I'm surprised he even has the nerve to show himself after pulling the edit-a-wikipedia-article-to-try-and-support-my-flawed-viewpoint-one-minute-before-posting-it stunt yesterday.
Sweet, sweet pwnage.
God, Morals, and Atheists
by UnDisfellowshipped 151 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Caedes
drwtsn,
Just read the thread you mentioned, very funny! Not the first time Monty has been seriously owned on this board and I doubt it will be the last. Nice catch.
-
middleman
Bookmarked...I'll read this when I can.
Blessings...
-
parakeet
BTS: I had a Quaker Parrot once also, and he forced me to serve him. He decided my sacrifices weren't worthy of his August Featherness, so he flew away to join the local wild flock.......I miss him to this day.
Your Quaker parakeet is beautiful. I hope he has joined a wild flock and is wreaking havoc in the local orchards and grain fields.
However, my avatar is not a Quaker parakeet. It's a Grey-Cheeked Parakeet, a member of the Brotogeris family of small parakeets native to South America. They do resemble Quakers closely, but Grey-Cheeks have a teal cap, grey cheeks (duh), a green body, deep blue tail feathers, and a small patches of bright orange feathers (not always visible) on their shoulders.
From your description, it does sound as though Quakers and Grey-Cheeks have the same temperament, the I-am-God-and-you-must-serve-me-alone type. My parakeet died many years ago from a sudden illness at age 14. A day does not go by that I don't think about him.
I would buy another if I could, but Grey-Cheeks are endangered in South America because of exportation to the pet trade and habitat destruction. Legislation was passed years ago banning the export of Grey-Cheeks and many other exotic birds. It's now almost impossible to find a domestically bred Grey-Cheek in North America.
One of things I love about parrots is that they don't spend time endlessly discussing God, morals, and atheism. They are totally themselves, intent only on the things that matter most -- food, shelter, loving their mates, rearing their children. They have more sense than we do.
-
UnDisfellowshipped
I did a lot of thinking today about what everyone has posted on this thread. I like to do some deep deep thinking before I respond to people on a subject this serious.
This post will be longer than some of my usual-sized posts, but I ask that you please read all of it carefully before posting a reply.
Let me know what you think.
Naturalism and Morals:
Definition of "Naturalism" from Wikipedia.com:
"In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature." This is generally referred to as metaphysical or ontological naturalism."
Definition of "Naturalism" from Merriam-Webster.com:
"a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance ; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena."
Definition of "Naturalism" from Princeton's website:
"the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations."
Definition of "Naturalism" from Wiktionary.com:
"The doctrine that denies a supernatural agency in the miracles and revelations recorded in the Bible, and in spiritual influences; Any system of philosophy which refers the phenomena of nature as a blind force or forces acting necessarily."
--------------
I think it's safe to say that those are accurate descriptions of what Naturalism is. Do you agree? If you do not agree with those definitions of Naturalism, please let me know, and explain what your version of Naturalism is.
If Naturalism is true, then, as I understand it, the following would be true as well:
1:) The Universe (Time, Space, and Matter) came into existence in an instant from nothing, without a physical cause, without purpose or design.
2:) Over billions of years, because of mindless, purposeless physical laws and chance, stars, galaxies, and planets developed.
3:) Over billions of years, because of mindless, purposeless physical laws and chance, life came into existence from non-life on earth.
4:) Over millions of years, life evolved by natural selection into the life forms we know today.
5:) Mindless, purposeless physical laws, blind chance, and natural selection eventually caused human beings to evolve from other primates, and eventually the mindless, purposeless physical laws, blind chance, and natural selection caused those human beings to become aware that they were conscious individual beings who had a responsibility to be moral toward other human beings.
I'm sorry, I simply do not have enough faith to believe that, especially when you consider that Naturalism itself, as a worldview (as I understand it), is not derived from the Scientific Method, but rather Naturalism is just presupposed, and then all of the scientific evidence is made to fit into the presupposed Naturalistic worldview.
Look at this quote from Richard Lewontin:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories [in evolutionary biology] because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material causes, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who believes in God can believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen."
(Just in case you're wondering who Richard Lewontin is, here's a link to his Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin )
How would an atheist respond to a Christian who made the same claims for presupposition of the Bible?
Why should I (or anyone else) believe in Naturalism as a worldview? Why should you presuppose Naturalism instead of Agnosticism or Theism?
How can you objectively examine and analyze the scientific evidence, if you already have a prior commitment to finding ONLY a naturalistic cause or explanation before you even look at the evidence?
Even if there is scientific evidence that points to a supernatural (beyond nature) cause, how would you ever know, if you are determined ahead of time to ONLY accept a natural cause, and you have already RULED OUT any and all supernatural causes and explanations?
To me, this seems very much like a "Naturalism of the Gaps" theory, where, if you cannot find any evidence for a naturalistic cause for something, you just assume that a naturalistic cause must exist, even if you can't see any evidence for it. You just say "Naturalistic Evolution must be the answer!" and leave it at that. This sounds much like the "God of the Gaps" theory that Atheists are always accusing Christians of using.
Please don't misunderstand me. I AM NOT suggesting that we shouldn't look for any and all natural causes and explanations for everything that exists. What I am suggesting is that we should examine and analyze all the evidence with an open mind, without ruling out the possibility of supernatural causes before you even look at the evidence.
If there is convincing scientific evidence (or convincing philosophical arguments) that mindless, purposeless, physical laws, blind chance, and unguided natural selection can cause human beings to become aware that they are conscious individual beings who have a responsibility to be moral toward other human beings, then I will believe in it.
----------------------
The Argument from Evil (or Suffering):
When an atheist argues that the existence of suffering proves (or strongly suggests) that an all-good, all-powerful God must not exist, what does the atheist mean?
The way I see it, the atheist can only be saying one of two things:
1:) If, by this, the atheist means that an all-good, all-powerful God should stop all suffering (or not allow it to begin with) because suffering is wrong, then the atheist is claiming that he knows there is an objective standard of what an "all-good" God should be like, and the atheist is also claiming that he knows that "suffering" is an objective evil or wrong that should be stopped by a "good" God.
But, according to Naturalism (as admitted by the atheists in this thread), there is no objective moral standard; we simply evolved the morals that were useful for our survival.
So, if that's what the atheist is claiming, his argument is inconsistent with his own Naturalistic worldview. In order to make this claim, the atheist would have to presuppose a Theistic Universe (or at least a Universe where there is an objective moral standard). That is the only way the atheist can claim that he knows that "suffering" is wrong, and to claim that he knows what a "good" God should do.
OR if that's not what the atheist is claiming, then he must be claiming this:
2:) The atheist, then, is only saying, in essence, "I, personally, feel that suffering is wrong, according to my own subjective moral opinions, and I feel that a good God should, in my opinion, stop suffering."
If that is all that the atheist is saying in the "Argument from Evil" (or Argument from Suffering), then why should anyone accept that argument?
That would be the weakest argument I've ever heard against Theism.
Either way, with the Argument from Suffering, the atheist is actually not even arguing against the God that is described in the Bible. Instead, the atheist is actually arguing against a strawman "God," a figment of his own imagination.
Let me explain and clarify that statement:
In the Argument from Suffering, the atheist is claiming that if a good God existed, He would not allow all of the suffering we see on earth. But, suffering does exist, therefore, this good God must not exist.
But, the God described in the Bible DOES allow the kinds of suffering we see on earth today. The God of the Bible is described as a mysterious, paradoxical Being who allows all kinds of suffering, yet is still called All-Good, All-Powerful, All-Just, and All-Wise. The God of the Bible is beyond our total comprehension -- His ways and thoughts and actions are far beyond our level of understanding. The Bible also says that this God is not under any obligation to explain to any of us why He allows suffering.
However, the Bible does offer several reasons why God allows suffering, including:
* Human free will.
* To prove that Satan's accusations against humans are false.
* Allowing more time for humans to repent and be saved.
* To build up our character and endurance.
* To bring about a greater good in the long run.
* To allow humans to experience (to some degree) the consequences for human rebellion and sin.
So, in order for the atheist to disprove the mysterious, paradoxical God of the Bible, he would have to argue against the actual description of God that is found inside the Bible, not the imaginary strawman "good God" found in several of the Arguments from Suffering used by atheists.
The atheist can choose not to believe in this mysterious God of the Bible because he doesn't like how this God is described, or because he doesn't think there's enough evidence pointing to His existence, but you cannot use the "Argument from Suffering" against this God of the Bible, because the God that is described inside the Bible DOES ALLOW suffering.
The only way that the Argument from Suffering would work to disprove God, would be if the Bible had said that God would always stop suffering, or not allow suffering. But the Bible never, ever says this.
More Thoughts on Naturalism:
If the naturalistic worldview is true, then, logically, there was no objective justification for the Nuremberg Trials, and we have no objective "inalienable rights," and who's to say that "all humans are created equal"?
If all of our moral knowledge is simply a product or by-product of mindless, purposeless, unguided evolution and physical laws, just as our religious beliefs are (as claimed by some atheists), then why shouldn't an atheist come to the conclusion that, since the "mature" or "enlightened" people are abandoning their "crutch" of religious beliefs, it would also be the "mature" or "enlightened" thing to do to also abandon the "crutch" of moral beliefs?
After all, why should atheists reject the religious beliefs that evolved (which must have been somewhat useful for survival at least), but not reject the moral beliefs that evolved?
Couldn't someone reason logically that the next logical step for the "enlightened" atheist is to become an even more "enlightened" amoralist?
Think about this for a moment:
If our government decided that we should abandon all morals except the moral that we should have no morals, then, logically, a naturalistic atheist would have no objective basis for saying our government was wrong.
The only thing an atheist could say would be "I personally don't agree with your beliefs, based on my own subjective feelings and opinions." The atheist could not even appeal to any "God-given inalienable rights," and could not even appeal to "Nature's Law," (as our Founding Fathers called it), because, according to Naturalism, the "Self-Evident Truths" of a "Creator" and "Nature's Law" do not even exist.
Wow. Think about that. According to Naturalism, our Constitution and Bill of Rights are built on subjective moral opinions that evolved within us, not objective moral values that are true for all people everywhere, for all time. (this fact by itself does not disprove Naturalism, but it sure does give a person a reason to question it).
-
quietlyleaving
undisfellowshipped
I like to do some deep deep thinking before I respond to people on a subject this serious. me too and fresh from reading alltimejeff's new topic - what I'd like to add is that in thinking in polarities like either chaos or individuation, being or non being (nodding to narkissos here), we limit out thinking to those sorts of opposites. We have a much richer way of making sense and when we can't make sense, whats wrong with letting non-sense have its way with us?
(alltimejeffs topic the sentiments of which I agree with)
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/175752/1/How-To-Win-A-Debate-Without-Really-Thinking
-
Anti-Christ
So, then, you really have no objective basis for saying that an entire society or social group (the Nazis under Adolf Hitler, for example) were wrong or evil when they decided to commit genocide or murder or rape people, or to destroy the "weaker" races, or weaker countries?
And, about the animals:
What about the animals who kill their weaker offspring?
Let's say, if a human being were to kill their 6 month old baby daughter, because they believed that this was the "moral" thing to do, or even if their "social group" commanded it, or their society demanded it, would this act then be acceptable to you? If not, WHY NOT? They're just following their "social group"?
Or, what if YOUR country, determined that it was in the best interests of society or the social group, to rape all females, would this be right or wrong? Or, is there no objective right or wrong?
Is this not what your god did in the bible?
So on what do you base your morality? On what Yahweh decides? then is it not based on his opinion of what is right and what is wrong? Was it wrong for your god to commit genocide? was it wrong for your god to kill thousands of babies? Was it wrong for your god to allow Israelites to take the women of their enemies captive and keep them for themselves?
-
Caedes
How would an atheist respond to a Christian who made the same claims for presupposition of the Bible?
Why should I (or anyone else) believe in Naturalism as a worldview? Why should you presuppose Naturalism instead of Agnosticism or Theism?
Naturalism works, it has never yet been falsified as opposed to the bible which has been shown time and time again to be figurative not literal. You already believe in naturalism, after all I take it you walked out of your house through a ground level door rather than upstairs bedroom window.
How can you objectively examine and analyze the scientific evidence, if you already have a prior commitment to finding ONLY a naturalistic cause or explanation before you even look at the evidence?
Even if there is scientific evidence that points to a supernatural (beyond nature) cause, how would you ever know, if you are determined ahead of time to ONLY accept a natural cause, and you have already RULED OUT any and all supernatural causes and explanations?
By definition anything that can be defined and measured by scientific enquiry is natural as opposed to supernatural. If you could give me one example of a supernatural force that can be measured I would interested to hear it.
To me, this seems very much like a "Naturalism of the Gaps" theory, where, if you cannot find any evidence for a naturalistic cause for something, you just assume that a naturalistic cause must exist, even if you can't see any evidence for it. You just say "Naturalistic Evolution must be the answer!" and leave it at that. This sounds much like the "God of the Gaps" theory that Atheists are always accusing Christians of using.
The difference between the god of the gaps and your 'naturalism of the gaps' is that science is looking for evidence to back up their naturalistic hypotheses whereas christians need no evidence to claim 'god did it'. That is the fundamental difference between naturalism and theism, evidence.
Please don't misunderstand me. I AM NOT suggesting that we shouldn't look for any and all natural causes and explanations for everything that exists. What I am suggesting is that we should examine and analyze all the evidence with an open mind, without ruling out the possibility of supernatural causes before you even look at the evidence.
Science will never find evidence for 'supernatural causes' because science is empirical, once you can measure the supernatural it becomes natural by definition.
If there is convincing scientific evidence (or convincing philosophical arguments) that mindless, purposeless, physical laws, blind chance, and unguided natural selection can cause human beings to become aware that they are conscious individual beings who have a responsibility to be moral toward other human beings, then I will believe in it.
There is already overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution is a fact which you already ignore, I highly doubt any amount of additional evidence is going to alter your position.
----------------------
The Argument from Evil (or Suffering):
When an atheist argues that the existence of suffering proves (or strongly suggests) that an all-good, all-powerful God must not exist, what does the atheist mean?
This is not proof but merely pointing out out an inconsistancy in theistic thinking, the argument is starting from the premise of what some theists believe rather than from an atheist position.
The way I see it, the atheist can only be saying one of two things:
1:) If, by this, the atheist means that an all-good, all-powerful God should stop all suffering (or not allow it to begin with) because suffering is wrong, then the atheist is claiming that he knows there is an objective standard of what an "all-good" God should be like, and the atheist is also claiming that he knows that "suffering" is an objective evil or wrong that should be stopped by a "good" God.
If you claim that your god is omni-beneficent as well as omnipotent then I would say there is a a huge inconsistancy between that position and the fact that your god created the world and is thus responsible for earthquakes, floods, diseases and all the resulting deaths. I have never heard a good logical answer from a theist as to how you square that circle in your philosophy. From a naturalist viewpoint these natural phenomenon are unfortunate and blind and thus no evil can be ascribed.
But, according to Naturalism (as admitted by the atheists in this thread), there is no objective moral standard; we simply evolved the morals that were useful for our survival.
See my previous question (which you ignored) regarding theistic morals, would you kill your own child if your god told you to? A yes or no answer will suffice.
So, if that's what the atheist is claiming, his argument is inconsistent with his own Naturalistic worldview. In order to make this claim, the atheist would have to presuppose a Theistic Universe (or at least a Universe where there is an objective moral standard). That is the only way the atheist can claim that he knows that "suffering" is wrong, and to claim that he knows what a "good" God should do.
The argument is from a premise of a theistic viewpoint rather than the atheist's own viewpoint.
OR if that's not what the atheist is claiming, then he must be claiming this:
2:) The atheist, then, is only saying, in essence, "I, personally, feel that suffering is wrong, according to my own subjective moral opinions, and I feel that a good God should, in my opinion, stop suffering."
If that is all that the atheist is saying in the "Argument from Evil" (or Argument from Suffering), then why should anyone accept that argument?
That would be the weakest argument I've ever heard against Theism.
Well, it should be easy to come up with a logical answer then.
Either way, with the Argument from Suffering, the atheist is actually not even arguing against the God that is described in the Bible. Instead, the atheist is actually arguing against a strawman "God," a figment of his own imagination.
Let me explain and clarify that statement:
In the Argument from Suffering, the atheist is claiming that if a good God existed, He would not allow all of the suffering we see on earth. But, suffering does exist, therefore, this good God must not exist.
But, the God described in the Bible DOES allow the kinds of suffering we see on earth today. The God of the Bible is described as a mysterious, paradoxical Being who allows all kinds of suffering, yet is still called All-Good, All-Powerful, All-Just, and All-Wise. The God of the Bible is beyond our total comprehension -- His ways and thoughts and actions are far beyond our level of understanding. The Bible also says that this God is not under any obligation to explain to any of us why He allows suffering.
If your god allows suffering despite being able to stop it then he is not omni-beneficent. If you want me to to convince me you are correct and that your philosophy is logical and consistant then saying god doesn't have to explain this inconsistancy is not going to work.
However, the Bible does offer several reasons why God allows suffering, including:
* Human free will.
Has nothing to do with natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis and floods
* To prove that Satan's accusations against humans are false.
Has nothing to do with natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis and floods
* Allowing more time for humans to repent and be saved.
How does dying an early death give you more time?
* To build up our character and endurance.
How does dying build character?
* To bring about a greater good in the long run.
How do millions of deaths bring about a greater good?
* To allow humans to experience (to some degree) the consequences for human rebellion and sin.
What sin and rebellion? (bearing in mind I dont accept the bible)
So, in order for the atheist to disprove the mysterious, paradoxical God of the Bible, he would have to argue against the actual description of God that is found inside the Bible, not the imaginary strawman "good God" found in several of the Arguments from Suffering used by atheists.
The atheist can choose not to believe in this mysterious God of the Bible because he doesn't like how this God is described, or because he doesn't think there's enough evidence pointing to His existence, but you cannot use the "Argument from Suffering" against this God of the Bible, because the God that is described inside the Bible DOES ALLOW suffering.
The only way that the Argument from Suffering would work to disprove God, would be if the Bible had said that God would always stop suffering, or not allow suffering. But the Bible never, ever says this.
I do accept that the god described in the bible allows suffering as long as you accept that your philosophy is illogical, inconsistant and flawed. I am not using a strawman god because I am describing god as you have described him and pointing out the inconsistancy in your description.
More Thoughts on Naturalism:
If the naturalistic worldview is true, then, logically, there was no objective justification for the Nuremberg Trials, and we have no objective "inalienable rights," and who's to say that "all humans are created equal"?
Society does, the golden rule was around long before your religious philosophy and subjective or not I am quite happy for morals to be subjective and for those subjective morals to be used as the basis for the rule of law. Perhaps this would be a good time to ask if you would kill your child if your god told you to again?
If all of our moral knowledge is simply a product or by-product of mindless, purposeless, unguided evolution and physical laws, just as our religious beliefs are (as claimed by some atheists), then why shouldn't an atheist come to the conclusion that, since the "mature" or "enlightened" people are abandoning their "crutch" of religious beliefs, it would also be the "mature" or "enlightened" thing to do to also abandon the "crutch" of moral beliefs?
No, subjective morals are a basic framework for society and as such cannot be described as a crutch.
After all, why should atheists reject the religious beliefs that evolved (which must have been somewhat useful for survival at least), but not reject the moral beliefs that evolved?
Because subjective morals are good for society, they are a valuable tool for civilisation. I personally reject religious belief because there is no empirical evidence to support it.
Couldn't someone reason logically that the next logical step for the "enlightened" atheist is to become an even more "enlightened" amoralist?
Think about this for a moment:
If our government decided that we should abandon all morals except the moral that we should have no morals, then, logically, a naturalistic atheist would have no objective basis for saying our government was wrong.
I have a objective basis for rejecting such a move, anarchy has never worked as a form of society.
The only thing an atheist could say would be "I personally don't agree with your beliefs, based on my own subjective feelings and opinions." The atheist could not even appeal to any "God-given inalienable rights," and could not even appeal to "Nature's Law," (as our Founding Fathers called it), because, according to Naturalism, the "Self-Evident Truths" of a "Creator" and "Nature's Law" do not even exist.
The golden rule is a perfectly acceptable basis on which to base morals, the golden rule is a natural law for an evolved society.
Wow. Think about that. According to Naturalism, our Constitution and Bill of Rights are built on subjective moral opinions that evolved within us, not objective moral values that are true for all people everywhere, for all time. (this fact by itself does not disprove Naturalism, but it sure does give a person a reason to question it).
Yes, they are wow. You are right, your statement does not disprove naturalism and it doesn't even raise an eyebrow for me.
Now how about answering that question about your morals?
-
BurnTheShips
No doubt you are right. Nevertheless, the opportunity to poke a hole in the hopelessly over-inflated balloon that is Monty's ego was too good to pass up
My ego is a good deal tougher than what your weak attempts can muster.
BTS
-
Caedes
My ego is a good deal tougher than what your weak attempts can muster.
No doubt Monty, given your track record here.