excreationist

This is very long. It is a continuation of a discussion in a <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000587&p=4" target="_blank">RR&P thread</a>. It is a discussion between me, the atheist, and Douglas, the Christian. Sometimes I included my previous quotes in bold. Then I replied to what he said. So it is probably the Christians' turn for this discussion...

==================
Atheism can imply that bacteria are more important than humans, have equal value, have less value or both lifeforms could be seen as equally worthless. Subjective morality means that any of those opinions are valid, but it doesn't mean that the only possible opinion is that humans and bacteria have equal importance. You seem to be saying that the only logical moral implication of atheism is that bacteria and humans have equal worth. But all of those previously mentioned options equally follow from the idea of subjective morality.

I see now that you said "atheism implies that humans are no better than bacteria"... it can imply that... because in some moralities humans are equal or less important than bacteria, but in some subjective moralities (including all the people that I know of), humans are seen as being more important than bacteria.

Well is it objectively moral or immoral to work on the Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday)? Is it objectively moral or immoral to worship God other than Yahweh? Is it objectively moral or immoral to divorce... and remarry? Is it objectively moral or immoral to own a slave (assuming your country's laws permit it)? Is it objectively moral or immoral to beat a child with a rod if they disobey you? What about killing a witch?

Yeah... disobedience really upsets him - so that's probably why he makes non-repentant sinners suffer in an eternal fire.

I said "God tells people NOT to kill their neighbours"! But the Israelites did massacre many neighbouring nations. And when people were worshipping the Golden Calf, the Levites were ordered to kill the offenders - including their friends(?) and family.

I used the word massacre, not murder. BTW, other sinners that God commanded is people to kill were those who
- attack either of their parents (Exodus 21:15)
- curse either of their parents (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9)
- works on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15, 35:2)
- has sex with an animal (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15-16)
- commits adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
- commits incest (Leviticus 20:11-12)
- has sex with another man (Leviticus 20:13)
- is a witch/spiritist/medium (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
- blasphemes the name of the Lord (Leviticus 24:16) [that's why they wanted to kill Jesus]
- is a "prophet" that tells you to stop worshipping God (Deuteronomy 13:5)
- tells you to worship other Gods instead (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)
- is a false "prophet" that doesn't speak what God wants them to say or is speaking for other gods (Deuteronomy 18:20)

Ok, so God didn't enjoy carrying out those massacres, but as you said "God values people's obedience over their Earthly lives". But what if there is no afterlife and God's people have been killing others *permanently*? That wouldn't be a very loving thing to do. BTW, most of the priests in Jesus' time were Sadducees and they didn't believe in an afterlife (or intervention by God, or angels and demons). And when you said that unrepentant people would "lose their eternal lives", did you mean that they eventually cease to exist or that they just lose a place in Heaven (and burn eternally)?

This inequality wouldn't be as much as the inequality that Christians believe exist between them and their God.

On the subject of Jews, Germany's own Martin Luther wrote an interesting book called <a href="http://www.awitness.org/books/luther/luther_jews/15_treat.html" target="_blank">The Jews and their Lies</a>. And about morality - I think all systems of morality can be summed up using <a href="http://www.ccp.uchicago.edu/grad/Joseph_Craig/kohlberg.htm" target="_blank">Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development</a>. If God is considered to be a person, then a person who obeys God's orders because they want to be good is in <a href="http://www.ccp.uchicago.edu/grad/Joseph_Craig/kohlberg.htm#stage3" target="_blank">stage 3</a>. If they obey just to escape hell, they are in <a href="http://www.ccp.uchicago.edu/grad/Joseph_Craig/kohlberg.htm#stage1" target="_blank">stage 1</a>.

Well some people can be in <a href="http://www.ccp.uchicago.edu/grad/Joseph_Craig/kohlberg.htm#stage6" target="_blank">stage 6</a> and believe in relative equality for ALL people - like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. But so what if it was the majority's point of view? In earlier times in history it had been the majority's point of view in Christian societies that killing witches and keeping slaves was ok.

What about when God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son to him and an angel stopped Abraham at the last second? If Abraham had refused to obey God right from the start, he would be considered to be bad (from a O.T. point of view). And what about if someone stopped being a Christian and worshipped another God? According to the O.T., those people are very evil and must be put to death. Their new religion might involve love for all things and they might believe that they are embracing love rather than turning away from it.

If you were the President and had a chance to change the laws, would you try and bring back the death penalty (or a lesser penalty) for those offences? (doing any work on the Sabbath or worshipping other gods) After all, you did say "such sin does deserve death". Or would those offences that had been punishable by death have no punishment? And why do some states in the U.S. have the death penalty for some O.T. crimes (like murder) and not others? Doesn't God having the death penalty in the O.T. for various crimes (see earlier list) mean that those crimes are *equally* bad? Yet now, many of those crimes go unpunished... if you were President and had a high approval rating, which of those O.T. crimes listed earlier would be turned into crimes - and what do you think the punishment should be? You know that the Bible says it should be death. In the N.T., Jesus said to the crowd not to kill the adulteress because they also have sinned. So the woman got no punishment at all! Jesus only said that there should be no earthly punishment for adultery... how do you know that Jesus wants most of the other O.T. crimes to have no punishment? Why keep the death penalty for murder and not for witches, etc? I thought you wanted to follow God's commandments. In the O.T. he said those offenders *must* be put to death.

Yes, the *possibility* of an incredible status difference between persons is possible in the atheist world-view... but in Christianity, this is currently a *reality*.

I don't think it makes sense to say that one morality is more "important" than another... one morality might value universal equality more, or the family, or the writings in a book... they're basically just different. Since they would be more powerful they would rule over us, but we could still believe that the master-slave relationship is wrong - but maybe they'd brainwash us (and say they are like God). Then we'd happily serve them.

I said there *isn't* an objective reason.

Exactly... without objective morality, there are no universal "shoulds". The powerful can rule over the weak but from *my own* point of view *I* think it would be good if they powerful are nice treat the weak like equals.

I brought God into it because I thought your point about morality possibly involving humans being treated as inferior to something else is hypocritical.

On Earth and in Heaven, humans are inferior to God. They have to do as they are told. If they don't, they are ultimately punished. Yes, God might have love, respect and patience for people, but humans are able to treat mice the same way (as pets).

Sin means that our will is inferior to God's. If we disagree with God, is it US that are the sinners. Having "wicked hearts" means disagreeing with God - perhaps in major ways like about murder being bad. Repentance involves acknowledging your inferiority. Since we are punished for our disagreements with God (sins) and not God, that means we are inferior to God. Acknowledging this punishment partly means acknowledging this inferiority.

So God has the power to forgive and dish out punishments - he's superior. If anything goes wrong, it is the fault of the human. They're inferior. How dare they disagree with God! Although my quote was shorter than your clarification, I think it is an adequate summary of yours. Though yours makes God look better - mine makes him look worse.

I don't mean that God treats people exactly like humans treat mice... I just meant that a massive difference in status between the two types of beings.

And therefore there are NO specific moral implications of atheism... bacteria could be superior to humans, humans could be superior to bacteria, humans could be superior some of the time, they could be equally important - or equally worthless.

And I spent about an hour or two...

I'm super... thanks for asking.

I don't believe in Christ although some teacher similar to Jesus might have existed.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

scumble

It seems these discussions miss out on the experience element. Humans develop their morality based on what works. It should be obvious that killing people is a terrible thing to do. You can find so many reasons for not doing it, based on the human reactions that result.
The trouble is, if Christians find reasons for, say, people staying in marriages, you don't need to do it just because God says so.

Vorkosigan

We DO NOT do this. "What works" is a value -- how would know something "worked" unless you had a value that defined success? Success is a value. Where does it come from?

Vorkosigan

excreationist

Well I did mention <a href="http://www.ccp.uchicago.edu/grad/Joseph_Craig/kohlberg.htm" target="_blank">Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development</a> in there... you would go through the stages depending on what works for people emotionally.

Samhain

Here's my reply to Doug's argument, I posted it in RRP before I saw your link.

Douglas:

No, Douglas, that's quite wrong. The reasons why we are higher than bacteria is the capacity for rational thought and the ability to establish our own morality, and while it may be universally subjective, there are plenty of examples as to how this is true in life regardless of your "God". I'd think that you'd agree that the Bible and its commandments are widely open to interpretation. Further, the Divine Command theory (in which you asserted that objective morality is established by "God") is inherently flawed for several reasons. 1. If "God's" standards for morality changes, then morality itself changes, thus it is possible for it to be perfectly fine with murder, raping, etc. and by that alone we can establish a coherent argument against the objectivity of such a morality. Now, can you establish that morality, as derived from the Bible, is not open to interpretation (whether it be personal or collective), or that the commandments in it do not allow for extenuating circumstances?

You just refuted your own statement there. If morality is dependent upon "God" (a being) then it is impossible for it to be objective.

Well, hmm. That's odd, my version of the Bible says "Thou shall not kill", well this brings up all kinds of new points to debate on, now, doesn't it?

So, rebellion from "God" would mean the eventual smiting of the masses, and at the same time, we are supposed to have free will. Now, if you'd agree that free will is not present, then this argument is pointless and easily refuted.

While some may not adhere to what we can know of as truth, the fact of the matter is that such a system is possible and not just ideological musings.

This argument here is ridiculous. First, there is no established way, through the Bible or in reality to derive that "God" is love or even loving for that matter. Further, how do you explain the idea that Ghandi, Einstein, Socrates, etc. etc. etc. would be burning in hell right now regardless of their contributions but just because they didn't believe in your "God"?

I have trouble coping with the fact that you can actually believe this nonsense. To refute your argument you don't have to look any further than the argument itself. You say "Why?" I say "Why not?" Our morality serves purpose for the human race, for what reason should we adhere to a morality that most likely has the purpose of serving whomever the morality is derived from? If "God" establishes our morality, what reason have we to believe that he establishes our morality for the purpose of serving man in the best way possible? It is far more likely that such a morality is established to serve "God's" purposes rather than serving man's. Now for what reason do we have to believe that this is any more correct than us establishing our own morality?

Where's the evidence for these largely unsupported assertions?

I call bullshit. Like I said before, explain why someone like Ghandi would be burning in hellfire right now? For some reason I don't buy the idea that he was a "wicked" person. Your argument keeps destroying itself, I can't see how you'd expect to be treated with respect with fallacious arguments such as the one's you've presented.

WTF? You know perfectly well the implications of many theistic worldviews as well. What about the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. etc. While you've brought implications to the table about atheists and our "world-view", we can start bringing facts and results to the table as to what happens with a theistic worldview. Sorry, man, your argument sucks.

In Reality,
Samhain

jenn

I do not want to argue with anyone on this forum!! I have to say that everyone has a different concept and or perception of life and the existence there of. Why does there have to be a hell fire and people burning for all eternity. The Bible does not say that "to me"!! I feel for the people that believe in this "hell". The Bible talks so much of light and darkness. People take the Bible and twist things to how they see fit!! Hell is a control technique, bringing people to fear to do good. Only until we look within ourself are we going to be able to actually discover this God that we as a society have been searching for. Take science, history, english, social studies, physics, math, algebra,the Bibles, etc....they all are here for us to study and seek knowledge for our "higher" understanding of existence.I think that all arguments I have seen yet on the forum does not reach our capabilities (human species) to the depth that it really deserves.

I also want to add that the Bible is a great tool to live by. But if (the christian) you truly believe that this is the inspired word of God then I believe you need to pray for the understanding of his word. Some of the intellects on this forum sound so gibberish to me. Some take a whole page to a make their point. Without their understanding of terminology, I am, somewhat confused and wonder if I am calculating their language on the same level as they are.When one reads the bible without getting to the depths of Gods language, it can be confusing as well. Obviously he is not seeing the world as we see it, we all see it differently!!

Astronomy, physics, genes, blood, brain, mind, the athiest cannot come out of all this without believing in something! If you didn't believe in yourself, you would get depressed and die!

And if the Christian would belive in what the heart and intuition tell it to believe in, only then do you have a complete understanding. So many Christian ministers have told me that I should have a bible study. My question to the minister is with whom. Everyone wants me to believe it is their way. NO, it is my way. I will die alone and my soul will live on to another existence. If I make the decisions someone else wants me to make, it will be my soul that has to pay for a wrong move. When I say pay, I do not mean hell, get over the notion!! There have always been things that we discovered after we said they couldn't possibly exist, such as bacteria. Only until we studied and found out that we could develop a microscope did we undersatnd that just because we cannot see it with our limited vision does not mean it does not exist.

I had to add my opinion because there is a different side to the story.

(edited to fix paragraph and punctuation spacing only - 99Percent)

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

brighid

Jenn,

In the future please observe punctuation, paragraph and capitalization rules. It was very difficult for me to read your post, as it may also be for others. I am not criticizing the content of your post, just asking that for future posts please be aware of the need to observe these rules so those reading your material aren’t distracted from or lost to your message because of the poor form.

Thank you,
Brighid

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

DRFseven

Why does there have to be a god?

jenn

Brighid,
If you cannot understand what I am saying because of puncuation then use your common sense.I was unaware that it was graded, or was a rule.I often get carried away with typing and do not go over it to make sure I am meeting standards of the thread.I will go back through and read the rules.

jenn

There doesn't have to be a God.There doesn't have to be a Hell either.By being open minded you can very well come up with your own conclusion. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />