Misused labels of Atheist and Atheism

[Damian]

I can live with this response since you understand what I an trying to communicate and I understand that you believe that the word you use to describe what I am talking about is Agnostic. I can live with that, just as long as people understand what everyone is talking about from both sides. Thats the point of the thread I started. I label myself as an agnostic atheist but you just call me agnostic since we both understand what both sides are communicating.

 

[Gorgias]

So if I want to know if the number of chickens I keep in my shed is too large (that is, am I being unecessarily cruel), I should ask a theologian.

That depends. It sure doesn’t sound like a question of morality to me. So… go ask a farmer.

Just to make sure I get the right answer, I’ll ask three. And wouldn’t you know it…I get three entirely different answers.

Or… you get one answer. “Three answers” is your conjecture. You’re welcome to it, of course, but if you use it to drive your conclusion, then we see that your answer here is based on your prejudice.

Which leaves me with a problem. Either only one of these church experts (on the theological aspects of chicken farming) is right. Or they are all wrong.

Or, you’ve chosen a subject in which they have no theological opinion. I mean… it’s a nice attempt at framing up a condition on the fringes… but it doesn’t hold up.

And let’s not be so trite as to assume this question is just about the ideal size of poultry sheds. It is relevant to all moral problems.

And… there’s the invalid logical leap. Knew it would have to show up somewhere. From “not a moral issue” to “and also applies to moral issues.” Almost got it to work, @Bradskii… almost!

There are an infinite number of moral problems that we all face each and every day and to suggest that there is a single correct answer to every one and that we can turn to the church for an answer in each case is nonsensical.

I don’t think you realize it… but you’ve just changed the subject. There’s a difference between the operation of our individual consciences and the notion of an objective morality. The former is the application of the latter in a specific circumstance. You seem to be conflating the two.

Conscience simply tells us that we are doing something that we personally think is right or wrong. I’ll repeat that: what we PERSONALLY think is right or wrong. Not what IS right or wrong.

Yep. Definitely conflating the two. That’s what’s got you in the weeds, here…

 

[laylow]

The culture they lived in already facilitated it. Why do you believe your mom and your dad? Because you evolved to. It’s a survival mechanism.

In more modern times one has to retreat from a good deal of specificity, but not from the subject matter as a whole. As we may agree, science is powerless to provide “ought”. It only provides “is” and there’s this really irritating (for some) reality that secular alternatives for god and religion as moral bases suffer the exact same slings and arrows that supposedly killed the previous bases. And religious folk are often all too happy to sling them back, sometimes with uncharitable smug satisfaction.

So are you saying that those ancient people arrived at a conclusion that a supreme being exists and these are the rules we need to live by to appease said supreme being? And due to the culture they lived in, this was an advantageous approach to take to increase survival?

This is not what Christianity teaches. It teaches that Jesus Christ was a divine being, 2nd person of God and upon his teachings and sacrifice, his church was built. Those teachings along with the divinely inspired collection of writings, referred to now as the bible, comprise of the Truth, through and through. His people have access to the Truth and it is not to be questioned. These are metaphysical claims supposedly revealed via physical means. So obviously God, or the people who contrived God thought it was important to give the people some proof of the metaphysical, so it must not have been nonsensical to them.

It is these claims from which the perceived authority perpetuates. However, the people of that time had a bit of an advantage. If Jesus did perform miracles, these people were exposed to the so-called proof that I am requesting.

You talk about measuring the metaphysical. God could have created a logical system that reveals morality to people without outright revealing it. For instance you do something bad, it causes you pain. You do something worse, it causes more extreme pain. Continue to do bad things, you get a disease until you learn to shape up. the learning curve for people would be pretty small under this scenario, they would learn pretty quickly. Instead, it doesn’t work that way. People will instantly argue…Free Will…Free will! An omnipowerful being could produce free will without the ability to harm others. Just think of the possibilities, they are essentially endless. …

 

[Vonsalza]

So are you saying…

I said what I said. If you want to ask a question, please do. But don’t put words in anyone’s mouth if you honestly expect dialogue.

This is not what Christianity teaches.

Not in such simple terms, but it’s what Christianity does. It’s what all religions attempt to do within their own cultures. It’s why religion evolved.

Those teachings along with the divinely inspired collection of writings, referred to now as the bible, comprise of the Truth, through and through. His people have access to the Truth and it is not to be questioned.

Two things - first, we question it all the time. Doctrine develops. Heresies become defined. We see it present today and all throughout Christian history.

Second, you approach the Bible through a fundamentalist lens - which is fine - but you’re on a Catholic website. The Bible is our greatest text, but it is a derivative of the Church. It is one part of the Church’s tradition.

Fundies would argue the Church flows from the Bible. Ancient apostolic faiths like Catholicism and Orthodoxy would argue exactly the inverse. The Bible flowed from the Church. After all, the Church was approaching 400 years old before canon (what is and isn’t in the Bible) was established with any real authority.

If Jesus did perform miracles, these people were exposed to the so-called proof that I am requesting.

If a supernatural even is readily producible on-demand, then it’s probably not a supernatural event. But as we previously covered, my Christian theism-near-deism doesn’t require miracles. I assent to the metaphysical ergo I assent to a driver of some sort. This is called “God”.

You talk about measuring the metaphysical.

Hell no I don’t. It cannot be measured. If it could, science could cover the topic.

the learning curve for people would be pretty small under this scenario, they would learn pretty quickly. Instead, it doesn’t work that way.

As the Bible says, the rain falls on both the just and the unjust.

An omnipowerful being could produce free will without the ability to harm others.

Perhaps, but I don’t see how. Free moral agency means being able to perform both good and evil. Evil that doesn’t cause harm is nonsensical to me.

-at any rate-

Just because God constructed the world in a way you may not like doesn’t mean He or It doesn’t exist. That’s just raw denialism.

 

[laylow]

I said what I said. If you want to ask a question, please do. But don’t put words in anyone’s mouth if you honestly expect dialogue.

lol…sure

Not in such simple terms, but it’s what Christianity does . It’s what all religions attempt to do within their own cultures. It’s why religion evolved.

It has a lot of work to do.

If a supernatural even is readily producible on-demand, then it’s probably not a supernatural event. But as we previously covered, my Christian theism-near-deism doesn’t require miracles. I assent to the metaphysical ergo I assent to a driver of some sort. This is called “God”.

I see no requirement of exclusivity or rarity in the supernatural. Besides event happened all of the time in about a 100 year window or so…or they were just made up

Hell no I don’t. It cannot be measured. If it could, science could cover the topic.

Yes, I meant to say that you talk about it not being measured. I presented a scenario where it would be immeasurable scientifically , but could still provide humans with logical feedback on their actions.

Perhaps, but I don’t see how. Free moral agency means being able to perform both good and evil. Evil that doesn’t cause harm is nonsensical to me.

Then the being cannot be defined as omnipowerful. Any is possible, even the nonsensical (which I am often reminded of by people of these forums)

Just because God constructed the world in a way you may not like doesn’t mean He or It doesn’t exist. That’s just raw denialism.

No, that is considering all of the evidence and going with the most logical conclusion. In other words, avoiding being duped.

 

[Vonsalza]

It has a lot of work to do.

No, you’re probably just assuming that utopia is the goal. The world you seek has never and will never exist here. It lies on the other side of the grave as a fundamental tenet of virtually every major religion.

I see no requirement of exclusivity or rarity in the supernatural. Besides event happened all of the time in about a 100 year window or so…or they were just made up

Neither exclusivity nor rarity were cited as qualifiers by me. On-demand production was. And if they were doable on-demand, they’d wouldn’t be divine miracles. They’d be part of the natural, producible order.

Yes, I meant to say that you talk about it not being measured. I presented a scenario where it would be immeasurable scientifically , but could still provide humans with logical feedback on their actions.

No you didn’t. You gave me a whimsical wish. What on earth would be considered a “bad thing” if it doesn’t cause anyone harm? As previously said, evil that doesn’t cause harm is nonsensical to me.

Then the being cannot be defined as omnipowerful.

Of course it can. The omnipotent being would have then created us because it delights in free moral agents choosing to worship it. Which is, personally, why I think the whole show exists.

The all-powerful being wound up some tops, spun them loose, and gave them the free will to chose to spin toward or away. *shrug

No, that is considering all of the evidence and going with the most logical conclusion. In other words, avoiding being duped.

Men and women smarter than we are have followed a similar process and concluded that God does exist.
A logical device is only as good as the axioms it employs.

 

[laylow]

No, you’re probably just assuming that utopia is the goal. The world you seek has never and will never exist here. It lies on the other side of the grave as a fundamental tenet of virtually every major religion.

Nope, just continued evolution.

Neither exclusivity nor rarity were cited as qualifiers by me. On-demand production was. And if they were doable on-demand, they’d wouldn’t be divine miracles. They’d be part of the natural, producible order.

I do not require on-demand. Just ones that have a number of witnesses, preferably ones without agendas or that lack sanity.

No you didn’t. You gave me a whimsical wish. What on earth would be considered a “bad thing” if it doesn’t cause anyone harm? As previously said, evil that doesn’t cause harm is nonsensical to me.

No, I said a system could be set up that would give feedback to a wrong action. Receive for instance, pain, relative to the action. The person would still have free will, since they could still do the action in lieu of the pain.

Of course it can. The omnipotent being would have then created us because it delights in free moral agents choosing to worship it. Which is, personally, why I think the whole show exists.

Again, sounds like North Korea, but to each their own.

The all-powerful being wound up some tops, spun them loose, and gave them the free will to chose to spin toward or away. *shrug

Nah, I think free will is mostly an allusion. I doubt serial killers freely want to kill people. There are causes and events that lead to the eventual loss of needed control to prevent their actions.

Men and women smarter than we are have followed a similar process and concluded that God does exist.
A logical device is only as good as the axioms it employs.

Only God knows…

 

[Vonsalza]

Nope, just continued evolution.

Sure. That’s exactly what religion does. It’s why 20th century Catholicism looked a little different from 13th century Catholicism.

I do not require on-demand. Just ones that have a number of witnesses, preferably ones without agendas or that lack sanity.

Oh, like people who saw the miracle, had a personal epiphany due to it and then painted themselves in the religious bias you then dismiss them with.

It seems an impossible standard, frankly.

No, I said a system could be set up that would give feedback to a wrong action. Receive for instance, pain, relative to the action. The person would still have free will, since they could still do the action in lieu of the pain.

It would have to be a feedback to discourage the behavior. It would be “pain” under a different word. Do you really not see that?

Again, sounds like North Korea, but to each their own.

The divine dictator seems substantially more permissive. He apparently doesn’t instantly smite you for cursing Him. Try doing that to pudgy little Kim on his own turf.

Nah, I think free will is mostly an allusion. I doubt serial killers freely want to kill people. There are causes and events that lead to the eventual loss of needed control to prevent their actions.

I don’t know anyone who credibly isolated free will from causality. But the determinism you’re inching toward is more pseudo-religion. Folks defy expectations almost as a rule.

Only God knows…

If there is one, right?

 

[laylow]

Sure. That’s exactly what religion does. It’s why 20th century Catholicism looked a little different from 13th century Catholicism.

But the changes are driven mainly by secular forces questioning the authority.

Oh, like people who saw the miracle, had a personal epiphany due to it and then painted themselves in the religious bias you then dismiss them with.

It seems an impossible standard, frankly.

I certainly understand what you are saying, but yeah, I find the claims to be completely unreliable.

It would have to be a feedback to discourage the behavior. It would be “pain” under a different word. Do you really not see that?

I’m not sure what you mean here.

The divine dictator seems substantially more permissive. He apparently doesn’t instantly smite you for cursing Him. Try doing that to pudgy little Kim on his own turf.

At least you can die and escape North Korea. The former does not afford you that “luxury.”

I don’t know anyone who credibly isolated free will from causality. But the determinism you’re inching toward is more pseudo-religion. Folks defy expectations almost as a rule.

Seth Harris has presented some good work on the illusion of free will

 

[Vonsalza]

But the changes are driven mainly by secular forces questioning the authority.

A hundred things drive the changes. And ultimately, does it matter? It evolves and survives.

I certainly understand what you are saying, but yeah, I find the claims to be completely unreliable.

As an empirical matter, they always will be. Even in the 1st century.

I’m not sure what you mean here.

If it discomforts you sufficiently to alter behavior, it’s “pain”.

At least you can die and escape North Korea. The former does not afford you that “luxury.”

No, I’m pretty sure one afterlife in the Christian tradition is describable as “separation from God”.

Seth Harris has presented some good work on the illusion of free will

Yeah. Fanciful pseudo-religion that dresses up as science as much as it can. If you don’t have free will then you’re ultimately a machine just running its code until it hits the terminus.

 

[laylow]

A hundred things drive the changes. And ultimately, does it matter? It evolves and survives.

As long as out-dated religious ideas are not holding up progress. That seems to be the case in most instances.

If it discomforts you sufficiently to alter behavior, it’s “pain”.

Yes, and I’m OK with that when it fits the bill. But what about the “wicked” that are supposedly committing sins that prosper? How about give them the pain now, so they know they are doing wrong? Why would they think they are doing wrong if they are prospering?

No, I’m pretty sure one afterlife in the Christian tradition is describable as “separation from God”.

If that involves conscienceness, then it is far different.

Yeah. Fanciful pseudo-religion that dresses up as science as much as it can. If you don’t have free will then you’re ultimately a machine just running its code until it hits the terminus.

Opinion, not fact.

 

[Vonsalza]

As long as out-dated religious ideas are not holding up progress. That seems to be the case in most instances.

How, exactly, does one measure your idea of progress?
The vast, vast majority of folks on this planet still think there’s some sort of sky fairy up there.

But what about the “wicked” that are supposedly committing sins that prosper?

Well, there’s damnation, for starters.

How about give them the pain now, so they know they are doing wrong? Why would they think they are doing wrong if they are prospering?

Most already know or suspect. “The law is written on their hearts” as scripture puts it. Most religions have a similar statement - even the non-religious. Altruism… of a sort.
As the theory goes, it’s their persistence that justifies their doom.

If that involves conscienceness, then it is far different.

I don’t see how. You referred to separation. I identified separation.

Opinion, not fact.

What you need to understand is that it goes both ways.

 

[laylow]

How, exactly, does one measure your idea of progress?
The vast, vast majority of folks on this planet still think there’s some sort of sky fairy up there.

That is obviously the challenge. However, declaring something as immoral which comes natural to the human being, and causes little to no harm to outsiders, seems to qualify as one to logically move forward with.

Well, there’s damnation, for starters.

Deterrence would be more effective if punishment were closer to real-time.

Most already know or suspect. “The law is written on their hearts” as scripture puts it. Most religions have a similar statement - even the non-religious. Altruism… of a sort.
As the theory goes, it’s their persistence that justifies their doom.

This is problematic to me. If I am winning the basketball game and “prospering” I do not suspect I am doing wrong because the other team is losing and might feel bad. I think that I am doing the right things, so therefore I am winning the game.

I don’t see how. You referred to separation. I identified separation.

I think you do, but are just avoiding. Non-existence is preferable to conscious eternal torment. I would even argue that it is preferable to eternal existence, but I will just stop right there for the moment.

What you need to understand is that it goes both ways.

I absolutely understand it. I am not convinced of the existence of absolute free will, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t. If these ideas were facts, what would be the point of discussion.

 

[Vonsalza]

That is obviously the challenge. However, declaring something as immoral which comes natural to the human being, and causes little to no harm to outsiders, seems to qualify as one to logically move forward with.

You can’t logically move forward with a logical fallacy like “appeal to nature”.

Deterrence would be more effective if punishment were closer to real-time.

I think God prefers justice to deterrence.

This is problematic to me. If I am winning the basketball game and “prospering” I do not suspect I am doing wrong because the other team is losing and might feel bad. I think that I am doing the right things, so therefore I am winning the game.

Per this particular religion you’re arguing against, they claim there is a mechanism by which you know. The “small, still voice”.

I think you do, but are just avoiding. Non-existence is preferable to conscious eternal torment. I would even argue that it is preferable to eternal existence, but I will just stop right there for the moment.

I agree there seems to be a disparity between finite goodness and evil vs eternal reward and condemnation. But if it exists, it does so regardless how I feel about it. I’m not the dude that makes the rules and the one that does certainly doesn’t have to appeal to my own sensibilities as I am creature and it is creator.

The potter does not need the consent of the pots.

I am not convinced of the existence of absolute free will,

Oh, neither am I. I think our free moral agency must be exercised within the confines of our existence. The man born poor cannot choose to charitably give $1billion to some wonderful cause. He doesn’t have it.

 

[laylow]

You can’t logically move forward with a logical fallacy like “appeal to nature”.

But yet religions appeal to “Natural Law” all of the time.

I think God prefers justice to deterrence.

I don’t think he does.

Per this particular religion you’re arguing against, they claim there is a mechanism by which you know. The “small, still voice”.

I was a Catholic for over 30 years and this is the first I have heard of said “voice.”

I agree there seems to be a disparity between finite goodness and evil vs eternal reward and condemnation. But if it exists, it does so regardless how I feel about it. I’m not the dude that makes the rules and the one that does certainly doesn’t have to appeal to my own sensibilities as I am creature and it is creator.

The potter does not need the consent of the pots.

Ok, but that doesn’t make you question it as being a man-made construct, as it (to me clearly) appears to be?

Oh, neither am I. I think our free moral agency must be exercised within the confines of our existence. The man born poor cannot choose to charitably give $1billion to some wonderful cause. He doesn’t have it.

To me if there are limits, the house of cards begins to fall. The necessities of it existing begin to become questionable.

 

[Vonsalza]

But yet religions appeal to “Natural Law” all of the time.

They also don’t claim to be the party founded purely on rationalism…

Don’t like the rules? Don’t play ball…

I was a Catholic for over 30 years and this is the first I have heard of said “voice.”

A Catholic that never heard of conscience?

Ok, but that doesn’t make you question it as being a man-made construct, as it (to me clearly) appears to be?

I strikes me as an attempt by people to understand a divine construct, which would likely never go very well. It’s probably like trying to get a 4 dimentional being to understand 5 dimentional space.

To me if there are limits, the house of cards begins to fall. The necessities of it existing begin to become questionable.

Sure. But if there is no god, then there is no metaphysical. Love, hate, good, bad, beauty, fear… these things don’t actually exist. They’re just illusions. Group manias.

Nihilism.

 

[laylow]

They also don’t claim to be the party founded purely on rationalism…

Don’t like the rules? Don’t play ball…

And you once requested that I do not speak for you and put words in your mouth, I request the same. I consider it rude to twist the story in attempt to “win” an argument

A Catholic that never heard of conscience?

Nah, as a Catholic the voice was decided and spoken to me…It was formed as to not allow for the natural one to emerge.

Sure. But if there is no god, then there is no metaphysical. Love, hate, good, bad, beauty, fear… these things don’t actually exist. They’re just illusions. Group manias.

I disagree. Sure, those things cannot be seen in the physical sense. But they can easily be identified due to the physical attributes relative to them. Even a kid could identify love if asked. I do not see that a god or gods are necessary. Do you feel they need to be eternal to exist?