The central contradiction running through the arguments of many of those new atheists authors

[Slowlearner]

Insofar as the murder is a member of the (artificial) moral community that acknowledges (or has created) rights isn’t he violating one of the core principles on which his or her society is founded? Isn’t he or she having the cake (of not being killed) and eating it (killing) too in a way that undermines the ground on which his or her society is built?

Thank you both. You have taught me much.

ThomasToo, I don’t understand regarding the core principles concept. As a practical matter, there are many who don’t subscribe to that view – e.g. inner city gang member. As a philosophical matter, does a person not have freedom to decide whether to accept society’s rules or not?

As a practical matter, I understand that societies exercise power over individuals in order to provide things that society deems desirable.

Suppose there is no society. Suppose there only two men left on earth. They are on an Island. One talks incessantly, craves companionship and follows the other around. One day the quiet man kills the other and is much happier. One person left on earth, at least till he dies. Did he do anything wrong?

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t have faith in evidence – that much should be obvious from the way I’ve defined the terms.

We have a lot of good evidence that evidence-based inquiry is accurate. Witness, for example, the computer that you’re reading this message on – the computer is the product of evidence-based inquiry, and it demonstrates that we have an accurate (or at least accurate enough) understanding of a whole host of subjects.

The products of evidence-based inquiry are themselves evidence of the ability of evidence-based inquiry to give us a good understanding of the world around us.

“Evidence” is just a word we’ve come up with for data points from the real world (outside of our heads) that strongly points to a particular conclusion. Personal testimony of visions is necessarily not evidence for anything outside of your own head. Similarly, stories of miracles from long ago are no more evidence for miracles than ancient accounts of the magical powers of Roman generals are evidence for magic.

It is clear that you regard the only real world is that which is “outside of our heads”. It follows that for you the only evidence we have is that which is obtained through the senses. Yet all evidence is ultimately derived from an intangible source: our thoughts, feelings and perceptions. So personal testimony is our primary source of knowledge. We are the ones who obtain and interpret sense data…

 

[ThomasToo]

ThomasToo, I don’t understand regarding the core principles concept. As a practical matter, there are many who don’t subscribe to that view – e.g. inner city gang member. As a philosophical matter, does a person not have freedom to decide whether to accept society’s rules or not?

My point there was that the murderer or the gang banger live in a society in which they are (generally speaking at least) protected from wanton killing, theft and rape because we’ve all granted that those are things we don’t do to one another. Frankly the case you cite is a bit different in that in many inner city populations these rules have broken down rather dramatically especially in the context of gang activity.

A person of course has that freedom but to reject society’s rules and yet remain in society undermines the very protections the person is trying to enjoy by remaining in society. If one wants freedom from those rules, leave the society.

Suppose there is no society. Suppose there only two men left on earth. They are on an Island. One talks incessantly, craves companionship and follows the other around. One day the quiet man kills the other and is much happier. One person left on earth, at least till he dies. Did he do anything wrong?

Yes; he deprived the annoying fellow of his intrinsic moral right to life.

 

[tdgesq]

A person of course has that freedom but to reject society’s rules and yet remain in society undermines the very protections the person is trying to enjoy by remaining in society. If one wants freedom from those rules, leave the society.

It surprises me that you believe such a thing as freedom exists. I’m sure this must be another equivocation issue.

 

[ThomasToo]

It surprises me that you believe such a thing as freedom exists. I’m sure this must be another equivocation issue.

In what sense? In the political one? In the sense of free will?

I would defend both though I have my deterministic moments…

 

[Slowlearner]

My point there was that the murderer or the gang banger live in a society in which they are (generally speaking at least) protected from wanton killing, theft and rape because we’ve all granted that those are things we don’t do to one another. Frankly the case you cite is a bit different in that in many inner city populations these rules have broken down rather dramatically especially in the context of gang activity.

A person of course has that freedom but to reject society’s rules and yet remain in society undermines the very protections the person is trying to enjoy by remaining in society. If one wants freedom from those rules, leave the society.

Yes; he deprived the annoying fellow of his intrinsic moral right to life.

Sadly gangs are just one example of a subculture where the ethical system in place is one of power and fear and is much different than western society in general. In these subcultures, death is part of business. The same thing exists in the mafia and Mexican drug-lord subcultures. These type of criminal cultures dominate some countries today in Africa and elsewhere (e.g. Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe). In past 100 years we’ve had scores of cases where general repression (imprisonment and occasional murders) blossoms into genocide (Stalin, Hitler, Cambodia, Rwanda, et al).

There have been, and are, so many societies with what I believe you and I would call objectively bad moral and ethical systems, I can’t see how we could use a societal/cultural norm or a societal/cultural contract as basis for objective moral definitions.

So then, where does the “intrinsic moral right of life” come from? Killing and death is part of the natural world. Predators kill to eat. Males of many species fight, sometimes to the death, for rights to the pride of females. Predators will often kill offspring of other females of their own species. Humans have been killing and fighting wars for millennia, yet we flourish through it all.

Enough to make one want to become a moral skeptic.

 

[ThomasToo]

There have been, and are, so many societies with what I believe you and I would call objectively bad moral and ethical systems, I can’t see how we could use a societal/cultural norm or a societal/cultural contract as basis for objective moral definitions.

I think the notion of the social contract as coming out of the state of nature is an idea that has value (assuming it uses the veil of ignorance). I agree, however, that cultural norms aren’t a good place to find object moral definitions.

So then, where does the “intrinsic moral right of life” come from? Killing and death is part of the natural world. Predators kill to eat. Males of many species fight, sometimes to the death, for rights to the pride of females. Predators will often kill offspring of other females of their own species. Humans have been killing and fighting wars for millennia, yet we flourish through it all.

Short answer: rights are intrinsic to our nature as social, rational beings.

Longer answer: it doesn’t come from anywhere; it is intrinsic to our nature as rational beings. I am very much with Hobbes that we, in the state of nature, had the truly full compliment of rights including the right to kill others without question or provocation. We, however, signed away many of those rights–specifically those whose claims overlapped with opposing claims of others over their lives, bodies and property–to live longer and more peaceful lives. This is mostly rights in the legal sense though I think the argument could be made that in those legal rights we retained exhausted and matched the moral rights we had to begin with.

Longest answer: I can probably find some good books on the subject if you’d like…

I would be hard pressed to call what humanity has done (except in perhaps the last couple centuries) flourishing. Surviving in the face of sometimes overwhelming odds is much closer at my reading.

Enough to make one want to become a moral skeptic.

Perish the thought…

 

[ManOnFire]

Every atheist either believes in a beginning of time, or he believes in actual infinity. The concept of “Infinity of time and space” is already out there for consideration. One cannot free willingly choose to ignore it or unlearn it if it makes one uncomfortable, disturbed, or fails to reinforce one’s point. That would be bigotry. If the atheist believes in a beginning of time, then there must have been a stoppage of time and the required infinitesimal entity that started it, necessitating an actual infinity. If the atheist believes in actual infinity, then, while we can count on science to improve the quality of our lives, it is impotent to ever know the Truth about the infinity of time and space. Why do atheists have such firm faith and hope in science when science can NEVER learn the Truth about Infinity of a godless time and space, by definition (anything knowable is finite)? There is only ego and faith in theories by both sides.

Discerning between these faiths is a test: it is a test to see if you really “get it.” Only by giving in to Faith in the Church will you truly learn to Love. Only by handing your life over to your spouse and kids to follow the Way does one truly appreciate self. It is a voluntary, counter-intuitive, sacrificial struggle that makes no sense and is not attractive to the average person. Only by giving one’s life away does one truly learn to live (i.e. Mother Theresa).

 

[AntiTheist]

We are the ones who obtain and interpret sense data…

Of course we are. And we are more than capable of using our completely 100% subjective experience to determine, to a great degree of accuracy, truths about the objective world (accurate enough to produce serious changes in that world, at least – to send messages across the world at the speed of light, to send people to the moon, to cure various diseases, etc.) and to distinguish between fact and fantasy.

If you don’t think that humans are capable of distinguishing between fact and fantasy, then there’s no point in communicating.

 

[Ismael]

If you don’t think that humans are capable of distinguishing between fact and fantasy, then there’s no point in communicating.

How can you be sure this is not a fantasy… or better yet, prove to me SCIENTIFICALLY that you are not a fantasy…

 

[AntiTheist]

How can you be sure this is not a fantasy… or better yet, prove to me SCIENTIFICALLY that you are not a fantasy…

So then you don’t think we can distinguish between fantasy and reality? Conversation is pointless, then.

I fully grant that each of us experiences the world through our completely subjective experience. However, we are more than capable of determining which aspects of our subjective experience are likely to exist beyond our minds and which aspects of our subjective experience are likely to exist only inside of our minds.

If you think that this is impossible, then I’m glad that you’re not in charge of anything important, and I’m glad that people who actually do positive things for the world don’t share your ridiculous attitude.

 

[Slowlearner]

I think the notion of the social contract as coming out of the state of nature is an idea that has value (assuming it uses the veil of ignorance). I agree, however, that cultural norms aren’t a good place to find object moral definitions.

Short answer: rights are intrinsic to our nature as social, rational beings.

Longer answer: it doesn’t come from anywhere; it is intrinsic to our nature as rational beings. I am very much with Hobbes that we, in the state of nature, had the truly full compliment of rights including the right to kill others without question or provocation. We, however, signed away many of those rights–specifically those whose claims overlapped with opposing claims of others over their lives, bodies and property–to live longer and more peaceful lives. This is mostly rights in the legal sense though I think the argument could be made that in those legal rights we retained exhausted and matched the moral rights we had to begin with.

Longest answer: I can probably find some good books on the subject if you’d like…

Thanks but I think we may have reached the end of the line. There is no more proof of intrinsic rights than there is of God. Now you might reply that Christian’s view of God includes much more than acceptance of intrinsic rights. That is true, but the primary basic view of God is that God is Love. Much of the other stuff flows from it, and is secondary. Seems to me that faith in existence of Love is no different than faith in existence of intrinsic rights.

(Side note, the very first encyclical published by the Pope, the media proclaimed rottweiler, was Deus est Caritas or God is Love (Note: Charity throughout is used to mean selfless love.))

I would be hard pressed to call what humanity has done (except in perhaps the last couple centuries) flourishing. Surviving in the face of sometimes overwhelming odds is much closer at my reading.

Oh, you are a harsh judge. I think from a naturalistic viewpoint, humans must be in top three most successful species of last 10,000 years. The other two being the cockroach and norwegian rat, but many commentators take away points from them, as their success has been built on ours.

 

[AntiTheist]

There is no more proof of intrinsic rights than there is of God.

As you know, I happen to agree that there are no intrinsic rights, but I feel compelled to point out that you’re comparing apples and oranges here.

The claim that rational beings deserve certain rights and the claim that there is a supernatural intelligence in charge of the world are not even in the same ballpark. One is a claim about behavior; the other is a claim about the existence of an intelligent agent. To assert that there is an equal burden of proof for both is simply ridiculous.

In other words, I think an intelligent person can believe in rights and not believe in gods – and not be involved in any kind of contradiction.

 

[Ismael]

So then you don’t think we can distinguish between fantasy and reality? Conversation is pointless, then.

I fully grant that each of us experiences the world through our completely subjective experience. However, we are more than capable of determining which aspects of our subjective experience are likely to exist beyond our minds and which aspects of our subjective experience are likely to exist only inside of our minds.

Yes but how do you PROVE scientifically that what you experience is true?

ALL our experiences are fully subjective. Even my words YOU read on your screen. How can you prove I am truly real and and not a figment of your imagination?

As a scientist I can tell you I test everything in my reality (with the proper equipment), but the first ‘dogma’ of science is that what we perceive through the senses is true and not a figment of our imagination.

As a scientist and as a normal person I accept taht what I perceive is true (eg numbers on a screen), but there is no way to test it.

If you think that this is impossible, then I’m glad that you’re not in charge of anything important, and I’m glad that people who actually do positive things for the world don’t share your ridiculous attitude.

Ah… offence is the last resort of the fool. I never said that we cannot distinguish reality from fantasy, I asked you to prove to me that what we experience is truly real.

My point is that you attach yourself to ‘atheist positivism’ and blurt all about facts, science and such… but in reality you cannot prove even the BASICS of your claims.

As usual you nicely dodge the questions and resort to offending others.

Basically you prove to yourself that what you hold for true might not be true at all.

That is the problem with atheists that reason like you, they always talk about ‘facts’ and ‘science’ but hardly understand the basics…

In the end even science itself rests upon metaphysics… in particular it bases itself in “positivism”.

So then you don’t think we can distinguish between fantasy and reality? Conversation is pointless, then.

It’s pointless only if you are too afraid to tackle the implication that defining and especially testing what is real and what is not real is NOT as trivial as you think.

Ironically… this is the philosophy sub-forum…

 

[ThomasToo]

Thanks but I think we may have reached the end of the line. There is no more proof of intrinsic rights than there is of God. Now you might reply that Christian’s view of God includes much more than acceptance of intrinsic rights. That is true, but the primary basic view of God is that God is Love. Much of the other stuff flows from it, and is secondary. Seems to me that faith in existence of Love is no different than faith in existence of intrinsic rights.

Existence of Love or of love?

(Side note, the very first encyclical published by the Pope, the media proclaimed rottweiler, was Deus est Caritas or God is Love (Note: Charity throughout is used to mean selfless love.))

I always found it interesting that ‘love’ and ‘charity’ can be used as synonyms. Makes the three spiritual virtues mean something very different than ‘faith, hope and love.’

Oh, you are a harsh judge. I think from a naturalistic viewpoint, humans must be in top three most successful species of last 10,000 years. The other two being the cockroach and norwegian rat, but many commentators take away points from them, as their success has been built on ours.

You mean successful as in we’ve had more sex and more babies than anyone else? In that sense of course we have. I meant that in so doing we also spilled so much blood and caused so much suffering for ourselves and for others.

 

[Slowlearner]

As you know, I happen to agree that there are no intrinsic rights, but I feel compelled to point out that you’re comparing apples and oranges here.

The claim that rational beings deserve certain rights and the claim that there is a supernatural intelligence in charge of the world are not even in the same ballpark. One is a claim about behavior; the other is a claim about the existence of an intelligent agent. To assert that there is an equal burden of proof for both is simply ridiculous.

In other words, I think an intelligent person can believe in rights and not believe in gods – and not be involved in any kind of contradiction.

Well I anticipated the apples/oranges point and added an explanation, but you cut your quote short.

First, we need to take some heat out of the discussion. Christians are often guilty of anthropomorphism. We imagine a human-like God. But it accepted by theologians that God is so vastly above our level that we cannot comprehend God. God is something we can relate to in ways, but we cannot have full understanding. We can no more relate to God than an ant can relate to a lady yelling as it crawls across the picnic blanket. So try for a moment to put aside your own perception of what is (might be?) a God.

Now, if there is an intrinsic right, then it not just a claim about behavior. It is a claim about the existence of something: it is a claim that a right exists in some supernatural way outside of our minds. If the intrinsic right existed only as a belief in the mind of the believer, then with the death of the person, it would be gone and cease to exist. Such a fleeting thing could not be an intrinsic objective right.

I believe that Love exists: that it is more than an emotion or a description of behavior. Belief in Love is the heart of the Christian faith. (Capital L to indicate charity or selfless love for others.)

I believe in an intrinsic right to life v. I believe in Love. Seems apples to apples to me.

 

[kk23wong]

Remember that the next time a Dawkins tells you that once we “discover” the Theory of Everything we’ll have no room left for God.

A *Theory of Everything *is hard to believe because we divided everything into subjects.

Light is the initial.
Birth is her power.
Lives are proofs.

*Living things in different levels *is the ultimate answer to our conflicts.
- Religions are plural. The God is singular.
Lives have hierarchies.
Laws are natural rules.

The universe is a higher level of living things.
She is a mother cell (supreme being), which gives birth to the lower levels (i.e. planets).
The differences in physical presence in-between the Conscious Earth and human being have created various religions.

“All truths are easy to understand once they’re discovered; the point is to discover them.” Galileo (1564-1642)

Satellites have exposed the physical presence of the God, which in fact a supreme being without violating any natural rules.

The God in your imagination is only an illusion.
Religions are valuable heritages.
Open your eyes.

Please take a look at the number of deaths below.
(1) Hunger and Related Causes: “Every six seconds a child dies because of hunger and related causes.” (SOFI 2004)
(2) Water and Related Diseases: Every 20 seconds, a child dies from a water-related disease (WaterFacts.org)

In order to increase public awareness of the immediate crisis of water and food shortages, we have to reunite all religions by letting them to realize the truth that the Earth is such a small planet. “Except the Earth. Nowhere else.”

The Earth is a sphere, which is too small for *settling *multiple Gods.

Remember those suffering now.
Realize the danger of food and water shortages.
“By 2025, it’s estimated that about two thirds of the world population will live in areas facing moderate to severe water stress.” (UN 1997)

Religions have merits, only if you know how others can benefit from it.

Stop Empty Talks on Souls
Look at the Satellite Images: http://www.flashearth.com
Count the Area of Deserts

“The earth is a supreme being” is a reasonable claim.

If we have sins, the sins are both.
If we admire, there are no sins.
If we confessed, the sins are the past.

A glorified image as ***the God ***would not bring us charity or love.
Suppression of the truth is only an escape from the past.

Teru Wong

 

[ManOnFire]

For those atheists who loudly and vehemently disparage religion and hold the belief that “I only believe that which can be measured” as their ideology and life’s compass, I want them to occasionally think and to know that there is no ideology when the beginnings and ends of time and space cannot ever be scientifically proven since they go on forever. They can’t be measured, for those who “only believe in that which can be measured.” Any real scientist must be troubled by the notion of it. I’m not disparaging science or technology. Just please don’t disrespect me and tell me my ideology is crazy when there’s no possible ideology to the atheist scientist’s.

 

[kk23wong]

For those atheists who loudly and vehemently disparage religion and hold the belief that “I only believe that which can be measured” as their ideology and life’s compass, I want them to occasionally think and to know that there is no ideology when the beginnings and ends of time and space cannot ever be scientifically proven since they go on forever. They can’t be measured, for those who “only believe in that which can be measured.” Any real scientist must be troubled by the notion of it. I’m not disparaging science or technology. Just please don’t disrespect me and tell me my ideology is crazy when there’s no possible ideology to the atheist scientist’s.

A modern person is holding a ***globe ***and talking to the native tribes.

“This is a supreme being. We call her as the God in the past. The differences in the physical presences has created your imaginations.”
The tribes replied, “Faiths cannot be offensed.”

“You have no faiths when you are physically dead.”
They replied, “Without religions, we’re mentally dead.”

“Without religions, we may save you and your children from physically dead.”
They replied, “There aren’t no ideologies at the beginning and end of time and space.”

“Yes. We’re soon going to an end if we continue our daily consumptions. Our children are running out of food and water. I respect religions as valuable heritages and I believe they have plenty of merits. However, they are obstacles for the public to realize the our hardships (e.g. the worsening global environment caused by over-population and poor recycle networks). It is our first step.”

“By 2025, it’s estimated that about two thirds of the world population will live in areas facing moderate to severe water stress.” (UN 1997)
"I only believe that which can be measured. The number of deaths can be measured."

The God who only want to be worshipped by people and letting them died of hunger and thirst must not be the one we have expected.

“Stop worshipping the ***globe ***now!”

Teru Wong

 

[ManOnFire]

A modern person is holding a ***globe ***and talking to the native tribes.

“This is a supreme being. We call her as the God in the past. The differences in the physical presences has created your imaginations.”
The tribes replied, “Faiths cannot be offensed.”

“You have no faiths when you are physically dead.”
They replied, “Without religions, we’re mentally dead.”

“Without religions, we may save you and your children from physically dead.”
They replied, “There aren’t no ideologies at the beginning and end of time and space.”

“Yes. We’re soon going to an end if we continue our daily consumptions. Our children are running out of food and water. I respect religions as valuable heritages and I believe they have plenty of merits. However, they are obstacles for the public to realize the our hardships (e.g. the worsening global environment caused by over-population and poor recycle networks). It is our first step.”

“By 2025, it’s estimated that about two thirds of the world population will live in areas facing moderate to severe water stress.” (UN 1997) 1997? You’re a little out of date aren’t you?
"I only believe that which can be measured. The number of deaths can be measured."

The God who only want to be worshipped by people and letting them died of hunger and thirst must not be the one we have expected.

“Stop worshipping the ***globe ***now!”

Teru Wong

Ahhhh, yes. The old “stimulate the pleasure centers of the sheeple by promoting love-less promiscuous sex and drugs to take romantic True Love and Church out of the lives of the sheeple. Keep em high and sexed. Then, they’ll lust for the brain pleasure. Kids and marriage will only get in the way of selfish physical and chemically-induced brain pleasure, so abortion will be needed. Reproduction rates drop and the polluted earth is saved from those dirty humans. It’s already working in Europe, U.S. is next.” Sound about right? Isn’t that the Grand Design? Or was it supposed to be a secret?