Mageth

Woops - hit the quote button instead of the edit button...

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
Lot'sof people have to go to work, drive, etc. But no one's forcing atheists to spend their time discussing the things they "lack belief in."

Why the quotes? Are you still claiming that I, as an atheist, must really deep down inside believe in god?

And no one's forcing atheists to spend time talking to Christians and other religious sorts about their religion, either.

Atheists are doing this because they need the support of their fellow atheists.

You have no idea why I or anyone else is "doing this". And there's a variety of reasons atheists come here and sometimes even discuss religion; earlier on this thread I listed several reasons that I come here to do that. And one reason atheists come here may indeed be to seek support from fellow atheists. Trying to live a rational life amidst the superstitions of this world can be a tiring task. But what is wrong with seeking support from the like-minded? An atheists going to Christians for support is useless - they tend to recommend you do useless things like pray to an imaginary God and read the mythical bible.

Besides, do you never seek the support of your fellow theists?

Mageth

Originally posted by Mageth
The basis for objective morality is found throughout the bible. I highly recommend that you begin there.

Now that's a laugh, and a dodge. I've been there, and so have thousands of others that have created hundreds if not thousands of different, subjective moral systems from it.

So where is this "objective morality" based on the Bible that, being objective, should be external to people's interpretations and thus easily recognized, agreed upon, and commonly held by all?

For example, how can I tell from the Bible if it is right or wrong to kill my child if he curses me? How can I tell from the Bible if terrorism or genocide is right or wrong? How can I tell from the Bible that slavery is wrong?

So I'm still waiting for you to provide support or evidence for the supposed objective basis for morality you said should be clear to us all.

Keith

The fact that you will interpret the bible only for your own convenience is not proof that the bible (or God) is lacking objective morality. I don't accept that BECAUSE various people having different agendas--many of them hostile to God, means that there cannot be one, and only one correct interpretation of it.

Mageth

I wanted to go back and address something (a strawman, and the natural fallacy to boot) that Keith said earlier:

It seems that on your world view, it must be completely natural for human beings to rape and kill each other, make war, impose slavery, and so forth.

Absolutely not. In the evolution of social systems, both for humans and for other species, such things often run counter to survival, and will be selected against.

For example, take "killing each other". One only has to look at many social (and even non-social) species to see that, for most species, intraspecies killing is relatively uncommon. This indicates that killing others of your own species may be detrimental to survival and reproductive opportunity, and thus may be selected against.

A greatly simplified example of survival strategies may serve to illustrate why. Say 50% of a species are agressive towards other members of their species, and 50% are passive, but defend themselves when attacked. On average, all are about the same strength, and therefore an encounter is on average a "fair fight".

The agressive members attack any other member of their species they encounter. However, there's a 50% chance they themselves will be killed in such an attack, as all other members of their species defend themselves when attacked.

The passive members don't attack when they encounter others of their species, but they do defend themselves when attacked by an agressive member, and stand a 50% chance of being killed in such an attack, and a 50% chance of surviving by killing the agressive attacker.

Therefore, the agressive members will stand a 50% chance of being killed in each encounter with other members of their species, while the passive members will stand a 50% chance of being killed in only half of their encounters with other members of their species (when two passives meet, they sniff each other's asses and go about their merry way).

Passivity-defensiveness, therefore, is a superior survival strategy, and passive-defensive members will soon outnumber and possibly even totally replace agressive members.

Other strategies such as passive-run away/avoid other members may also be advantageous.

Note that attackers risk injury even if victorious and, in nature, any relatively serious injury may lead to death, and therefore even some of the victories may result in an injury that may prove fatal.

Also note that an attacker may, in killing, kill his own offspring or potential mates.

Also note that passive members may develop a new strategy not available to purely agressive members - travelling in groups of two or more, giving great defensive advantage against solitary agressives. Purely agressive members will always be, by definition, solitary.

Keith

And yet you say that it is NOT natural for humans to commit murder, make war, enslave people, and so on, yet humans have a long history of doing this all over the world!

What is it (in evolutionary and survival terms), that is so different about human beings that causes them to murder, make war, and enslave people? What period in human history were you referring to when you claimed that it is NOT natural for human beings to be doing such things? Why don't humans--by far the most intelligent species, realize that it's in their own survival interests to get along with each other?

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
The fact that you will interpret the bible only for your own convenience is not proof that the bible (or God) is lacking objective morality.

Again with the strawmen. I didn't say I would "interpret the bible only for [my] own convenience". I said that it's impossible to interpret the bible objectively - the proof is in the pudding.

I don't accept that BECAUSE various people having different agendas--many of them hostile to God,

I'm not talking about those interpretations from those "hostile to God" (I don't know anyone who is "hostile to God", BTW). I'm talking about the hundreds if not thousands of interpretations by those who, like you, claim to have the "correct" notion of God and his supposedly objective morals.

...means that there cannot be one, and only one correct interpretation of it.

OK, one more time - what is it, and how many "godly" people, equally as sincere as you, disagree with your subjective take on what that "one and only one correct interpretation" is? Like everyone else, the only way you have available to determine that "correct" interpretation is through your own subjective judgment.

Keith

Are you sure this is a fallacy?

Keith

Keith: "You are treading on dangerous ground. Does a "social norm" equal moral rightness?"

Mageth: "Quite often, IMO. For example, many religious people think homosexuality is wrong because it's not the "social norm" and goes against "nature" or "god's law". Public nudity is also considered "wrong" in the U.S. due to a "social norm". Recently, public smoking has become "wrong" due to a "social norm".

Keith: "Which culture's "social norms" are most morally correct, Saudi Arabia's or America's? How do you know?"

Mageth: "Obviously, Saudi Arabia's social norms are "correct" for their society, and the U.S.'s social norms are "correct" for our society. They do things that we consider wrong, and we do things that they consider wrong. So neither you nor I should make a "universal" judgment on which is more "morally correct".

If we want a moral system that's "correct" for all societies, then we'll have to reach a global consensus on what that moral system is. Work has already begun on that, but there's a long way to go."

Keiths response:

So if the enslaving of Africans was the "social norm" at one time, then at that time slavery was not morally wrong? Would slavery have been wrong in ANY sense back then?

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
And yet you say that it is NOT natural for humans to commit murder, make war, enslave people, and so on, yet humans have a long history of doing this all over the world!

When did I say that? Do I smell another strawman?

Anyway, way more often than not, those things are done in the name of, or with the support of, religions, including your own.

ONE MORE TIME: Do a little research on the Natural Law Fallacy. We, as humans, are not bound or restricted to act according to "Nature". Just because it's "natural" to go naked doesn't mean we should go naked, and just because it's not "natural" to drive a car doesn't mean we shouldn't drive cars.

And, even if it is not “natural” for humans to do the things you listed doesn’t mean that humans are restricted by nature from doing them.

What is it (in evolutionary and survival terms), that is so different about human beings that causes them to murder, make war, and enslave people?

Actually, all those things occur in one form or another in nature in other species (well, they enslave other species, not people).

What period in human history were you referring to when you claimed that it is NOT natural for human beings to be doing such things?

I don't recall claiming that (another strawman); if you think I did, then you've misunderstood what I've been saying. It's you that appear to be claiming it's "natural" to kill, make war, and rape; I've pointed out over and over again that you're committing the Natural Law Fallacy when you do so. Even if it is natural to do so doesn't mean we should do so, or will do so if we don't follow the guidelines of some imaginary being. As humans, we're capable of overcoming the "natural" way and doing many things in "unnatural" ways.

Why don't humans--by far the most intelligent species, realize that it's in their own survival interests to get along with each other?

Sheesh, it should be clear from this thread that at least some of us, most of us actually, do realize just that. The ones that don't realize it seem to be of the religious sort more often than not. Go figure.