ManM

Jagged Little Pill,
No, it does harm the person who lost. Whether that harm is justified is another question, and really beside the point. I made the claim that harming someone can be in your interests. In the case of a lawsuit, you are harming someone and directly reaping a benefit. My observation stands.

I am aware that there are a host of reasons to not commit mass murder. However, even if all those reasons were to disappear, I would consider murder for entertainment purposes to be immoral. If someone wants to murder someone and knows with relative certainty that they can get away with it, a moral theory based on self-interest does not label that murder as immoral. Therein rests the tension.

Yes. Such a person might be pointing out an opposition between what the self emotionally feels about morality and what the self intellectually believes about morality.

Jamie_L

ManM,

Sorry for the post delay - family illness. With the left-over stress, I think I'm going to be dropping out of this debate for the time being. Just didn't want you to think I was dissin' ya.

Later,

Jamie

ManM

Jamie,
No problem. I wish you and your family well!

Take care,
Matt

Jagged

Let's use the scale of Lady Justice as an analogy. If I have wronged you, I've tipped the scale in MY favor unfairly. I've taken advantage of you for my own personal gain, and now I have more than you. The perogative of the justice system is to level the inequality and correct the injustice, NOT to harm the guilty party. The guilty person is only paying back what was never rightfully hers in the first place.

luvluv

Valmorian:

The ad populum fallacy applies to arguments, not to evidence. If I presented a proof of God's existence to you which used the ad populum fallacy, then my argument would indeed be unsound. If I stated that because everyone believes in God then God must exist, that argument would be unsound. But if I simply say that the fact that many people believe they communicate with God constitutes EVIDENCE for his existence, their is no logical fallacy committed. There is a difference between evidence for a position and forming a formal argument in support of that position. There are perhaps no sound arguments in favor of the existence of God (not very surprising because there are no sound arguments for the existence of material objects or other minds, to name only a few) but that does not mean there is no EVIDENCE for God's existence, even if that evidence cannot be formulated into a formal argument.

I mean, if 100 people go to court and say that they all saw me beat somebody up on Sunday afternoon, I'd be in bad shape if my lawyer responded with "That's an ad populum fallacy!" Yes, it is true that 100 people saying they saw me commit an act does not necessarily mean that I did the act, but it is EVIDENCE that I did the act.

cau:

Well, maybe you should be me because you clearly stated in one page what it has taken me five to say.

JLP:

Well first, and most importantly, I am a man. Secondly, I do not know. They probably agree on most major points more than they disagree, but every religion has extenuating factors within their beliefs that change the moral system a bit. I think theology has a lot to do with some moral calls. I'm sure that both you and I agree that killing children is wrong, but where we might differ on abortion is that I think a fetus is a child and you do not. This is an example of how the basic belief of not killing children gets complicated when aspects of our theology get involved. We both agree that children should not be killed, but we disagree as to what constitutes a child.

But again, I never claimed that any theists moral positions were CORRECT, only that they were rational justified. That wasn't even my main contention, however, which was that the atheist's moral positions are not.

Well, people kill each other over ideology, period. The cold war, for example, probably killed more people in this century than religious wars. Tribalism in Africa has claimed the lives of tens of millions of people. I don't think getting rid of religion will help a whole lot. Religion also has the potential to unify large areas of the world. It has good effects, too, you know. Religion can be practiced without violence. This country has tens of millions of church goers whose faith does not cause them to kill or fight over their beliefs. I think most "religous" wars have political or social or economic roots. Religion can play a role in escalating such conflicts, but rarely in human history have people really resorted to violence SOLELY over theological disputes. Usually there was land or resources in dispute (as with the Crusades and the current Arab-Isreali conflict... it's more about land than religion).

I don't really think so. People are people, after all. Who knows, though.

Aerik Von

Not true, we can justify or morals with cause/effect more than "God says no". My morals are simply based on watching the reactions of my behaviours - if I feel bad about hurting someone - I won't do it.

I see the good in the basis of some of what religion laid down - but simple cause/effect solutions reflect it so much better.

ManM

Jagged Little Pill,
Let's say Bill steals 10$ from Jim. Jim then sues Bill for 10$ and reclaims his money. We consider Bill's first action to be harmful because he has taken money from Jim. In order to remain consistent, we should also say that Jim did harm to Bill when he took the money back. He took money from Bill, did he not? My claim is simply that causing harm can be in a person's interests. It was to Jim's benefit that he took 10$ from Bill through a lawsuit, was it not? Is taking 10$ from a person against their will not considered harmful to that person? For the purposes of my claim, it does not matter if the harm was justified (paying back what was already stolen). It is quite obvious that harm is being done, and that action is in the interests of the person imposing the harm. My observation stands.

Jagged

Great point Aerik

luvluv - My apologies. Lemme get this straight. Your whole argument here is based on the idea that theism does have rationality and atheism does not, however you do not KNOW exactly what the beliefs of various theists are or if they agree or disagree with each other. Wouldn't agreement of theistic beliefs be a prerequisite for RATIONALITY? Can 2+4=4 AND 5 in a reasonable argument? If you still deny the importance of agreement, you'd better give me your definition of rationality cuz I don't think we're speaking the same language!

World religions agree on most major points, eh? hmm. May i take this opportunity to verify that you are indeed an inhabitant of planet EARTH? World religions do not agree on most major points. As was recently pointed out in another discussion, some Arab Muslims lock up women who've had premarital sex for the rest of their lives. Most Christians do not advocate premarital sex but do not sentence people to prison over it. Tantric Buddhists celebrate sex as a way to merge with the divine. Would you call this agreement?

It seems all that is required for your definition of "rational morality" is belief in SOME sort of god. So if I told you I worship Bugs Bunny and nothing else about me or my morality changes, THEN I am rational? You have made several unfounded assumptions. I have not discussed infanticide nor abortion here. I have no theology. I have not agreed with you. I have not given any indication of what I believe constitutes a child. You are attempting to build an argument out of thin air. It's very convenient for you, isn't it, if you only agree to discuss one side of your hypothesis. Your "main contention," as you say, is that atheists do not have a rational morality. Yet you don't want to talk about the other side, which asserts that theists ARE rational moralists. That's really fair, luvluv. We only get to question those of your assertions that you say we can?

What is the damned use of theistic morals and "rational justification" (as per your definition, not mine) if the variations among the moral codes of theistic groups prevent any sort of general consensus about morality, and in fact often conflict and lead to violent disagreements?

I realize you seem unable to accept that there could be a rational atheistic morality. I'm just not convinced that your own theism has any rationalism of it's own. And if it doesn't, your argument becomes absurdist. What is the difference between theology and the ideology of theists? You seem to be arguing that theism involves a comprehensive moral code. How do you determine whether the morals of a theist are theology or ideology?

The Cold War killed more people than religious wars, hmm... sorry to tell you... THERE WERE NO CASUALTIES IN THE "COLD WAR"!!! It was just a euphamism!

The overwhelming majority of Africans, including Rwandans, are/were Christian. You suggested earlier that your theism tells you that killing children is wrong. Why, if the beliefs of theists are so similar, did this not stop the slaughter of children and adults alike in Rwanda? They all would've professed to belief in god. Were they not true Christians? If this is not a true APPLICATION of belief, then who gets to decide what is? Why should I still believe theism to be rational and consistent in its morality if these people were theists as well? Thank you for your opinion. Would you like to back it up? Really. Like Cortez unified the Aztecs and brought them all under the authority of the Catholic church? What a wonderful kind of unification that was. In fact a large percentage of today's "Christian" nations today were originally "converted" in a similar manner. If religion is so unifying why are the Palestinians and the Jews (both extremely relious groups) killing each other with undying vehemence? Why is not religion unifying them? And if for religion to unify people it must be the SAME religion, how do we choose which religion to use? I doubt most people would be interested in changing gods just for the purpose of unity. Hmm. I'd like to share with you a quote from Pat Buchanan, leader of the very influential and widely supported Christian Coalition: Sound peaceful to you? Do you know how many Christians listen to this man? Do you know that one of the most successful moves of the Nazi propoganda machine was to paint the Jews as the "rats" of society? If not violent in and of itself, violence is at the heart of this message. Would you like to ask the Arabs and Isrealis if it is not really about religion? Or does their opinion not count? Once again, are you sure you have the right planet here? Northern Ireland? Not theological? The Reformation? Thirty Years' War? Salem Witch Trials? Spanish Inquisition? Jamas? Jihad?

This is an eyewitness account of the St. Bartholemew's Day Massacre in Paris, August 18, 1572: (the Huguenots were a group of Reformation Calvinists who were vandalizing Catholic churches and destroying idols. They had not harmed or killed any Catholics) Click the link for more stories of violence and religion. If this is rationality, you can have it.

MM - We're both missing the point here. The point is that I, as an atheist, see a rationale for treating people fairly which exists independant from any belief in god. Maybe if you were an atheist you would not hold the same belief, but I do.

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Jagged Little Pill ]</p>

ManM

Jagged Little Pill,
I am not claiming that an atheist cannot be moral. I am not claiming that a person who believes self-interest is the basis of morality cannot be moral. I am saying that a theory of morality based on self-interest does not necessarily answer the tough moral questions, and therefore is not a good theory. At the very least, I would expect a moral theory to condemn killing for pleasure no matter what a person happens to feel about the matter. Self-interest does not guarantee this conclusion. And so I find all theories of morality based on self-interest to be problematic. Furthermore, I am not quite sure an atheist can reasonably hold to a theory not based on self-interest. That leads me to conclude that atheism is not an accurate position.

Again, I am not saying that an atheist cannot be moral. Jamie_L's original point disproves that claim. Your rational for treating people fairly may work just fine for you, but the same moral reasoning fails to universally condemn killing for pleasure.

luvluv

Jagged:

I consider the Vietnam War (in which, counting Cambodia, more people were killed than during WWII), and the Korean War to have been causalties of the Cold War. They were victims of the ideology war between capitalism and communism. When I say "Cold War" I do not strictly mean a war between the USSR and the USA, I mean any conflict between the ideologies of communism and capitalism. You could also include a lot of casualties in Central America with the Contras and Sandinistas and what not into this mix, but as I am not familiar with the numbers on those conflicts I won't bother.

With all due respect, you seem to be expanding my point far beyond the boundaries it was intended to address. THe substance of this debate which has spanned several threads was about the epistemological basis of our morality. The question was how do we know what we know about our morality.

My basic point was two-fold:

1) Atheists have no rational grounds on which to base their moral codes. Therefore, if they were to judge any moral belief by the same standards by which they judge the existence of God, to be consistent they would have to deny all of their moral beliefs.

2) That theists can maintain that there morals are rationally justified because there is, within theistic beliefs, a logically sound mechanism for verifying value statements and moral behavior. No such mechanism is even possible within atheism.

Thus, taken together, my main point is that the theist's moral beliefs can be rationally justified while the atheist's cannot.

I certainly can discuss other comments, but I am not obligated to defend any other position because I never claimed anything else.

All your statements are interesting, but they don't affect my original argument at all.

Yes, JLP, opposing beliefs can both be rationally justified. For instance, take the case of a man falsely accused of a crime. There could be enough circumstantial evidence (the presence of the victims blood on his person, the murder weapon in his possesion, a strong motive) so that an unbiased observer would be rationally justified in believing that person to be guilty of a crime. Yet that person may have personal experience of having NOT actually committed the crime. In such a case, both people are fully rationally justified in their beliefs. All rationally justified beliefs are not correct. You are perhaps rationally justified in your atheism, but it could still be wrong. Similarly, a religious person could be rationally justified in believing in a certain moral principle, and he could still be wrong.

But the essential point is that if you are an atheist who does not believe in God because belief in his existence cannot be rationally justified, you should not have any belief that cannot be rationally justified at all.

Well, it's not about you being rational, it's about your supposed commitment to only holding rationally justified beliefs. If you contended that Bugs Bunny was omniscient, and that Bugs Bunny held knowledge that agreed with your morality, your morality would indeed be rationally justified. It might still be wrong, but it would have a basis which could be upheld through the use of logical argumentation. Your position now has no such possibility.

By theology I only meant worldview. I am not attempting to build an argument out of thin air, I was simply trying to give an illustration as to how circumstantial differences can cause apparent disagreement among religioon, while the underlying premise is still agreed upon.

No, but I would suggest that you can only question the assertions that I actually make. I never asserted that theistic morality was better or that it had unanimous agreement, only that it was rationally justified. I don't even to happen to think it's a big deal that theistic morality can be justified and atheistic morality cannot, I only point it out to atheists because they claim not to believe in anything that has no rational justification. I don't even consider it to be a big point for "our team", but it does point out the inconsistencies in the atheist position, and points to the absurdity of the notion that a person should not believe what they cannot prove.

We can't even provide a rational proof that material objects exist.

None, my friend. The fact is really of no use at all to the theist. But it does point out a serious flaw in the atheist position. The problem is yours.

I'll accept that there is one as soon as you prove to me that one exists.

No, what I am saying is that people kill each other over ideologies that have nothing to do with religion, and the Cold War is the best example of that fact. People fight and kill for the ideology of monarchy, democracy, communism, capitalism, tribalism, nationalism, etc. None of these are theistic at all. Killing over an idea is somewhat intrinsic to the human condition, the idea may involve God or it may not, and people will still be willing to fight and die for it if it means enough to them.

Not that this has anything to do with anything, but I will address one aspect of your assumption. A Christian is a person who has made a personal commitment to serve God through acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Savior. There is simply no way for you or anyone else to know what percentage of or number of Christians there were involved in the Rwandan genocide.

You should be aware that if the Almanac were doing a survey of religious beliefs in this country, you would probably be classified as a Christian by default if you were not a registered member of another major religion.

Moreover, your point about the Rwandans is useless unless you can justify the claim that (i) in order to be rationally justifed, all moral beliefs must be consistently practiced by their adherents.

That is false. A moral principle could be rationally justified even if I fail to uphold it. I could believe murder to be wrong, and have that belief justified by God's agreement with it. Even if I were to subsequently murder a thousand people, the belief that murder was wrong would still be rationally justified.

But again, this beside the point. With all due respect, you are the one making arguments out of thin air. The central premise of my argument has been strictly epistemolgical. You are trying to turn this thread into a war against all religion.

I thought I did. 1) People kill each other over ideologies that have no theistic basis. 2) More people have been killed in the last century from these non-theistic ideologies than from religion. 3) Most religious wars have existential causes (land, power, wealth, nationalism, etc).

I doubt you and I would have much disagrement on Pat Buchanan. Beyond that, I don't know what this is supposed to prove at all. The statement was not very violent (I've heard worse said against theists on this very forum - check the just war thread). Beyond that, the simple statement that I made is pretty uncontroversial. There are tens of millions of committed Christians in this country and generally speaking they don't kill large numbers of people over moral and theological disagreements.

How often did Jews and Muslims fight before 1955? Did you know that Jews used to prefer Muslim countries before that time because they recieved better treatment than they did in Christian countries (much to our shame)?

Kind of an odd coincidence, don't you think, that all of their theological disputes came to a head at the same time that Isreal was handed a huge chunk of their land?

Almost nothing in your posts deals with my central assertion... that if you, as an atheist, only believe things that can be rationally justified, which is to say proven by way of argument, then you have no right holding any moral principle or value statement to be correct.

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>