Jump to content

Religion vs Atheism Book 2


Stubby

Recommended Posts

 

It is worse than that. Except for the rare breed of atheist that denies the existence of a God, but nevertheless believes that human beings have a soul (or in mind-body dualism or something equivalent), morality is meaningless. Without a soul, human beings are merely peculiar arrangements of matter and therefore must play by the same rules as all matter in the universe. At the scale relevant to us, nature is mostly deterministic, but even if there is some randomness involved (e.g. if the brain somehow relies on quantum phenomena), to describe human actions as moral or immoral makes no sense. It is no more or less moral for a particular human being to act in a particular way than it is for the moon to proceed in its orbit around Earth or for a cosmic muon to randomly interact with the RAM of your computing device and cause a bit to flip.

Of course, most atheists ignore this and proceed to craft moral and ethical systems as if the illusion of independence is real.

Presumably, God is much smarter than we are and thus knows what is best. Our main problem is that we do not understand the consequences of our actions and what we want is often not in tune with how the universe works. For example, consider adversity. The word itself is strictly negative and most moral systems will strive to minimize it for most people, but it is also a source of strength and of change. To use an extreme example, WWII was terrible and I don't know of a single moral system that would endorse anything of the sort... but look at how much new technology was developed in a few years. Or, for the other side of the coin, the current generation of American college students was brought up in one of the safest and most considerate society in history... and the result is that a substantial fraction of them now wants "safe spaces" from ideas (i.e. the system is set up such that it eventually destroys itself).

This atheist takes the view that morals and ethics evolve.

At present, we have a functioning society because we have applied the collective wisdom of thousands of generations of humans.  We have combined that into a system of laws, enforced by the rules of law.  We have seen what works and what doesn't.  We have come to these conclusions through learning by experience, over tens of thousands of years.

I am getting handily sick and tired of religious believers telling me that I have no morals because I don't believe in god.  Personally I am happy that I am not associated with the morals of an entity that allegedly committed all the atrocities ascribed to it in the bible.

Further, I've rephrased the bolded assertion:

Of course, most atheists all believers ignore this and proceed to craft moral and ethical systems as if based on the illusion of independence is real that their brand of belief is real and the only moral way to act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Personally I am happy that I am not associated with the morals of an entity that allegedly committed all the atrocities ascribed to it in the bible.

Allegorical atrocities, natch. ;-)

 

But yes, I agree. If I actually believed that the Abrahamic God exists, for real, I would kill a few babies just to be sure I would end up in hell. Holy shit, what a royal douchebag He is. I wouldn't cross the street to piss on Him if He's on fire, let alone spend eternity with Him.

Or maybe in the Monkey Paw twisted way, my hell *is* to spend eternity with Him!! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Christian, and not speaking for all Christians, I'm embarassed by people who profess my faith and try to claim being an atheist means having no morals.  

What a load of shit.

Each side has its members like that. Unfortunately the internet means you hear what these types of people, religious or atheist, say hundreds and hundreds of times more than you would have otherwise. It's one thing to try and argue a point for your "side", its another to go on youtube and write "hah christians r gay" or "fuk atheists". Luckily not all people are like this though, and its nice to read from those who aren't :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This atheist takes the view that morals and ethics evolve.

At present, we have a functioning society because we have applied the collective wisdom of thousands of generations of humans.  We have combined that into a system of laws, enforced by the rules of law.  We have seen what works and what doesn't.  We have come to these conclusions through learning by experience, over tens of thousands of years.

I am getting handily sick and tired of religious believers telling me that I have no morals because I don't believe in god.

The last sentence being as it may, I'm not sure why you are putting it in reply to my post. I fully agree with you that you have morals as do the overwhelming majority of both atheists and religious believers (truly amoral people are rare; I'm not sure if there are any at all). I also agree that the morals and ethics have evolved over centuries (again, this is true regardless of whether one is an atheist or not). My point was merely that if you are right about physicalism, then all of this is meaningless because all morality (religious or atheist) relies on some things being right and some things being wrong... but in a physicalist world, there is no right and there is no wrong -- there are only the laws of nature.

Personally I am happy that I am not associated with the morals of an entity that allegedly committed all the atrocities ascribed to it in the bible.

I've always found this attitude amusing. The entity in question allegedly created a world where death has been the guaranteed fate of every being who has lived so far and there appears to be no moral rhyme or reason as to who will live longer or die in a more painful way. At the time of the alleged "atrocities", everything from childbirth to a common cold had a fairly substantial chance of being fatal and even for royalty (who got the best care) many children did not survive to adulthood. Given all of this, it's pretty funny that people complain about a few instances where, for a negligible number of individuals, the inevitable was allegedly hastened for demonstrative effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The inevitable was allegedly hastened for demonstrative effect" that's the most euphemistic way to describe murder I've ever heard. And also hilarious when contrasted to your previous point about there being no right and wrong in a "physicalist world". 'god allegedly pronounced murder to be wrong...pfft silly atheists whining about god hastening the inevitable'. What a fucking joke. 

edit: in case my italics didn't make the point I just want to note how hilarious it is to describe the actions of your god depicted in your sacred text to be "alleged". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The last sentence being as it may, I'm not sure why you are putting it in reply to my post. I fully agree with you that you have morals as do the overwhelming majority of both atheists and religious believers (truly amoral people are rare; I'm not sure if there are any at all). I also agree that the morals and ethics have evolved over centuries (again, this is true regardless of whether one is an atheist or not). My point was merely that if you are right about physicalism, then all of this is meaningless because all morality (religious or atheist) relies on some things being right and some things being wrong... but in a physicalist world, there is no right and there is no wrong -- there are only the laws of nature.

I've always found this attitude amusing. The entity in question allegedly created a world where death has been the guaranteed fate of every being who has lived so far and there appears to be no moral rhyme or reason as to who will live longer or die in a more painful way. At the time of the alleged "atrocities", everything from childbirth to a common cold had a fairly substantial chance of being fatal and even for royalty (who got the best care) many children did not survive to adulthood. Given all of this, it's pretty funny that people complain about a few instances where, for a negligible number of individuals, the inevitable was allegedly hastened for demonstrative effect.

1.  Physicalism does not equal atheism. Where did I ever say that I adhere to that philosophy?

2.  Yeah I know.  Rather pathetic 'design' wasn't it?

3.  Once again, I am flabbergasted to see such a cavalier disregard for human life. The complete lack of empathy for anyone not part of the same belief is astonishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  Physicalism does not equal atheism. Where did I ever say that I adhere to that philosophy?

As I said, the atheists who deny the existence of a god, but nevertheless believe in other forms of the supernatural are an exception. They tend to be pretty rare because the strongest arguments against religion work equally well on the rest of the supernatural. That said, I believe that you've mentioned being a follower of the New Atheists and they are for the most part physicalists.

2.  Yeah I know.  Rather pathetic 'design' wasn't it?

3.  Once again, I am flabbergasted to see such a cavalier disregard for human life. The complete lack of empathy for anyone not part of the same belief is astonishing.

You are missing the point. Whether it is by design or not, the universe does not value human life. However, if it is by design and death is merely a transition, then the alleged atrocities are not necessarily atrocious at all. Furthermore, for anyone who does not actually believe in that kind of deity, the point is moot since the events in question could not have taken place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As I said, the atheists who deny the existence of a god, but nevertheless believe in other forms of the supernatural are an exception. They tend to be pretty rare because the strongest arguments against religion work equally well on the rest of the supernatural. That said, I believe that you've mentioned being a follower of the New Atheists and they are for the most part physicalists.

You are missing the point. Whether it is by design or not, the universe does not value human life. However, if it is by design and death is merely a transition, then the alleged atrocities are not necessarily atrocious at all. Furthermore, for anyone who does not actually believe in that kind of deity, the point is moot since the events in question could not have taken place.

1. I have never said that.  I would never say that. What I said in my first post in the last thread was that I am a new atheist, in that I am vocal, which seems to be the only common definition that I can find on the internet.  I am not a "follower".  I disagree with many of the things that the so-called "new atheists" have expressed views on.  That's the thing with atheism, it is not a "following" situation.  There is no central tenets or teaching to follow.  The only thing all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in gods.

2. I never said it did.

3. This is just nonsense, because there is no evidence that any human ever has lived past death in some incorporeal form.

4. Yeah, I know that.  The point (which I am not missing at all) is that, as a morality piece, the bible is a horrendous failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are missing the point. Whether it is by design or not, the universe does not value human life. However, if it is by design and death is merely a transition, then the alleged atrocities are not necessarily atrocious at all. Furthermore, for anyone who does not actually believe in that kind of deity, the point is moot since the events in question could not have taken place.

Stop dancing around. What do you actually think? Do you actually think murder isn't all that bad because death is merely a transition? No? Then why the fuck are you even bothering with this line of argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always found this attitude amusing. The entity in question allegedly created a world where death has been the guaranteed fate of every being who has lived so far and there appears to be no moral rhyme or reason as to who will live longer or die in a more painful way. At the time of the alleged "atrocities", everything from childbirth to a common cold had a fairly substantial chance of being fatal and even for royalty (who got the best care) many children did not survive to adulthood. Given all of this, it's pretty funny that people complain about a few instances where, for a negligible number of individuals, the inevitable was allegedly hastened for demonstrative effect.

This is one of the most morally bankrupt apologetics for the Abrahamic God I've come across: God's slaying of all mankind except for Noah is no big deal, because, hey, those humans and animals were going to die eventually, anyway.

And if it's merely a hastening of the inevitable, then doesn't it also detract from the moral impact of the story? Like, killing 99.999% of humans at once is now a rather pedestrian event? What kind of bizarre logic is this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes. My only defense, were I to try to put up a defense for Biblical God in this latest "God On Trial" thread, would be to argue that the God of the Bible is a mythical character living in a shared mythological narrative world written and translated by many different people and with varying degrees of consistency. I would suggest that the stories are myths and metaphors and the messages, if any, may be easily garbled. I wouldn't start with, "well, we're all going to die anyway so He's really not that bad!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop dancing around. What do you actually think? Do you actually think murder isn't all that bad because death is merely a transition? No? Then why the fuck are you even bothering with this line of argument?

I'm not dancing around; it's a simple hypothetical. Death is terrible precisely because it is more or less irreversible and we don't know what comes afterwards -- there's no reliable way to tell whether it is The End or a transition and even if it is a transition, we don't know what the transition is to or if there is something we need to do in this world before moving on. However, in the story we are discussing, there is an entity that not only knows for sure that it is a transition, but exercises effectively unlimited control over both sides of the boundary. If such an entity exists, then its actions in the story do not constitute murder because even if it causes the transition to occur prematurely for some individuals, this transition lacks the properties that make death terrible (irreversibility and uncertainty). Obviously, if the entity doesn't exist, then there is no story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that the killings are the only reprehensible acts or rules that the Abrahamic god is responsible for. What about the support of slavery, or the denial of women's rights? Like Deuteronomy 22:28-29, where a rape victim is forced to marry her rapist (after he pays her father, of course). How can you defend shit like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is worse than that. Except for the rare breed of atheist that denies the existence of a God, but nevertheless believes that human beings have a soul (or in mind-body dualism or something equivalent), morality is meaningless.

Could you please explain that part, because I don't understand. At all.

Morality is used to create a better world for everyone. Why do we good deeds? Because we want to. Because we have empathy and feel sorry for other people. Because we have a deeply rooted feeling of right and wrong, of justice, and because we feel bad when we hear about cruelty or wrongdoings.

For morality to be meaningless, all the things that the moral laws are there to protect, all the things people care about, have to be meaningless too. And I guess they are, if you define meaning from an absolute, divine perspective. If, however, you regard meaning as something we create ourselves and attach to things, then morality is just as relevant as in the divine case.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'

m not dancing around; it's a simple hypothetical. Death is terrible precisely because it is more or less irreversible and we don't know what comes afterwards -- there's no reliable way to tell whether it is The End or a transition and even if it is a transition, we don't know what the transition is to or if there is something we need to do in this world before moving on. However, in the story we are discussing, there is an entity that not only knows for sure that it is a transition, but exercises effectively unlimited control over both sides of the boundary. If such an entity exists, then its actions in the story do not constitute murder because even if it causes the transition to occur prematurely for some individuals, this transition lacks the properties that make death terrible (irreversibility and uncertainty). Obviously, if the entity doesn't exist, then there is no story.
 

Bullshit. If we accept your argument, we'd also have to accept that earthly murders aren't really murder either, since when  someone is "murdering"  someone else,  they're actually just hastening that person's transition  to the afterlife, and this transition lacks the properties that make death terrible (irreversibility and uncertainty). Essentially you're committing theists to the moral nihilism you've attributed to phyicalists, you've just arrived there by different means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also supposed to be all powerful, but it can't be both all powerful and unchanging. Now it could be all powerful and choose not to change, but changing would still be possible and would still be arbitrary by every definition of arbitrary I know.

Though I would think even non-literalists would be able to see how ridiculous the idea that their god is unchanging, the god of the OT and NT are clearly different.

Unless He actually does change, I don't see the arbitrariness. Now, I may read you wrong, but according to your logic, everything that could in theory change is arbitrary. That would, among other things, apply to laws. So laws, then are arbitrary by this argument. Not just in how they are applied (which may be arbitrary), but by their very nature.

Also, I think that you confuse literalists and non-literalists in your second paragraph. Non-literalists will not argue that every Biblical story is true, but that they are the product of men, inspired by God. As such, there is no need to take as literal the God presented in the OT. The lens for reading the OT instead becomes God made man - Jesus.

Literalists would struggle more, I think, with the differing accounts of God in the OT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the most morally bankrupt apologetics for the Abrahamic God I've come across: God's slaying of all mankind except for Noah is no big deal, because, hey, those humans and animals were going to die eventually, anyway.

And if it's merely a hastening of the inevitable, then doesn't it also detract from the moral impact of the story? Like, killing 99.999% of humans at once is now a rather pedestrian event? What kind of bizarre logic is this?

We're made in the image of our creator: bloodthirsty.

Oh sky cake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the most morally bankrupt apologetics for the Abrahamic God I've come across: God's slaying of all mankind except for Noah is no big deal, because, hey, those humans and animals were going to die eventually, anyway.

And if it's merely a hastening of the inevitable, then doesn't it also detract from the moral impact of the story? Like, killing 99.999% of humans at once is now a rather pedestrian event? What kind of bizarre logic is this?

The slaying of all life - not just mankind - apart from the bare minimum for preserving life (at least as far the authors were concerned) is indeed a big deal, and it's treated as such in the text, though obviously not enough to your own modern moral satisfaction. It's perhaps worth asking why the character of God did it, and why the authors felt compelled to include such a story in the first place. Simply dismissing God as a "mass murderer" seems to stem more from your self-admitted anti-Abrahamic bias then from any critical reading of the text. (Are you even looking to hold a conversation in good faith or are you just looking to self-righteously stand on a soapbox to rant some more against the Abrahamic God?) That said, I do not agree with the morality of the text, but I am intrigued by the scenario it sought to convey: namely a world so irreparably consumed by the pollution of evil, chaos, and violence and the threat of the created world's return to its uncreated, primordial state. So if God is just, does God let this evil and corruption flourish and the descent into decay and ruin continue? Would God then be on trial for that failure too if God did nothing? So what should the solution for this scenario have been? I am not suggesting that this is the best case scenario, but I am certainly curious now as to what you see as the solution for such a cosmologically destructive scenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...