Warcraft3

Hello Angrillori:

I must say I did enjoy reading what you had to say on the morality issue. I like it when people talk about things on a realistic, practical level and I see that element in your post. With that said, here is my response.....

Quite correct. But remember that the consequences may differ depending on the dynamics of the specific society. What is good or bad for survival could change with location or time. And that is subject to many different factors (level of technology, majority belief, etc).

True, although some people may have different definitions of "good" or "bad" for survival then the ones you or I have.


Well I think even here there is some subjectivety as to what is actually better for the survival of mankind as a species. Some things are obvious,while others are less obvious.

Right....but the problem here is that we can look at what is good for our short term survival or we can focus on long term survival. And while short term survival is necessary for long term survival, the reverse is obviously not necessary. So it depends on what you mean by survival. Survival of an individual or a group or a society or humanity as a whole.

Most people tend to focus on a rather narrow window (like them selves and their loved ones) rather than humanity as a whole.

In hindsight we can say something was or wasnt ACTUALLY better for survival, but its more difficult to do that when you are looking forward. So morality based on such a thing becomes subjective in the long run. If we could accurately predict all possible outcomes and know what people are/are not going to do, then I think we COULD have an objective basis using "survival" as the foundation, but since we can not we are still in the subjective realm.

Yes, but many societies have made decisions that have hindered their survival or even aided in the ruin of it.

People tend to do what is in their own best interest without considering "the greater good", and so they are without a doubt acting subjectively.

Even "the greater good" means different things to different people and so, it too, is subjective.




Russ

Warcraft3

Kruzkal:

Possibly, but I do not think it is likely. The explanations I have heard thus far on the origin of morals is highly vague and unsatisfying. But you did say "some" moral values and not "all" moral values.....so I guess I could agree that perhaps a few of them could be explained as such.

Quite correct. I do not claim that Theists have an objective basis for morality, although as a Theist I believe that my subjective foundation (God as revealed in scripture) is the best one out there.

But non-Theists view my basis as equal to their own in subjectivity, and some view it as even more subjective than the non-theists view.

So I wont tell you that you have no basis for morality or that you cant be moral, but of course I believe my basis is a better one. I would also say that your "inner conscience" (or whatever you want to call it) is of divine origin, and is not of a natural origin.

Of course these points are debatable and I am sure many here disagree with me in these areas. But that is how I see it as a Theist.


Russ

Heathen Dawn

DC, Biff,

there is truth in both your views. I suggest dealing with theists on a case-by-case basis: first, try DC's method of compassion and dispelling stereotypes, and then, if that doesn't work, debating them and "raising hell" like Biff advises.

Queen of Swords

I probably couldn't raise hell anyway, since my parents will be watching me to make sure that I'm nice. Part of the reason I want to debate is for them too - they're the lurkers who may very well be influenced by the discussion.

steadele : thanks for the good wishes. The meeting came about because my parents have to travel to another city every month to pick up my mother's chemotherapy medicine. Since it's a long trip, they always have lunch with these friends of theirs in that city. These friends are extremely religious - every room of their house, including the bathroom, has some plaque/wall-hanging/picture about Jesus - and either they have inquired into my viewpoint or my parents have brought up the matter themselves. Therefore, when this month's trip came up, the friends decided that they would like to take advantage of their captive audience. My parents, who have never been happy about my atheism, gladly assented.

To cut a long story short, mission = conversion. Target = me. Time frame = three hours. Probability of success = different people may want to put different values here.

I don't request these kinds of meetings because it's a policy of mine not to bring up the topic of religion with strangers. You never know how they'll react, and while I don't care about pissing off fundies here, I do care that fundies IRL might be my parents' friends.

As to the moral argument....it is not one I personally use as a Christian. To say that a person can not be moral and good without God or religious belief is ridiculous.

My uncle, who is possibly the most intelligent person in my family, thinks that stories like Noah's Ark are absolute nonsense. But in order to give his children a solid moral foundation, he's sending them to Sunday School, where they will learn stories like Noah's Ark.

I don't even know where to start with that one.

Queen of Swords

Kruzkal -

Excellent points, and thank you so much for the references! I have marked them down in my getting-very-worn KJV, which of course I will take to the debate - I had my pick of the bible, Why people believe weird things, All the questions you ever wanted to ask American Atheists with all the answers, The X-Rated bible and Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism.

In the debate divert the attention to his beliefs instead of yours . Afterall there are more to talk about in beliefs than the lack of it. Also he can't convert you when he is busy questioning his own beliefs.

Indeed. The focus will be solidly on his own beliefs and whatever merit they have in a cool light of rationality and common sense, rather than a rosy glow of "preach it brother!"

Warcraft3

Hey there QueenofSwords:

What made ya pick that user name anyway?

***Note: Text in blue is something I said in a previous post***

LOL I see. They are trying to "set you up" in a way.

Such planned attempts at conversion are rarely successful for several reasons. I have noticed through my own experience that when the Holy Spirit (I realize you dont believe in this stuff but bear with me here for the sake of discussion) truly leads a Christian to talk to someone (about anything) the discussion is rarely planned in such a deliberate way.

So I would say the chances of you converting because of this meeting are slim indeed. I would also be wary of anyone who converted based purely on an argument or something of an "evidential" nature. Truly becoming a Christian is a combination of various things and argument and evidence is just a piece of that pie. But who knows.....God has surprised me in the past...maybe something will happen to you on Monday none of us (including myself) expect to happen.

Yeah I know what you mean. I am often surprised at how incapable people are at having an unemotional discussion about religion or politics. People actually get personally offended and are unable to seperate their emotions from the discussion.

I find it rather disturbing and so I do not often discuss things with anyone other than close friends (several of whom are atheists).


Ug. Im not even gonna touch that one except to say.......Interesting


Russ

Queen of Swords

[QUOTE]Originally posted by steadele
What made ya pick that user name anyway?



The Queen of Swords represents an intellectual, sharp-witted woman who's really difficult to deceive. Of course, I'm often difficult, period.

So I would say the chances of you converting because of this meeting are slim indeed.

The way I saw it, steadele, is "if I've been exposed to theists of all types on this board for seven years, and yet have never converted, why should I do so now?"

And it's not as though all the theists were intolerant fundamentalists. Some, such as Helen, seebs, spurly and Rev. Joshua, are people whom I like/admire for various reasons. I think they're great company. I just have no desire to believe the same thing they do - if indeed they all believe the same thing.

Maybe it will clarify matters if I mention that I used to be a christian. I was baptized a catholic, but when I was sixteen, I became born-again, and stayed that way for a couple of years until I couldn't take fundamentalism any more. Having once walked the walk and talked the talk, I don't wish to do it again.

People actually get personally offended and are unable to seperate their emotions from the discussion.

I told my parents, "I respect people. I respect people's right to hold beliefs. But I don't see why I should respect those beliefs."

They said, "You should respect his beliefs anyway."

Fine way to start a discussion, putting a cork on the end of my sword.

Biff the unclean

Biff, I am not going to convince you and frankly I don't care to try.
Well, you could convince me if you could show me where you tactics have ever worked. Instead you point me towards groups who each tried your tactics. Each failed by using them. And each changed to pro-active tactics and succeeded. I was there I saw it happen. You claim it didn't, though what you base that on has yet to be shown

You are a fundamentalist atheist.
Name calling�very nice.
I'm one of those "uppity" Atheists that don't know their place.
Were we Blacks talking about civil rights for blacks the name I would call you back is "Uncle Tom."

I can no more convince you that fairness and equity are ways that we will best get along with believers than I can convice the fundamentalists that there is no god. I do not care to do either.
When in the history of Christianity has Atheists behaving politely caused Christians to return the favor?

You can go off and chant "Kill Fundie" while invoking the ghost of Malcolm X and I'll stick with MLK.
Lordy, lordy, lordy, aptly named "Chicken", you are sure full of yourself. When did King ever advocate meekness and servility? He advocated shows of strength and numbers. He advocate protests, sit ins, boycotts. He advocated being heard and not hoping for his rights, as if they were a present because he was a good little darky. He demanded his rights. The only change he wanted to come about in Blacks was that they start having pride in themselves.
I'm not chanting "Kill Fundie", I'm sure you only added that for effect since you have nothing real to say. I'm saying not to take any guff from Fundy. I'm saying to have pride.

Nowhere357

Happened to me just the other day.

If you poke someone in the eye or hit them with a stick, they are less likely to be interested in what you have to say.

Biff the unclean

Quite correct. I do not claim that Theists have an objective basis for morality, although as a Theist I believe that my subjective foundation (God as revealed in scripture) is the best one out there.

When you look at any group of animals that live in a pack or herd they all have morals. Morals loosely meaning behavior that enables the pack to be a cohesive unit thereby improving the safety of any given member. So to a sardine morals would mean turning when the school turned and not eating other sardines, while to an elephant morals would be very complicated social relations.
To be their most effective morals must concern the group itself.
Yet when morals are based on religious beliefs their main focus becomes the support of the religion with the welfare of the group being of secondary importance. You find the same thing happening under tyrants where the focus of morality is the state instead of the people.
While these forms of morals, IMO, work they cannot work as well as human centered morality.