Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Goober · 06-20-2003, 09:07 PM

Hired Gun, you are obviously very arrogant to presume that no atheists have ever followed their position through to its logical conclusion re ethics when you yourself have failed to do so with your own beliefs. You think that the bible provides an objective moral system, and yet you seem to ignore many of the assertions of the bible:

Exodus 31:15-17 "Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the lord; whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day shall surely be put to death",
Also, Exodus 35:1-3 confirms this with lines like: "These are the words which the lord hath commanded, that ye should do them" "whosoever doeth any work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations"

So you agree that people should be put to death for working on Sundays?

Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." Leviticus 20:9 "For everyone that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Deutronomy 21:18-21 This is too long to quote in full, but it explicitly says that if a child is disobediant "all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die"

Leviticus quotes a huge list of things that make people "unclean", such as menstruating. Leviticus 15:28-29 says that to become clean again, a woman must wait 7 days and then present 2 pigeons to a priest to be used as offerings. Do you do this?

Leviticus 19:19 "I am the Lord. Ye shall keep keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed: neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together"

<sarcasm>These are obviously wrong and immoral and should not be allowed.</sarcasm>

Deuteronomy 13:2-10 Says people trying to convert you should be put to death, saying "And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to draw thee away from the lord thy god."

Have you carried this out?

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Says "When men strive together, one with another, and the wife of one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity"

Would you agree to uphold this?

Oh, how about Deuteronomy 22:20-21 "But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel: then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die"

Were the "tokens of virginity" found in you? Be careful, you may be stoned to death.

I could continue for hours, but I think I've made my point. So, are you a complete hipocrite? It seems to me that you are completely ignoring what your own "objective moral system" has to say and are then accusing us of not taking things to their logical conclusion.

And another thing: without independent proof that that god exists and the bible is his word, your moral system is based entirely on a book that all evidence tells us was just written by a buch of humans. Hardly an objective standard.

And another thing: a moral system based on the word of god is one based on the subjective whims of a deity. How exactly is that objective again?

And another thing: If atheists have no objective moral system, how does that mean they must have no moral system at all? There's no objective reason to make law that makes everyone drive on the right as opposed to a law that makes everyone drive on the left. Does that justify driving wherever you want?

Hired Gun · 06-20-2003, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jinto
The problem with your board game analogy is this: suppose someone designs a board game. Then someone else comes up aith a way to use the same equipment in a different game. How then, are we to decide that we must play one game over the other? Is poker any more or less valid a use of cards than blackjack?

Different Game...The inventor of Poker is still the objective authority on how the game of Poker is to be played. God invented the Game of Life, and therefore would be the objective authority oh how the game of life is to be played. God created the deck of cards, along with the gaming table and the players. Now men may take it upon themselves to take these instruments that were designed to play the Game of Life and create a different game, but the game they create will not be the Game of Life, but merely a game that can be played within the Game of Life. God's game is 'bigger' and all encompassing and therefore more valid.

Quote:

In short, there is no reason why the intent that someone had when designing a system is the only right use of that system. What a system is designed to do is irrelevant, what is relevant is what it can do.

I agree. However, one will never win the game of poker if he insists on only playing blackjack.

Quote:

By the way, if humas were truly designed for moral behavior, then why is it that they seem to be so bad at it? This would seem to falsify the premise that God intended us to be moral.

God intends for us to acknowledge how bad we are at it and repent and be saved.

A.S.A. Jones

The Other Michael · 06-20-2003, 09:35 PM

Quote:

I simply state that without divine authority, we have no logical basis for the promotion of any value system, no matter what we think of that system. I'm not so much concerned with the definition of 'good' as I am with an objective standard. The standard of morality cannot have an objective reality without divine authority.

Divine authority - Kali, Baal, or Aphrodite?

Did you rigorously investigate all the available deities, or just go with the one your culture was most likely to have indoctrinated you with?

Just curious,

Michael

Hired Gun · 06-20-2003, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Um...no. Positing god as a "valuer" doesn't immediately render his values objective. They are no less subjective than yours or mine. They're simply his preferences; who says he gets to make all the rules?

How can you argue that "...God can morally take an infant's life..." and that god disagrees with Peter Singer, when the definition of infanticide is "taking an infant's life"?

You are confused because you don't differentiate between God and man. The taking of life is God's perogative, but He reserves this perogative for Himself.

Quote:

It looks like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too...

No, I just recognize authority when I see it.

Quote:

Unfortunately, one's status WRT sin has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is a moral agent. God is most assuredly not justified in treating us differently than he would himself.

Logically prove to me that God is not justified in treating us differently than he would himself. If you can't logically prove this, then you are giving me an opinion and I doubt that you will be able to convince me that your opinion is better than my opinion, because I am very fond of my opinion.

Quote:

[/b]You said something similar in an earlier post:

You then go on to indicate that you would answer these both in the negative.

But from the standpoint of modern, democratic societies, this is clearly the wrong answer.

[/b]

In YOUR opinion my answer is the wrong answer. If you point to the opinions of a herd of people, you argue by the fallacy of ad populum. In the 1700's it was the standpoint of democratic societies to permit slavery. Did this permission make slavery the right answer? No. Then why should I believe that present day consensus is the right answer in this issue?

Quote:

No one is above the law; it exists to equalize. Those in authority gain it by consent of the governed, but they have no right to exceed the specific grant of power which includes the rule of law. That's the whole point of democracy and the force of the social contract that lends legitimacy to modern democratic societies.

I agree that no MAN is above the laws established by other MEN. However, the nature of God is so exceedingly different than that of men that IN MY OPINION God cannot be held to the same laws by which we govern ourselves. You are welcome to disagree with my opinion, but unless you can present a sound and valid argument demonstrating the logical fallacy of my opinion, my opinion still stands.

Quote:

If god is able to break every rule he creates simply by virtue of being the rule-maker, then morality is a farce...

God is not able to break every rule He creates simply by virtue of being the rule-maker, but by virtue of His nature. He is in the same position in which the state puts itself when it executes a law breaker. If the State can morally take a life, then God certainly can.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun · 06-20-2003, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
Hello, Hired Gun.

First, an observation, and a question. It seems to me that your justifications for your Christian belief are all moral arguments. As such, this discussion would be more appropriate in our Moral Foundations and Principles forum. I am not a moderator in this, the GRD forum, but I would suggest that one of them should transfer this thread to MF&P.

The question- solely from curiosity- do I understand correctly that you are a woman? I normally have no trouble distinguishing men from women by their posting style, and you have an extremely masculine style. I keep wanting to address you as 'Mr. Jones'! (This makes no difference to your arguments, of course- I think they are mistaken. )

I'm a woman. I'm just not in touch with my feminine side.

Quote:

I want to ask you why you think your system of moral absolutes are really absolute. You used 'thou shalt not kill' as an example. Do you truly believe that under no circumstances should one human kill another? If this is so, you do not consider war or self-defense extenuating circumstances, correct? And therefore you consider any church which grants absolution for killing in those circumstances, to be immoral and breakers of God's commandments? (Are you a Quaker, or a Mennonite? You don't sound like one.)

I don't believe in moral absolutes. Reality, as I know it, consists of moral relativism and countless exceptions to any moral code. Christianity doesn't offer us a set of moral absolutes; it offers us a position of absolute righteousness when we submit to the will of its god. Submitting to the will of God isn't about following the letter of the law, which presents the impossible task of attempting to live by moral absolutes. It's about following the Spirit of the law, which is generated by developing the context of a divine personality.

Quote:

I also would like to take a stab () at providing you with a workable system of relativist ethics. Ah, for clarity, I'm just going to list the famous 'metal rules'-

Golden Rule- Do as you would be done by.

Silver Rule- Do not to others what you would not have done to yourself.

Brass Rule- Do to as you are done by.

Iron Rule- Do unto others as you will, and can.

The system I try to live by starts by applying the Golden Rule- I attempt to treat others, at first interaction, as I want to be treated. I try to be honest, and honorable, and as generous as my circumstances allow.

If I am treated so in return, wonderful- I prefer to live by the Golden Rule, and in the company of others who prefer it too. BUT- if I am instead treated as a means, and not as an end- my response is to switch to the Brass Rule. And as long as I am being screwed, I try to screw back, applying the Iron Rule to the best of my ability. Ah, but not always- sometimes I attempt to offer good for bad. Not often. And not on any set schedule. But sometimes I will extend the olive branch, and if it is accepted I will switch to the Silver Rule- I will not betray, unless betrayed.

Ha ha! I'm tempted to live by those rules myself.

Quote:

If you are familiar with Prisoner's Dilemma, you may recognize this as the winning strategy for extended games. I first read it in an essay by Isaac Asimov, many years ago, and I find that it allows me to live in a society where not all men are as honorable as I, with a minimum of victimization, and a minimum of anger. It requires no God, no absolute font of morality- which is a good thing, as no such font exists.

Yes, I am very familiar with this. As I recall, tit for tat works best, but to win, you have to be able to stiff at least one other 'player' who continues to reciprocate for at least one additional transaction.

In real life, you find out that you can win to an even greater degree than computer simulation allows. Winning just depends on one's skill as a con man.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun · 06-20-2003, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cipher Girl
Hi Hired Gun

If you take all of the bible as literally true, "Everthing god commands is right and moral", then don't you have the morals of a 5 year old? A 5 year old says "I had better do as I am told, otherwise I'm in big trouble".

The atittude of the 5 year old in question isn't about morality but more about correctly assessing his or her situation. My five year old daughter has this attitude and she is very smart to have it, because she would indeed be in big trouble if she doesn't do what she is told. So, I agree that if one interprets the Bible to be literally true, they would believe that they would be in big trouble if they don't do as God tells them. I also believe that they would be justified in their fear.

Quote:

If you don't take every word in the bible as the literal word of god, then you would have to interpet the bible.

Any time a person reads a text or hears words, they have to process that information. Every process of information results in an interpretation of that information, even if the interpretation results in a literal understanding.

Quote:

Where do you get the guidance to select the parts of the bible that make up your moral code? It can't be within the bible, because you would then select everthing as true, even the the verses advising infanticide and genecide.

In studying English literature, there are guidelines for interpretation. One must recognize literary devices when one is being presented with obvious hyperbole and metaphor. But it is also important to understand the author and try to analyze his intention. One must take into account the culture in which the work was written. Most importantly, one must take every piece of text in context of the whole in order to fully appreciate and understand what is being said or implied. For example, in Steinbeck's story, 'Of Mice and Men', George kills Lennie. If we only read the segment describing this murder, can we interpret Steinbeck's novel to be about how a cold and ruthless killer brutally murders a trusting friend? I think not!

The fact that literature can be read and analyzed and graded speaks of the sufficiency of words. Yes, there will be differences in points of interpretation, but there are limits as to how far those interpretations can drift and still be considered honest in their attempts to convey the truth that is being presented.

A.S.A. Jones

Hired Gun · 06-20-2003, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
Jobar, that reads like something from Carl Sagan's last book, Billions and Billions. And Hired Gun said that Sagan is completely lacking in any substance of profound thought. So it might be of little worth to him/her.

Carl Sagan is to science what Bob Ross is to art. What do you suppose this means that Carl Sagan is to religion?

Jobar · 06-20-2003, 10:52 PM

Hired Gun:
I don't believe in moral absolutes. Reality, as I know it, consists of moral relativism and countless exceptions to any moral code. Christianity doesn't offer us a set of moral absolutes; it offers us a position of absolute righteousness when we submit to the will of its god. Submitting to the will of God isn't about following the letter of the law, which presents the impossible task of attempting to live by moral absolutes. It's about following the Spirit of the law, which is generated by developing the context of a divine personality.

Er... so tell me, what is the difference between "a position of absolute righteousness" and "a set of moral absolutes"? I see none, myself. Isn't 'righteous' the same thing as 'moral'?

Another thing. Just how are you determining the "will of God"? By your own individual interpretation of what the Bible says, right? Well, don't you also believe that your interpretation, made by your human intellect, is seriously flawed? Isn't it terrible hubris to believe that you are able to understand the "will of God" well enough to try to tell others- believers or unbelievers- what that will is?

Finally, I point out to you that the only argument you have made so far is the moral one. (And have made no converts using it.) Do you think you have answers for the other atheistic arguments which can be found in any of our forums, and may be ably presented by hundreds of our regular posters?

If you were once truly a convinced atheist, and you found answers to the myriad problems I and all the other skeptics here find with Christianity (of whatever stripe or interpretation), you have here a marvellous platform to present them.

Let me issue you a small challenge- I doubt your ability to convince a single one of the unbelievers here that your belief is logical, rational, or justified. If you are so confident of your debating ability, surely you can show one person here your belief is at least defensible, if not absolute truth. We are open to rational discourse- can you do this? If you can, you will be the first.

Hired Gun · 06-20-2003, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goober
Hired Gun, you are obviously very arrogant to presume that no atheists have ever followed their position through to its logical conclusion etc. etc....

Don't take this personally, but although I immensely enjoy responding to posts like those made by Korihor, Jobar, Defiant, Jinto, and to a lesser extent, Bill Snedden, I can't spend all of my time answering posts. I don't eat goobers when I can have steak.

A.S.A. Jones

Cipher Girl · 06-20-2003, 11:55 PM

Quote:

The atittude of the 5 year old in question isn't about morality but more about correctly assessing his or her situation. My five year old daughter has this attitude and she is very smart to have it, because she would indeed be in big trouble if she doesn't do what she is told. So, I agree that if one interprets the Bible to be literally true, they would believe that they would be in big trouble if they don't do as God tells them. I also believe that they would be justified in their fear.

I think it has everything to do with morals. How can one be justified in saying they have a superior moral code if they only do the right thing under fear of the constant threat of punishment? Contrast this with someone who simply does the right thing because it makes them feel happy to do good. No threats, no rewards, no punishment. Now, which person has the better moral code?

Quote:

Any time a person reads a text or hears words, they have to process that information. Every process of information results in an interpretation of that information, even if the interpretation results in a literal understanding.

Of course everyone processes information whever they are presented with new information. But without a social context to process this information existing already, one would not be able to interpet anything. This must already exist before one can interpet something such as the bible. Only already having a moral code in place, could a religious person make any sort of a decision regarding the parts of the bible they will follow as a moral code.

Quote:

The fact that literature can be read and analyzed and graded speaks of the sufficiency of words. Yes, there will be differences in points of interpretation, but there are limits as to how far those interpretations can drift and still be considered honest in their attempts to convey the truth that is being presented.

How then would you interpet "Dash thy little one's heads against the stones."? Along with the dozens of others in the bible. I take this as advocating infanticide. What do you think? Or will you apply so much interpetation as to leave the phrase meaningless. What about the dozens of other verses in a similar vein?

Or just because whatever god orders is "right and moral" even if it involves infanticide? Is this what you are advocating? How then is this a better moral code? Why would I follow such a code, since it would conflict with my conscience?

Quote:

Don't take this personally, but although I immensely enjoy responding to posts like those made by Korihor, Jobar, Defiant, Jinto, and to a lesser extent, Bill Snedden, I can't spend all of my time answering posts. I don't eat goobers when I can have steak.

Actually some of the harder questions have been asked by some of the other posters. I'm curious, why the moniker "Hired Gun"?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-20-2003, 09:07 PM	#61
Goober Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Adelaide, Australia Posts: 1,202	Hired Gun, you are obviously very arrogant to presume that no atheists have ever followed their position through to its logical conclusion re ethics when you yourself have failed to do so with your own beliefs. You think that the bible provides an objective moral system, and yet you seem to ignore many of the assertions of the bible: Exodus 31:15-17 "Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the lord; whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day shall surely be put to death", Also, Exodus 35:1-3 confirms this with lines like: "These are the words which the lord hath commanded, that ye should do them" "whosoever doeth any work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations" So you agree that people should be put to death for working on Sundays? Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." Leviticus 20:9 "For everyone that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Deutronomy 21:18-21 This is too long to quote in full, but it explicitly says that if a child is disobediant "all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" Leviticus quotes a huge list of things that make people "unclean", such as menstruating. Leviticus 15:28-29 says that to become clean again, a woman must wait 7 days and then present 2 pigeons to a priest to be used as offerings. Do you do this? Leviticus 19:19 "I am the Lord. Ye shall keep keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed: neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together" <sarcasm>These are obviously wrong and immoral and should not be allowed.</sarcasm> Deuteronomy 13:2-10 Says people trying to convert you should be put to death, saying "And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to draw thee away from the lord thy god." Have you carried this out? Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Says "When men strive together, one with another, and the wife of one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity" Would you agree to uphold this? Oh, how about Deuteronomy 22:20-21 "But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel: then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die" Were the "tokens of virginity" found in you? Be careful, you may be stoned to death. I could continue for hours, but I think I've made my point. So, are you a complete hipocrite? It seems to me that you are completely ignoring what your own "objective moral system" has to say and are then accusing us of not taking things to their logical conclusion. And another thing: without independent proof that that god exists and the bible is his word, your moral system is based entirely on a book that all evidence tells us was just written by a buch of humans. Hardly an objective standard. And another thing: a moral system based on the word of god is one based on the subjective whims of a deity. How exactly is that objective again? And another thing: If atheists have no objective moral system, how does that mean they must have no moral system at all? There's no objective reason to make law that makes everyone drive on the right as opposed to a law that makes everyone drive on the left. Does that justify driving wherever you want?

06-20-2003, 10:52 PM	#68
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Hired Gun: I don't believe in moral absolutes. Reality, as I know it, consists of moral relativism and countless exceptions to any moral code. Christianity doesn't offer us a set of moral absolutes; it offers us a position of absolute righteousness when we submit to the will of its god. Submitting to the will of God isn't about following the letter of the law, which presents the impossible task of attempting to live by moral absolutes. It's about following the Spirit of the law, which is generated by developing the context of a divine personality. Er... so tell me, what is the difference between "a position of absolute righteousness" and "a set of moral absolutes"? I see none, myself. Isn't 'righteous' the same thing as 'moral'? Another thing. Just how are you determining the "will of God"? By your own individual interpretation of what the Bible says, right? Well, don't you also believe that your interpretation, made by your human intellect, is seriously flawed? Isn't it terrible hubris to believe that you are able to understand the "will of God" well enough to try to tell others- believers or unbelievers- what that will is? Finally, I point out to you that the only argument you have made so far is the moral one. (And have made no converts using it.) Do you think you have answers for the other atheistic arguments which can be found in any of our forums, and may be ably presented by hundreds of our regular posters? If you were once truly a convinced atheist, and you found answers to the myriad problems I and all the other skeptics here find with Christianity (of whatever stripe or interpretation), you have here a marvellous platform to present them. Let me issue you a small challenge- I doubt your ability to convince a single one of the unbelievers here that your belief is logical, rational, or justified. If you are so confident of your debating ability, surely you can show one person here your belief is at least defensible, if not absolute truth. We are open to rational discourse- can you do this? If you can, you will be the first.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.