Athiests and Agnostics

[redhen]

Haha, point noted. But both Buddhism and Daoism have supernatural aspects that include a pantheon of gods, goddesses, hell beings, devas, etc.

 

[a_priori]

Murder was generally accepted as immoral long before Moses received the 10 commandments on Mount Sinai. Even then he had no trouble ordering the murder of the male children of an entire rival tribe after he personally received the law of God. I guess that means that your universals only apply to God’s chosen people and that it’s OK to kill anyone that is not like you as long as you can justify it by wanting what they have.

Maybe I should stay then that it has been said in the past, and it is a common pattern in apologetics that is likely to be applied in the future, that God had some reason that justified the killing, rather than proclaiming that the killing is automatically justified by definition. The point of what I was saying still stands.

The proposition here is whether or not there is a God. It is not necessary in this context for me to defend any specific religion, creed, confession, exegesis or hermeneutic. (Although the Judeo-Christian understanding of God holds up quite nicely, that is a different subject.) If you guys have an ax to grind with some particular flavor of theist, that’s not my problem. Does God exist or not? There are many religions whose understanding of life involves a higher being who created the universe and whose revelation informs the daily lives of it’s adherents.

If you presuppose that all notions of right and wrong come directly and only from Moses, your focus is too narrow.

Please tell me. If a primitive culture in a remote corner of the Earth accepts the fact that a person who is dishonored by another for some reason may kill the offender, can you say that the killing is wrong? If it is wrong, where do you point for objective condemnation of the act?

 

[jam070406]

Well, for one, how would you expect a debate on the existence of God to go between atheists and Buddhists or Daoists?

“Hey guys I think maybe God doesn’t exist.”
“You know man I’ve kinda been feeling that way myself.”
“Hmm. Well. Interesting that we agree.”
“Have a beer?”

It’d be about as compelling as this:

“I don’t believe in God”
“Why do you deny God?”
“I don’t deny something that doesn’t exist”
“I have Faith and this is why I believe God does exist”
“Well, I don’t believe in myths because
I’m alot smarter and enlightened then you”

That’s generally how it goes on CAF anyway.

 

[a_priori]

Oh, clever you, you trapped me

It’s not about “trapping” anyone. If one expects something from other people, other people have the right to expect the same of them. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[josie_L]

I never said you said I couldn’t be moral.

Morality is a code of conduct that is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created and defined by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. An example of the descriptive usage could be “common conceptions of morality have changed significantly over time.”

I’m here to improve my debate skills and strengthen my arguments in defense of my non belief.

Point 1:

I never said that you did.

Point 2:

So my morality can differ from your morality?

Point 3:

Yes, that’s what they almost all say (atheists who join CAF).

Point 4:

Why do you need to strenghten your arguments?

Point 5:

Is there something you need to prove?

Point 6:

Why don’t you read books instead? Or join a debating club?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Point 1:

I never said that you did (it was just to ensure that you would not take offense).

Point 2:

So my morality can differ from your morality?

Point 3:

Yes, that’s what they almost all say (atheists who join CAF).

Point 4:

Why do you need to strenghten your arguments?

Point 5:

Is there something you need to prove?

Point 6:

Why don’t you read books instead? Or join a debating club?

Yes. Morality can be different between different cultures or even individuals. It can also change over time.

What do most atheists who join CAF say?

I need to strengthen my arguments because despite the fact that my convictions are firm I have little experience defending them.

What do I have to prove? Intelligent design is not science and has no place in a public school science class. Religion is not a requirement of morality. The United States was not founded as a Christian nation. Anyone who puts their personal relationship with god above their children probably doesn’t need to have kids.

I’ve read several books lately about these subjects. Have you?

To the best of my knowledge there are no debate clubs around here.

 

[redhen]

Yes. Morality can be different between different cultures or even individuals. It can also change over time.

So you don’t hold that there are objective moral values? For example; by way of subjective morality, if Hitler had won WW II, and taught in every classroom on the planet that the Holocaust was necessary for the greater good of the Aryan race, then that would have made the Holocaust a morally good thing.

Someone who held to objective morality would say, under the conditions above, that the Holocaust was morally bad, irregardless of what others thought or what was taught in school.

What do I have to prove? Intelligent design is not science and has no place in a public school science class.

Good thing the Roman Catholic Church does not subscribe to ID.

Religion is not a requirement of morality.

Not a requirement of *subjective *morality, see above.

The United States was not founded as a Christian nation.

Now we’re out of the realm of opinion and into historiography. You might want to start a new thread for this one, it would necessarily mean lots of links to documents.

Anyone who puts their personal relationship with god above their children probably doesn’t need to have kids.

How about their personal relationships with their spouse or extramarital partners? Many people (including atheists) decide to put other things above their children.

I’ve read several books lately about these subjects. Have you?

Constantly.

To the best of my knowledge there are no debate clubs around here.

You’re right, there is no formal debate section here, maybe there should be.

 

[josie_L]

So you don’t hold that there are objective moral values? For example; by way of subjective morality, if Hitler had won WW II, and taught in every classroom on the planet that the Holocaust was necessary for the greater good of the Aryan race, then that would have made the Holocaust a morally good thing.

Someone who held to objective morality would say, under the conditions above, that the Holocaust was morally bad, irregardless of what others thought or what was taught in school.

Good thing the Roman Catholic Church does not subscribe to ID.

Not a requirement of *subjective *morality, see above.

Now we’re out of the realm of opinion and into historiography. You might want to start a new thread for this one, it would necessarily mean lots of links to documents.

How about their personal relationships with their spouse or extramarital partners? Many people (including atheists) decide to put other things above their children.

Constantly.

You’re right, there is no formal debate section here, maybe there should be.

Thank you.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

So you don’t hold that there are objective moral values? For example; by way of subjective morality, if Hitler had won WW II, and taught in every classroom on the planet that the Holocaust was necessary for the greater good of the Aryan race, then that would have made the Holocaust a morally good thing.

Someone who held to objective morality would say, under the conditions above, that the Holocaust was morally bad, irregardless of what others thought or what was taught in school.

Good thing the Roman Catholic Church does not subscribe to ID.

Not a requirement of *subjective *morality, see above.

Now we’re out of the realm of opinion and into historiography. You might want to start a new thread for this one, it would necessarily mean lots of links to documents.

How about their personal relationships with their spouse or extramarital partners? Many people (including atheists) decide to put other things above their children.

Constantly.

You’re right, there is no formal debate section here, maybe there should be.

The fact is morality has changed over time. 250 years ago slavery was perfectly acceptable. 2500 years ago genocide was acceptable to those that followed the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god. 2500 years from now we might be farm raising humans for food.

The Roman Catholic Church no, but I have read a few posts on this forum by members that profess to be RC that do subscribe to ID. In any event josie L’s question was what do I have to prove. Not what do I have to prove on CAF. I live in the heart of the Bible belt and ID in the schools is the issue that got me active in any of these issues to begin with. IMO Religious people are welcome to worship any way they please as long as it doesn’t adversely affect others. What they are not welcome to do is force their religious views on me or into my secular government.

I have no intention of debating whether or not the US was founded as a Christian nation in this thread. I’d be very interested in a separate thread on that subject but I have no intention of starting one myself.

I’ve got about 50 pages to go in Why Evolution is True. Have you read it?

Please note that most of my posts since joining this forum have been limited to atheism related topics. I have ZERO interest in participating in conversations between Cathloics. I have ease dropped on a few though. Unless josie can get me banned because she doesn’t like what I have say then I have no plans to stop anytime soon.

 

[josie_L]

Because I take issue with the fact that some jerk is telling me that I can’t be moral without believing in their god. That is pure unadulterated BS.

He is not stating that you cannot be moral rather how do you know you are being moral? There has to be a universal standard for you to be able to answer this question.

 

[josie_L]

The fact is morality has changed over time. 250 years ago slavery was perfectly acceptable. 2500 years ago genocide was acceptable to those that followed the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god. 2500 years from now we might be farm raising humans for food.

The Roman Catholic Church no, but I have read a few posts on this forum by members that profess to be RC that do subscribe to ID. In any event josie L’s question was what do I have to prove. Not what do I have to prove on CAF. I live in the heart of the Bible belt and ID in the schools is the issue that got me active in any of these issues to begin with. IMO Religious people are welcome to worship any way they please as long as it doesn’t adversely affect others. What they are not welcome to do is force their religious views on me or into my secular government.

I have no intention of debating whether or not the US was founded as a Christian nation in this thread. I’d be very interested in a separate thread on that subject but I have no intention of starting one myself.

I’ve got about 50 pages to go in Why Evolution is True. Have you read it?

Please note that most of my posts since joining this forum have been limited to atheism related topics. I have ZERO interest in participating in conversations between Cathloics. I have ease dropped on a few though. Unless josie can get me banned because she doesn’t like what I have say then I have no plans to stop anytime soon.

I have no intention of banning you just because we disagree.

 

[Eleve]

He is not stating that you cannot be moral rather how do you know you are being moral? There has to be a universal standard for you to be able to answer this question.

I can’t speak for AA, but I would say that I don’t always know if I’m being moral. Judging by some of the threads over in Moral Theology, I’d say that a lot of people who believe in a universal standard don’t always know, either. After all, isn’t it heresy to say that you know you’re in a state of grace?

 

[redhen]

The fact is morality has changed over time.

You mean societal norms. If objective morals exist, then by definition they do not change.

I live in the heart of the Bible belt and ID in the schools is the issue that got me active in any of these issues to begin with.

Ah, that explains much. Here’s a video clip of the biology professor Dr. Ken Miller. a practicing Catholic, explaining some of the expert testimony he gave at the Dover Area school district trial, in which he destroyed the ID proponents.
youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk&feature=channel_page

I’ve got about 50 pages to go in Why Evolution is True. Have you read it?

Nope, but I am reasonably certain that macro evolution is a valid explanation for the variety of species we see today. Here’s a link to Ken Miller’s book
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_Darwin%27s_God

 

[josie_L]

I can’t speak for AA, but I would say that I don’t always know if I’m being moral. Judging by some of the threads over in Moral Theology, I’d say that a lot of people who believe in a universal standard don’t always know, either. After all, isn’t it heresy to say that you know you’re in a state of grace?

I would never say that I’m in a state of grace because that would imply I do not sin. And it’s not a question of always knowing (as we can sometimes do things due to ignorance/misunderstandings) but that we are aware of things being bad and good, right and wrong. For us to be aware of this (words such as right and wrong could not exist if we did not have a tangible/real understanding that things were right and wrong), there has to be a universal standard.

 

[Eleve]

Not really. You could believe that your actions are correct, but only in the context of your culture. And, even if you believe that there is a universal standard, you don’t necessarily believe that that standard is God.

 

[josie_L]

Not really. You could believe that your actions are correct, but only in the context of your culture. And, even if you believe that there is a universal standard, you don’t necessarily believe that that standard is God.

But that would be moral relativism. And for something to be a moral absolute (a universal standard) it has to transcend culture and time. Furthermore, we know that moral absolutes exist. And no, you don’t have to believe that God set the standard but what would a universal standard look like without Him? I mean where would it have originated from?

 

[redhen]

Interesting article today by Fr. Pacholczyk

catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0135.htm

In it he cites examples to “illustrate what each of us already knows, namely, that in the real world “relative” truth doesn’t work.”

 

[happilycatholic]

Interesting article today by Fr. Pacholczyk

catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0135.htm

In it he cites examples to “illustrate what each of us already knows, namely, that in the real world “relative” truth doesn’t work.”

Hence the reason why the Church takes the position it does on not only abortion, but birth control, fertilization treatments, and the death penalty. The interference with the process of the human *life *is morally wrong. None of it is relative to when, where, how or why. It’s simply wrong to interfere.