Religion and Atheism

[karaddin]

Stubby,

That's the first time I've heard that phrase.  But it doesn't surprise me.  Is that in the context of parents telling their minor children to "correct" with their homosexuality with prayer?  Between adults it's a jerky thing to say but I don't see it as "coersion".

I would suggest you are dramatically wrong with it not being coercion when an adult is subjected to it, we don't magically become immune to all familial/peer pressure upon becoming adults, or immune to psychological harm.

So you don't believe that the wicked should be rightly punished? It actually says that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. That's the point, there were no innocents other than those who were saved.

I understand that you may have a hard time believing that there were almost no innocents but if you actually read the text then it makes it pretty clear that everyone (including children) were wicked and evil. And probably why it was a one-off.

You also assume that you are without fault. I would like to put to you the premise that you aren't without fault.

Or rather, it reveals the immaturity of humanity.

 

So I have a question for other religious people in the thread, you can surely all see how religious viewpoints like this one are fucking terrifying to atheists right? For all he is lauding his religion as establishing a superior morality, the furthest you could take atheism is to not care about killing people, not the jump to killing the people I have decided are wicked is righteous.

[Altherion]

I don't think it does, at best it pushes the question back. Okay so the cosmic egg was created by a creator. Where did the creator come from?

The creator can be eternal (i.e. it doesn't come from anywhere, it was always there) whereas, as far as we can tell, the universe cannot (you run into problems with time and entropy if you try to make it such). Again, you can try to work around this, but the problems are many and the required modifications to physics strike me as less plausible than the existence of a creator or the whole thing being something other than it seems. Granted, the latter two are also not too plausible, but something has to give.

[TrueMetis]

The creator can be eternal

That's a hell of an assumption.

[Gears of the Beast]

That a hell of an assumption.

It's also special pleading.

[Stubby]

That's a hell of an assumption.

It's also special pleading.

It's also internally inconsistent.

[TrackerNeil]

Just want to clarify, doing good things comes as a result of being saved. Christianity is not do good things to be saved.

I'm not sure I understand what that means, but then I have no idea what it is to be saved. 

[Lord Mord]

Stubby,

 

Applying your so-called "valid" point of view, one can justify any sort of compulsion on other humans to live by the beliefs of the oppressor.  I see that as invalid.

It would, for an improper definition of the word valid, yes.  Ordinarily, however, valid =/= justified.

 

I also note your reduction of issues in which people die or are forced to comply with others' beliefs as "semantics". I do not disregard my fellow humans enough to do that.

Except that I never did that.  I classified those issues as being about values, which they most certainly are.  Values such as, people should not be coerced.  I like that value.  I also classified the disagreement you and i have about what words like "valid", "justified" and "science" mean as one of semantics, which, I think, is the definition of such things.

 

If you really want to take this "discussion" further, please answer all my outstanding questions and provide some evidence that - sticking with the abortion example - justifies the death of the mother to satisfy the "values" and "morals" of the lawmakers.

Why on earth would I justify the mother's death?  That is an outrageously stupid law.  That particular law is probably invalidly derived, as far as logic goes, but just because the conclusion is horrible is insufficient to call it invalid.  It's plenty enough to call it evil, though, and I'm behind you 100% on that one.

 

[Wise Fool]

 

Your entire argument is predicated on a willful misreading of Harris' argument to disingenuously misrepresent his position. The entire basis of the misrepresentation is your latching onto the word "devout" and suggesting that Harris is using it in a way that he is actually not.

I actually don't have an issue with the conceding the fact that I think Harris' use of "devout" in this context is a mistake - not because, in the context of his article, it's not clear what he's talking about. I think it absolutely is. The mistake is in the ambiguity over exactly what "devout" actually means in a wider social context.

In his article, it's clear that Harris is contrasting "devout" Muslims with "moderate" Muslims. Harris has no problem acknowledging that many Muslims, which he considers to be moderates, have no problem adhering to the tenets of liberal society:

In fact, his entire article was prefaced with the following caveat:

 

Personally, I think that "devout" was the wrong word to use. I think that "devout" properly denotes the depth of one's devotion, but does not necessarily connote the nature of the faith to which one is devoted. Which is to say, it might be the case that a "devout" Christian is a fundamentalist Christian (that is often the implication), but that it's also plausible that you can be a "devout" Christian adhering to a more liberal branch of the faith. The same is true of Muslims. 

But that's a slightly abstruse terminological quibble. The actual context of Harris' article, the contrast between "devout" Muslims and the "moderate" and "nominal" Muslims who Harris considers as not taking their religion very seriously (I think with some level of obvious truth), is clear. 

In typical liberal discussions, one might simply refer to these radical Islamists as such, or as "extremists." Harris, for very specific reasons which are consistent with his posture as a "New Atheist," rejects the idea that the positions these Islamists hold is actually "extreme.":

I actually think this is a perfectly plausible reason to reject calling radical Islamists "extremists" - even though I am still inclined to do so. 

And this, ultimately, is the problem with your entire style of argumentation. You aren't actually interested in a discussion. The only thing you are interested in is attaching convenient labels to the people you disagree with. It's fine to engage in terminological disputes. But terminological disputes don't actually resolve or "win" arguments. If you're fighting over the particular meaning of a word, you're not actually engaged in the discussion, because terminology is the foundation upon which these discussions are held - not the actual discussion itself. 

In sum - whether Harris should have called them "devout" or "extremists" or "radical Islamists" his point is correct. They don't care about those things and they never have. They'd rather rape virgins in the afterlife than live comfortably in this one. 

The message remains the same - Harris judges that ISIS fighters are being better Muslims, because they are adhering to a specific literal interpretation, while "moderates" act and think "counter to the explicit teachings of Islam." My problem with this is that this particular message is also one that ISIS itself would like me to believe. You both seem to think that literalist interpretation is the "true," and anything else is a "reinterpreting and ignoring."  And this is wrong. Frankly, literalism isn't even "interpretation." It's a complete non-understanding. It's what happens when idiocy meets written language. It should not be proffered as The Right Way to view something like a religious text, or any literature in general.

And not merely in the case of your charming descriptions of violent crimes committed by terrorists, which you seem to think are totally justified within their text (I mean really, even Harris says that "Neither is it an accident that horrific footage of infidels and apostates being decapitated has become a popular form of pornography throughout the Muslim world. Each of these practices, including this ghastly method of murder, find explicit support in scripture." oh really, there's explicit support for murder porno in scripture? No? )

Now, you might think you're just "criticizing" the faith,  but when you do so by going on and on about the horrors ISIS terrorists inflict it's clear you're trying to conflate ISIS and Islam.  ISIS and Islam are not the same thing. Using the former to condemn the latter is the very epitome of "attaching convenient labels to the people you disagree with" and is quite a bit worse actually. You and Harris are being a bit Trump-like.  "Devout Muslims are murderers, rapists, thugs, and some, I assume, are good people."

And although he has a CYA disclaimer about how he's not trying to say that all "nominal" Muslims support ISIS, it's very close to a statement about how most Muslims "don't take their religion seriously." Ergo, the only reason Muslims don't support ISIS is because they fail at being Muslim. Which is as simplistic and stupid as the notion that ISIS is the result of Islamic beliefs or that its actions represent "THE central tenet of the Koran." As if terrorism is the quintessential Islam, and anything else is "nominal" Islam. Sorry, Mr Harris, and ISIS -- but you're all wrong on that one.

[Stubby]

Stubby,

Except that I never did that.  I classified those issues as being about values, which they most certainly are.  Values such as, people should not be coerced.  I like that value.  I also classified the disagreement you and i have about what words like "valid", "justified" and "science" mean as one of semantics, which, I think, is the definition of such things.

Why on earth would I justify the mother's death?  That is an outrageously stupid law.  That particular law is probably invalidly derived, as far as logic goes, but just because the conclusion is horrible is insufficient to call it invalid.  It's plenty enough to call it evil, though, and I'm behind you 100% on that one.

Your logic did, when you said this:

...when a religiously-based law reaches a different conclusion than you about the best desired outcome, no matter how many facts you state about what science can do or prove...

 

I have already demonstrated what happens when you take that logic further.  When I did so, you objected to my tone and you descended into semantics about about what "justified" and "just" meant.

"Values" informed by religious belief have no validity when compared to factual situations.  Inevitably, this leads to a conflict between religion and science in real world scenarios.  Simply permitting religious belief to take precedence "no matter how many facts you state about what science can do or prove" does not mean that atheists are "fundamentally wrongheaded" to suggest that religion and science only conflict in creationism and/or cosmology, as Jo498 suggested. There are clearly other conflicts.

What follows is my concluding point on this topic.

I only had to show 1 example of another conflict between religion and science to prove that Jo498 was wrong and I have shown 2 in detail (and others that we didn't even get to) with real world examples of actual "conflicts".

No-one in this thread has produced anything in the way of a real world example to show otherwise, so I'm going to leave it there.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

On the topic of causality, I propose that there are two options (as has been proposed before); either something has existed forever, or the laws of nature beyond and before out observable universe are such that matter and energy can spontaneously come into existence. (Though existence itself must have always existed, which is a confusing thing to say or think.)

Now regardless of which of those premises are true, either the something that has always existed/spontaneously come into existence was god or it was the universe itself (in some form).

Now since we know the universe currently exists and we don't know that a god has ever existed why would we assume that there is a completely meaningless step in the process? 

Why would we assume that an all powerful (power obtained and used through mechanisms unknown) being with intelligence (despite lacking a physical brain, which is the only known source of intelligence so far) is more likely to have existed forever or spontaneously come into existence that energy?

[Daemrion]

We do.

 

Who is the 'we'? Do you mean humanity as a collective that gets to a decision or view that everyone can agree to (if that is possible)?

If so, then isn't it again just a tyranny of the majority?

Firstly, who or what defines "wicked"?

Secondly, I cannot even begin to understand how someone can assert that all the children of the world were inherently evil at the time of the flood.

God defines who or what is wicked. Who or what do you think defines "wicked"? You?

Children still have a sinful nature. It is a consequence of this fallen world. It's entirely consistent with Christian belief to know that all have fallen short (no matter who they are) except for Jesus and it is only through Jesus that people can be saved.

But your taking the stance that religion essentially enables the same thing, but should always have the louder more authoritative voice (why it should I don't exactly understand. Surely logic, reason, evidence etc. are a far superior alternative to "because this book said so")

Authority is not from human authority. That's the point. Because if everything is only merely from human authority then we may as well just be subject to the whims of the masses (which again may or may not always be right). 

I agree that logic, reason and evidence are valuable tools, but there are some questions that those things can't answer. Particularly moral questions.

 

Ultimately though, as has been mentioned before - as a society we develop a shared cultural understanding of morality. It's not objective because there isn't an objective answer to the question of ethics. Religion isn't the answer to that: as should be perfectly evident from history, an outside manual of what is good does not a peaceful society make. It's far from objective.

Only because of disagreement and the subjective. If everyone acted in accordance with one manual of what is good, and the objective good, then we would have a peaceful society.

If there is no objective answer to the question of ethics, then aren't we all just muddling around in disagreement? Pretty much if both sides of, for example, the Palestinian/Israeli situation think from their subjective standpoint that they are in the right, application of ethics will never be able to solve this problem. You just constantly have two sides that scream at each other that they are right and the other is wrong (which is pretty much what has happened in the last twenty years) and engaging in political games of one-up-manship.

Whereas, if you had an objective agreed upon standpoint on what was right and what was wrong, we would be able to judge what the solution should be. It's just that we can't agree on what the objective standpoint should be.

Given how the world is today (and how many different races, religions, histories etc), how shared is that cultural understanding of morality, if at all?

 

According to you one has to read as a whole, but why's that interpretation right? The bible is made up of separate books. Many of which cover the same thing. So why were the authors so incompetent that they couldn't manage to get across what they wanted to in one book?

 The mixed fabric bans say nothing about defilement, just not to do it.

By giving us knowledge on how the world works science can inform our moral and value judgements. It cannot explain what is the right moral or value judgement because such a thing doesn't exist. Or if you mean can it explain why we have moral and value judgements, that's tied up in being a social animal. Some of the basics like "don't murder" are rather important for keeping a social group working together.

 

1. Why is that interpretation right? Because it is the interpretation that is consistent with the rest of the Bible when read as a whole. And if two people arrive at different interpretations, it means that we should study some more to find the right one not run off in a huff and start shouting at each other that their interpretation is wrong.

2. It's about unclean/clean/holy. The Levitical rule was about not wearing mixed fabrics because it made you unclean. But when it was said that it is the things from the inside of the heart that makes one defiled (unclean) and not the things of the outside. Hence, one can conclude that mixed fabrics, being something from the outside, does not make one unclean and hence, can be worn.

3. Who decides what are the basics? The US has the death penalty so in a way, one can't even say that don't murder is important for keeping a social group together. It may be 'don't murder except when we agree that we should murder.'

4. If there is no right moral or value judgments, then doesn't that just mean that our morals and values are just a whim of the person or society as a collective as to what they feel at that time?

This happens all the time. You decide who is right by examining the evidence each has presented to support their case.  Just because two separate people disbelieve in a god doesn't mean they have to agree on everything.

When you talk about evidence, do you mean evidence that is clear of any sort of value judgment? As in just, cold, hard statistical facts?

[LessThanLuke2]

I would suggest you are dramatically wrong with it not being coercion when an adult is subjected to it, we don't magically become immune to all familial/peer pressure upon becoming adults, or immune to psychological harm.

So I have a question for other religious people in the thread, you can surely all see how religious viewpoints like this one are fucking terrifying to atheists right? For all he is lauding his religion as establishing a superior morality, the furthest you could take atheism is to not care about killing people, not the jump to killing the people I have decided are wicked is righteous.

its Crazy scary.

[TrueMetis]

1. Why is that interpretation right? Because it is the interpretation that is consistent with the rest of the Bible when read as a whole. And if two people arrive at different interpretations, it means that we should study some more to find the right one not run off in a huff and start shouting at each other that their interpretation is wrong.

Even if I bought that it was consistent, and I don't, why does being consistent make you right? LOTR is very consistent doesn't make the events that happened in it true or the message one might think it gives correct.

2. It's about unclean/clean/holy. The Levitical rule was about not wearing mixed fabrics because it made you unclean. But when it was said that it is the things from the inside of the heart that makes one defiled (unclean) and not the things of the outside. Hence, one can conclude that mixed fabrics, being something from the outside, does not make one unclean and hence, can be worn.

So one part of the bible says things from the outside can make you "unclean", another part contradicts that. But the bible is consistent when read "as a whole" which apparently in your view means ignoring parts of it. And the part that concludes mixed fabrics can be worn is right, while the part that says they can't is wrong because reasons.

 3. Who decides what are the basics? The US has the death penalty so in a way, one can't even say that don't murder is important for keeping a social group together. It may be 'don't murder except when we agree that we should murder.'

Execution isn't murder even if I don't agree with it. When I say "don't murder" is an basic requirement for keeping a social group working together, I mean you need to be able trust that the people you're working with won't kill you for no reason.

4. If there is no right moral or value judgments, then doesn't that just mean that our morals and values are just a whim of the person or society as a collective as to what they feel at that time?  

 As much as they are if your supposed creator actually existed and gave moral judgements.

[Stubby]

God defines who or what is wicked. Who or what do you think defines "wicked"? You?

Children still have a sinful nature. It is a consequence of this fallen world. It's entirely consistent with Christian belief to know that all have fallen short (no matter who they are) except for Jesus and it is only through Jesus that people can be saved.

 

First bold: I don't believe god exists, Daemrion.  Saying something like that to me is like me saying to you that a talking, breakdancing and vindictive wombat - that no-one has ever seen - decides who or what is wicked.  Further, if you want to prove to me that god exists and loves us, you'll have to do a lot better than cite the ark story or tell me that this being judges children as wicked.

What 'sinful nature' do you think children have?  Remember, don't bother telling me that these 'sins' are against the arbitrary 'rules' that this so-called god set in place.  Because this jealous entity could have made all of that go away if it truly loved his playthings.  Instead, it decided to kill millions for breaking nonsensical rules.

Third bold:  What you are saying is that all humans are failures and only believing in this vindictive entity and living by it's rules can make them have value as humans. You would also have to prove what we need to be 'saved' from first before any of this could make any sort of sense.

Next, with respect to the evil nature of the ark story, what 'sin' made the animals and plants of the world deserve to die - in the case of the animals in what must have been desperate terror as the waters rose - which I note you completely ignored.

Finally, if the flood started again tomorrow, would that make you happy?

[Gears of the Beast]

What 'sinful nature' do you think children have?  Remember, don't bother telling me that these 'sins' are against the arbitrary 'rules' that this so-called god set in place.  Because this jealous entity could have made all of that go away if it truly loved his playthings.  Instead, it decided to kill millions for breaking nonsensical rules.

Garden of Eden original sin etc etc because knowledge is bad. 

[Daemrion]

 

Even if I bought that it was consistent, and I don't, why does being consistent make you right? LOTR is very consistent doesn't make the event that happened in it true or the message one might think it gives correct.

So one part of the bible says things from the outside can make you "unclean", another part contradicts that. But the bible is consistent when read "as a whole." which apparently in your view means ignoring parts of it. And the part that concludes mixed fabrics can be worn is right, while the part that says they can't is wrong because reasons.

Execution isn't murder even if I don't agree with it. When I say "don't murder" is an basic requirement for keeping a social group working together, I mean you need to be able trust that the people you're working with won't kill you for no reason. Execution which requires you to have broken that social contract isn't close to the same thing.

 As much as they are if your supposed creator actually existed and gave moral judgements.

1. Firstly, LOTR does not make any claims about being a true representation of history.

Or for example, take legal interpretation of statutes, if you have two possible interpretations of a statute and one leads to an absurd outcome, and the other leads to a reasonable outcome, you would generally take the reasonable outcome to be right one. Generally the reasonable outcome is the one that is consistent with the rest of the law. 

2. It isn't actually about ignoring parts of it. It's more like those rules no longer apply - they were a shadow of the better to come.

3. Who's to say those people have no reason?

 

[TrueMetis]

1. Firstly, LOTR does not make any claims about being a true representation of history.

Then pick one of those shitty horror movies than claims to be "based on a true story." It wouldn't matter how consistent they are they still aren't actually true. The Blair Witch Project did not actually happen.

Or for example, take legal interpretation of statutes, if you have two possible interpretations of a statute and one leads to an absurd outcome, and the other leads to a reasonable outcome, you would generally take the reasonable outcome to be right one. Generally the reasonable outcome is the one that is consistent with the rest of the law.

Yeah, but I'm not taking it to be right because it's consistent, and would take it as right even if it was wildly inconsistent with the rest of the law. I'd take it as right because it's reasonable. Being consistent doesn't make something reasonable in of itself.

2. It isn't actually about ignoring parts of it. It's more like those rules no longer apply - they were a shadow of the better to come.

X makes you unclean when you do it is not a rule. It is a factual claim. It does not suddenly stop being true. If someone claims wearing mixed fabrics makes you unclean, and another says that it does not than someone is wrong.

 

Besides why does it take so long for this creator to get things right? Can he stop fucking up for 15 minutes?

3. Who's to say those people have no reason? 

I do, I just did. Murder was probably not the best term to use admittedly, but still the point is fairly simple. Human beings are incapable of survival on our own, we need to work together and to work together we need a certain level of trust if we kill each other for no reason than we aren't going to be able to work together.

[Daemrion]

First bold: I don't believe god exists, Daemrion.  Saying something like that to me is like me saying to you that a talking, breakdancing and vindictive wombat - that no-one has ever seen - decides who or what is wicked.  Further, if you want to prove to me that god exists and loves us, you'll have to do a lot better than cite the ark story or tell me that this being judges children as wicked.

What 'sinful nature' do you think children have?  Remember, don't bother telling me that these 'sins' are against the arbitrary 'rules' that this so-called god set in place.  Because this jealous entity could have made all of that go away if it truly loved his playthings.  Instead, it decided to kill millions for breaking nonsensical rules.

Third bold:  What you are saying is that all humans are failures and only believing in this vindictive entity and living by it's rules can make them have value as humans. You would also have to prove what we need to be 'saved' from first before any of this could make any sort of sense.

Next, with respect to the evil nature of the ark story, what 'sin' made the animals and plants of the world deserve to die - in the case of the animals in what must have been desperate terror as the waters rose - which I note you completely ignored.

Finally, if the flood started again tomorrow, would that make you happy?

You didn't answer my question about who you think defines wickedness.

I'd rather adjust myself to what is true, rather than to rail against it and deny it. In the end, it's come down to the question of whether God exists. You can't prove that God doesn't exist and I can't prove that he does. In a way, our whole framework at looking at things are fundamentally incompatible. And this is where almost all debates about religion end up.

Fundamentally, if God exists (regardless of what either of us believe) then I am right, and you are wrong and if God does not exist, I'm happy to accept that I'm wrong.

Do you accept that if the Bible is the truth that each and every point that I've made is in fact correct and that you've been wrong. Or are you still going to deny the truth then?

 

Stubby, I've read some of the other responses to other people and I have a question that I'd like you to answer. In the example that you gave about abortion and the woman who died, knowing that the baby would definitely die, there is an intrinsic value judgment that the best outcome is both survive, followed by one survives, followed by none survive which I would generally agree with. And the way you arrive at that outcome is on the basis of 'facts and evidence'. Now, what if, that woman, had she survived, inadvertently, through no fault of her own, become the carrier of the next avian flu and spread it around the world causing untold devastation and death, would your understanding of 'facts and evidence' still say that the best outcome was for her to survive.

I'm not saying that, that would have been the case or anything like that, but trying to understand your reasoning.

[Seli]

 

 

1. Why is that interpretation right? Because it is the interpretation that is consistent with the rest of the Bible when read as a whole. And if two people arrive at different interpretations, it means that we should study some more to find the right one not run off in a huff and start shouting at each other that their interpretation is wrong.

 

What about the interpretation that is consistent with all we know about history, sociology, humanity? Which surely ought to overrule a merely (claimed) internal consistency.

[Daemrion]

I understand why you have a problem with a secular approach to ethics, but I really disagree that religion answers that question. 

Your answer to the problem of subjective ethics is that there needs to be an objective manual - all well and good so far. Fine.

Except when there is an ''objective'' manual, it doesn't solve anything. People disagree about it all the time, and have done for millennia. 

Your solution to that problem is that ''if everyone agreed on the manual, there would be no problems''. Do you see how circular that is? ''We need an objective manual because we can't agree on ethics, but an objective manual only works if we all agree on ethics!''. 

Or, if the objective manual is given to us by something external to us, and we agree to abide by it.

I guess that's what I meant all the way back way before about an external objective yardstick against which to measure things.

 

Then pick one of those shitty horror movies than claims to be "based on a true story." It wouldn't matter how consistent they are they still aren't actually true. The Blair Witch Project did not actually happen.

And your legal example is a terrible one, an absurd outcome can be entirely consistent with the rest of the law. Some laws and legal systems are fucking crazy. Trial by ordeal is a thing.

ETA: And given how society changes over time and how long certain legal traditions have been around many legal traditions are grossly inconsistent.

X makes you unclean when you do it is not a rule. It is a factual claim. It does not suddenly stop being true. If someone claims wearing mixed fabrics makes you unclean, and another says that it does not than someone is wrong.

Besides why does it take so long for this creator to get things right? Can he stop fucking up for 15 minutes?

I do, I just did. Murder was probably not the best term to use admittedly, but still the point is fairly simple. Human beings are incapable of survival on our own, we need to work together and to work together we need a certain level of trust if we kill each other for no reason than we aren't going to be able to work together.

1. Based on a true story does not equate with the actual true story. The use of the word 'based' means that there are fictional elements to it.

2. With law interpretation - it is a general rule of statutory interpretation that given a choice between a reasonable and an absurd outcome, all other things being equal, generally the one that is picked as correct is the reasonable one. It's an old common law doctrine. I should have said generally the reasonable interpretation does not result in inconsistency with the rest of the law and is thus, preferred.

Even then, this is an imperfect example.

3. Is 'Do not do X as it makes you unclean' a rule then?

4. In terms of why it takes so long (well that's long by our standards), that's probably answered by studying Biblical theology and working out how things fit into God's plan.

5. So are you saying that there are some 'basics' that can be measured somehow, without morals or values.