuse myself, because it might start getting real emotional.

 

[Vonsalza]

So do your best…

That’s the thing about this philosophy - this conclusion is not inherent nor obvious. You might as well do your worst as well. It’s equally defensible.
“So do what you really want” seems to be a far more fitting conclusion to the premises.

Comedienne Sarah Silverman is a perfect example of the bipolar worldview of the convinced atheist; she’s “We’re all utterly unique molecules flying through space!” one minute and then the next she’s “Everything is utterly meaningless. Meaningless.”

No real argument here, Bradski. I’m just pointing out that what you have may not actually be better. Theists who “believe the lie” certainly seem to have better measurables as it pertains to their lives - if we think ends occasionally justify means. In that way, theists of any stripe might believe in something that is functionally more “true” than atheism can be.

 

[Bradskii]

Surely you understand that while your subjective experiences make you feel more attachment to some people more than others this hardly makes the people you don’t experience love with as inferior, you simply have no attachment to them, you would never see them as an inferior i’m sure of it. We are called however to love God and one another as ourselves and although it’s hard, we have the Saints as our role models to see that such a thing is possible, our loving acts of caring for one another, the poor, the sick, the persecuted, our forgiveness of each other all prove this objective fact. We see it as virtuous when we live up to this belief and feel compelled to recognize it even when society turns away from God. To put all this simply which i sincerely hope i have done by now how much i love someone which is subjective does not correlate to the objective truth of their intrinsic value and dignity

You are asking me to give examples of who you may value differently then in the next breath tell me that you value family more than strangers. This is entirely natural.

What you seem to be confusing is worth versus value.

We all agree that people have an inherent worth - as members of what we’d like to think of as a civilised society (there are obviously exceptions). But that is an ideal situation that we can use as a rule to ensure that one person or a group of people are not disadvantaged over another group. It’s a kind of socialism. A kind that Jesus taught. All men according to their needs. As someone said: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident’. And we do.

And a lot of people have died to maintain that belief. I am writing this in Alabama and there are quite a few reminders in these parts about how many died trying to ensure that Lincoln’s words were more than just platitudes.

But…as individuals, we do not hold people to be equal. We do not treat all equally. We do not subscribe to what Jesus taught. Because, in the first instance, people do not have equal worth. Lincoln had more worth as a man than did Hitler. Would any sane person disagree?

And worth does not equal value. A dollar has an agreed worth. No monetry system would work without such an agreement. Yet the value of a dollar varies significantly. It is worth a lot more to a guy working in an a Mumbai slum than it is to you or I.

So any member of your family has worth. We agree on that. The bible does. The Catholic Church does. Almost all religions agree. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights agrees. But each single person has a value that is entirely subjective to the person making that evaluation.

This is the reality of the matter.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So do your best…

That’s the thing about this philosophy - this conclusion is not inherent nor obvious. You might as well do your worst as well. It’s equally defensible.
“So do what you really want” seems to be a far more fitting conclusion to the premises.

Comedienne Sarah Silverman is a perfect example of the bipolar worldview of the convinced atheist; she’s “We’re all utterly unique molecules flying through space!” one minute and then the next she’s “Everything is utterly meaningless. Meaningless.”

No real argument here, Bradski. I’m just pointing out that what you have may not actually be better. Theists who “believe the lie” certainly seem to have better measurables as it pertains to their lives - if we think ends occasionally justify means. In that way, theists of any stripe might believe in something that is functionally more “true” than atheism can be.

But we can all agree on what ‘better’ means (with some exceptions). Kant’s categorical imperative covers it pretty well. As does the Golden Rule. As does Matthew 7:12. We can all point to the one that most represents our own philosophical or religious beliefs but they are all based on the same evolutionary standard: reciprocal altruism.

 

[Vonsalza]

…they are all based on the same evolutionary standard: reciprocal altruism.

The word sounds like a bit of an oxymoron, doesn’t it?

At any rate, I think this segue from the pragmatic societal benefits of religion still has it’s own issues.

In order for reciprocal altruism to function, there must be a clear benefit to the organism. As most religious benefits are checks that are cashed after one expires, there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between religious reward and the more tangible reward required to make RA work.

The rules get a little different for hive organisms where one could argue that the colony, itself, is the organism. But I’m sure you already knew that.

Nice to see you around.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

…they are all based on the same evolutionary standard: reciprocal altruism.

The word sounds like a bit of an oxymoron, doesn’t it?

At any rate, I think this segue from the pragmatic societal benefits of religion still has it’s own issues.

In order for reciprocal altruism to function, there must be a clear benefit to the organism. As most religious benefits are checks that are cashed after one expires, there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between religious reward and the more tangible reward required to make RA work.

The rules get a little different for hive organisms where one could argue that the colony, itself, is the organism. But I’m sure you already knew that.

Nice to see you around.

Yes, it works on the individual, so we indvidually understand (or perhaps appreciate is a better term) what is meant by ‘good’. And what we class as being ‘good’ is that which benefits the group/tribe/village and hence benefits us.

RA is just the way in which we descibe the process by which we understand the process at a superficial level.

And njce to be back. For a while anyway.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, it works on the individual, so we indvidually understand (or perhaps appreciate is a better term) what is meant by ‘good’. And what we class as being ‘good’ is that which benefits the group/tribe/village and hence benefits us.

Sure. co-mingling the self and tribe.

RA is just the way in which we descibe the process by which we understand the process at a superficial level.

“God” is indeed a mystery, as my quasi-coreligionists would say

And njce to be back. For a while anyway.

 

[Bradskii]

No man is an island entire of itself.

 

[Russell_SA]

Looking at the discussion couple of things:
Atheist is a term by the religious put on others that don’t play with their favorite toy. It is a word to describe someone’s conclusion on a single position about a single question, ‘Are you convinced that the supernatural exists?’ No, no we are not based on the religious’ bad justifications and lack of evidence to support their conclusions. Lack of belief of someone else’s claim is the default position until sufficient evidence is presented. Just like a jury member, by default, is to not believe the prosecutor’s claim that the defendant is guilty until the prosecutor presents enough convincing evidence to sway the jury. If a jury member finds the defendant not guilty, can you conclude what their world view is, political views, personal philosophy, leaders, tenants, etc are? No, no you can not. Same with Atheists. We are not convinced of the religious’ claims of why they believe the supernatural exists. We have no universal world views, political views, personal philosophies, leaders, tenants, how-to books, etc. Also, the word Atheism is not really anything at all. Its like saying the jury member has a world view of Not-Guilty-ism.

 

[Russell_SA]

As to the religious’ attempt to solve a philosophical problem of absolute morality by reference to a deity-
1: All you are doing is referencing someone as the arbitor of moral decisions. The problem with this though, you can not demonstrate your person actually exists in reality. The creation of your imagined entity to reference is the exact same process comic book writters use for creating their powerful characters. They invent a logically consistent back story for its power and then write comic book stories about its interaction with us. Religion is just people geeking out over their favorite imaginary character and taking it too far. For example, your church’s position in anti-condom use based on your religious texts is no more a valid argument for our laws than the rules on Krypon by the people of Superman as a reference for our laws.
2: Referencing your deity as a moral absolute- How did you assess which supernatural power was the good one and the bad one? How did you determine which was the devil? You have to become convinced after you applied your own subjective moral assessment to their character. That is what everyone does that are moral agents. Once you subjectively pick your moral reference point, you can have moral absolutes. You just picked your favorite comic character and others, like myself, have picked human-well being as the reference point. Example: I like the example of referencing nutrition of people. It is objectively good to eat fruit in reference to human nutrition, subjectively good to pick apples over pears one day, and objectively bad to drink battery acid.
I can demonstrate human well being exists in reality and is the most common overlap of morality that all human societies strive to. The religious have not been able to demonstrate their favorite comic character exists at all since the first stories were written about it.

 

[Russell_SA]

Problem with referencing a dictator as a reference for our morality and governance: Teaches people to draw the target around the arrow of their dictator’s pronouncements. Divine command theory teaches people that the pronouncements are correct by default and we are just too ignorant to understand why. This leads people to stop morally assessing their leader and just conclude they are too infantile to learn how to create the just system themselves. This mentality leads people to always look for an infallible dear leader in an individual or in institutions. To need heroes and magical beings to save them instead of learning to solve our problems ourselves. Sorry the religious were born 1000 years too late and the feudalism system has died out and the spread of information of the internet has removed the strangle hold of ignorance the church had on its members. Superstition is dying out. Claims of channeling the divine is becoming as laughable as using healing crystals. All religion has now is just god of the gaps arguments since they can not demonstrate anything of their claimed power over reality or knowledge of what happens after death.