Tell me what u think of this...
Posted on: Thu, 2007-03-29 22:12
Offline
Tell me what u think of this...
One of my best friends thinks that there is a god but the bible is stupid. She thinks that maybe at one time that the bible was true, but through years of interprutation, it slowly changed into this. Because of this theory she thinks most of the bible is fake or as she says it "The bible is misinterperted" What do ya'll think of her theory?
I think shes going the path of former Bishop Spong.
I'd also like to know what she means about the Bible being 'misinterperated' Because I think it is to some extent, but a lot of Christians. But I think a spacific part or point would make a for a better discussion.
I am not a Christian because I want to be, but because I understand that without being one, I can't porve anything. Your friend's philosiphy is close, but without the inerrancy of scripture, (which I don't particularly like as a doctrine, but am logically forced to believe) there can be no absolute base for law. This is not just restricted to Christianity, as that Islamic nations can also produce stable systems. The point is a dependancy on an above human authority.
The few national revolutions that have tried to impose athiestic values, were terrible. Both the French Revolution (philosophically led by an atheist Jean Joc Rouseau) and the Bolchevic Revolution (commandered by Lennin) were humanitarian disasters. By the end of the French Revolution, 50,000 people had died via guillitine and in the USSR, millions of political prisoners were sent to the Gulag Archipellago.
[i]Atheism, while rationally speaking what I would concider the best second choice to Christianity, has a fatal flaw. It has not, cannot, and will never produce an effective ethic. All attempts to do so will be a dismal failure and only lead to more death.[/i]
It cannot for a reason: in atheism, the highest authority is man's reason. This was literally demonstrated in the French Revolution, where an actress was crowned as "the goddess of Reason" as a metaphore for the destruction of all religious values, being replaced with human reason.
If all there is is human reason, then what one human writes, another can ignore. Unless an authority trancending human authority deems an ethic as acceptable, it has no real meaning at all.
[quote=Egann]The few national revolutions that have tried to impose athiestic values, were terrible. Both the French Revolution (philosophically led by an atheist Jean Joc Rouseau) and the Bolchevic Revolution (commandered by Lennin) were humanitarian disasters. By the end of the French Revolution, 50,000 people had died via guillitine and in the USSR, millions of political prisoners were sent to the Gulag Archipellago.[/quote]
They did not kill because of atheism. They killed people because of political goals, not because the people were not atheists.
There are no "atheistic values" either - there is no common value shared amongst all atheists. This isn't to mean that atheists don't have values, just not common ones.
[quote=Egann]It cannot for a reason: in atheism, the highest authority is man's reason.
This was literally demonstrated in the French Revolution, where an actress was crowned as "the goddess of Reason" as a metaphore for the destruction of all religious values, being replaced with human reason.[/quote]
Reason isn't an authority. An authority is by most common definitions, a higher being that controls others.
[quote=Egann]If all there is is human reason, then what one human writes, another can ignore. Unless an authority trancending human authority deems an ethic as acceptable, it has no real meaning at all.[/quote]
Reason is based on self-evident axioms that are obvious to all people. Your statement about an authority controlling ethics is an assertion.
[quote=noor]They did not kill because of atheism. They killed people because of political goals, not because the people were not atheists.
There are no "atheistic values" either - there is no common value shared amongst all atheists. This isn't to mean that atheists don't have values, just not common ones.[/quote]
Indeed.
Also, there are no atheists that will kill for their "god"...because we don't have one. There is no atheist that will kill for his [i]religion[/i], and there never was an atheist to have done such a thing and never will be.
There are muslims that would kill people in the name of Allah and their religion. Christians would do the same.
If god asked a theist to crash a plane into a building, what do you think will happen?
I just wanted to bring that up that Atheists never killed in the name of atheism, they never killed for their "god" and [b]won't kill for any god[/b], or religion.
There are several assertions here, but I will only start with one of them.
[quote]Reason is based on self-evident axioms that are obvious to all people. Your statement about an authority controlling ethics is an assertion.[/quote]
Physically and logically impossible. What you have just done is made reason the highest authority in your philosophical system (exactly what I said you do.) So now, reason is your ultimate self-attesting authority.
One problem: All axiomatic systems require a higher axiomatic system to prove as proven in Godel's Theorem proves with arithmetic axiomatic sequences.
Godel's theorem has a loophole (which I can, incidentally, use to prove the Trinity) involving axiomatic sequences with seperate parts without confusion, division, seperation, or mixture. Reason is an axiomatic system with all of those, so it does not apply.
All I am saying is that, while the assertion that reason is self-attesting looks good, it is nothing more than an assertion, and one which cannot be proven without an infinite regression. I can avoid such because of the doctrine of the Trinity qualifys God as a loophole.
Back to murderers for atheism:
I will believe some of your ethical assertions if you can come up with a universal atheistic ethic. It is not possible. Most of your assertions are based of off an ethic which, might I remind you, is not derrived from atheism, but is borrowed from theism, Christianity almost exclusively.
the French revolution was a bloodbath not so much because atheistic beliefs persay, but because of lacks in the atheistic beliefs specifically condemning/condoning any ethic at all. That allowed for the overuse of the death penalty.
Something similar happened when Hitler came to power. The Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest sanctioned all of the attrocities of the Holocaust. Atheism can be held responsible for 2 reasons:
1: Darwinianism is a derrivative from atheism, but more importiantly
2. NOT HAVING AN ETHIC TO CONDEMN ANY ACTION AS WRONG AMMOUNTS TO JUSTIFYING THE ACTION. TO BE ETHICALLY CLEAN, ATHEISM NEEDS AN ETHIC.
Remember, legally and ethically speaking, silence is assent.
[quote=Egann]I am not a Christian because I want to be, but because I understand that without being one, I can't porve anything. Your friend's philosiphy is close, but without the inerrancy of scripture, (which I don't particularly like as a doctrine, but am logically forced to believe) there can be no absolute base for law. This is not just restricted to Christianity, as that Islamic nations can also produce stable systems. The point is a dependancy on an above human authority.
The few national revolutions that have tried to impose athiestic values, were terrible. Both the French Revolution (philosophically led by an atheist Jean Joc Rouseau) and the Bolchevic Revolution (commandered by Lennin) were humanitarian disasters. By the end of the French Revolution, 50,000 people had died via guillitine and in the USSR, millions of political prisoners were sent to the Gulag Archipellago.
[i]Atheism, while rationally speaking what I would concider the best second choice to Christianity, has a fatal flaw. It has not, cannot, and will never produce an effective ethic. All attempts to do so will be a dismal failure and only lead to more death.[/i]
It cannot for a reason: in atheism, the highest authority is man's reason. This was literally demonstrated in the French Revolution, where an actress was crowned as "the goddess of Reason" as a metaphore for the destruction of all religious values, being replaced with human reason.
If all there is is human reason, then what one human writes, another can ignore. Unless an authority trancending human authority deems an ethic as acceptable, it has no real meaning at all.[/quote]
You're making one HUGE undue assumption, that a perfect(or any at all) ethical system is true or even exists. In atheism, we constantly work to fix ethical systems and make them better. Christianity pretends its ethical system is perfect by hiding behind God, but never works to update with change.
Ethics truly is ethical with atheism. Ethics and Morals come from the greek and latin for custom, and those 'customs' are changed by their effectiveness to create better, rather than hiding behind the shield of 'divinity', code for 'it's right because it's right because duh I said so'
Exactly, ethics have no meaning aside from their effectiveness in society. Frankly, it would be better to do away with ethics, replacing it with legal systems, and just admitting that ethics are just a fabrication of our primate brains.
[quote=Egann]There are several assertions here, but I will only start with one of them.
[quote]Reason is based on self-evident axioms that are obvious to all people. Your statement about an authority controlling ethics is an assertion.[/quote]
Physically and logically impossible.[/quote]
Show me how it's "physically and logically impossible". That statement is so idiotic I'm not even going to bother going over it.
[quote]What you have just done is made reason the highest authority in your philosophical system (exactly what I said you do.) So now, reason is your ultimate self-attesting authority.[/quote]
Reason is not an authority, it's stupid to call it one.
An authority by most common definitions is a being that controls others. Reason is not a "being"; nor does it control anyone. Reason, or logic in this sense, is a tool to determine validity of arguments.
[quote]One problem: All axiomatic systems require a higher axiomatic system to prove as proven in Godel's Theorem proves with arithmetic axiomatic sequences.
Godel's theorem has a loophole (which I can, incidentally, use to prove the Trinity) involving axiomatic sequences with seperate parts without confusion, division, seperation, or mixture. Reason is an axiomatic system with all of those, so it does not apply.[/quote]
Godel's Theorem is about arithmetic, so it doesn't apply here.
[quote]All I am saying is that, while the assertion that reason is self-attesting looks good, it is nothing more than an assertion, and one which cannot be proven without an infinite regression. I can avoid such because of the doctrine of the Trinity qualifys God as a loophole.[/quote]
Reason isn't an assertion; we have evidence reason exists since we can infer it from our own behaviors.
[quote]Back to murderers for atheism:
I will believe some of your ethical assertions if you can come up with a universal atheistic ethic. It is not possible.[/quote]
You might want to read [url=http://www.freethinkingteens.com/forum/freethinking_teens_community/freethinkers_debate/2418]this thread.[/url]
From that thread (Not all atheists follow this code; some atheists might get their morals from govt imposed-law, for example)
[quote=Zhwazi]
Alright, let's start with the basics.
I think, therefore I am.
I have reason to believe that others think and exist as well.
I realize that my thoughts exist subjectively, but my actions are objective, in a realm which is in neither mine no anyone else's subjective realms.
I recognize that I have control over an object in objective reality, and that others appear to have similar control over similar objects.
All people (subjective mind + objective body) have no appearant or inherent leadership or control of other people, so it appears that all people are equal.
I have wants, and a body to achieve those wants. I recognize that others have similar wants. My wants are unlimited, so I have reason to believe others' are unlimited as well.
Because we appear to have exclusive control over our bodies, we appear to have absolute control over our bodies.
Because no other person appears to have inherent leadership control over our bodies, it appears that all people are equal.
Because all people are equal, no other person's wants are in any way superior to our own.
Our bodies are not infinite in number nor omnipresent nor homogenous in quality. They are scarce. This means that if another takes control of my body, I cannot simply continue doing as want. This means that if someone else takes control of my body, they believe that their interests supercede mine. (This is impossible because our subjective spheres are immeasurable between the two of us.)
Nobody else owns us, and we have no responsibility to other people as to what we do to our bodies.
Because our control over our bodies is exclusive, absolute, and irresponsible, we have what could be called exclusive absolute irresponsible dominion over our bodies.
Ownership is a name for exclusive absolute irresponsible dominion.
Exclusive absolute irresponsible dominion is ownership.
Thus, we appear own our bodies.
Our bodies appear to exist in the future, the present, and the past.
This manifests as life, liberty, and property.
If you lose your life, you lose your future.
If you lose your liberty, you lose your present.
If you lose your property, you lose that part of your past which produced that property.
Involuntary deprival of life is murder.
Involuntary deprival of liberty is slavery.
Involuntary deprival of property is theft.
If you do not respect the life, liberty, and property of others, you appear to not understand ownership.
If you do not understand ownership, you cannot own yourself.
If you do own yourself, you do not have exclusive control over your body.
If you do not have exclusive control over your body, someone else may claim you as property and take absolute irresponsible control over you.
How's that?[/quote]
(Above from Zhwazi's post)
[quote] Most of your assertions are based of off an ethic which, might I remind you, is not derrived from atheism, but is borrowed from theism, Christianity almost exclusively. [/quote]
Another idiotic assertion. Read [url=http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5431]this,[/url] especially the part where it talks about atheists getting their morals from religion.
[quote]the French revolution was a bloodbath not so much because atheistic beliefs persay, but because of lacks in the atheistic beliefs specifically condemning/condoning any ethic at all. That allowed for the overuse of the death penalty.[/quote]
Another assertion, read both links above. (The two of them have a different source for morality, which backs up my point that while atheists have no common law shared amongst all atheists, they can still have ethics.)
[quote]Something similar happened when Hitler came to power. The Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest sanctioned all of the attrocities of the Holocaust. Atheism can be held responsible for 2 reasons:[/quote]
First of all, Hitler was not an atheist. I can provide you with a list of quotes that show he clearly believed in the christian god, if you want.
Hitler never used the survival of the fittest idea to kill the Jews, either.
[quote]1: Darwinianism is a derrivative from atheism, but more importiantly[/quote]
False. Darwin never used atheistic ideas for his theory of evolution.
(Also, there are atheists who reject evolution, although the vast majority accept it.)
[quote]2. NOT HAVING AN ETHIC TO CONDEMN ANY ACTION AS WRONG AMMOUNTS TO JUSTIFYING THE ACTION. TO BE ETHICALLY CLEAN, ATHEISM NEEDS AN ETHIC.
Remember, legally and ethically speaking, silence is assent.[/quote]
First of all, there is a caps lock key on your keyboard.
The [b]individual atheist[/b] may need an ethic, but atheism in [b]common[/b] does not. Different atheists will have different sources for morality - some simply follow the law of the region they are in, some avoid violating other people's ownership rights, some avoid hurting others. It differs for the individual atheist, but atheists don't need a [b]common[/b] code of ethics.
First of all, Godel's Theorem has been successfully applied to mathematical and logical models, so it is assumed that, despite the impossibility of an inductive proof, it is probable that it applies to all mathematical functions, and not just arithmatic. Despite this, even if it only applies to arithmatic, it will indirectly apply to symbolic logic and algebraic mathematics as that they are derrivatives of arithmatic.
As that I only need to poke a hole in one point for your agrument to fall, I will focus in on the ethical logic branch.
[quote]The individual atheist may need an ethic, but atheism in common does not. Different atheists will have different sources for morality - some simply follow the law of the region they are in, some avoid violating other people's ownership rights, some avoid hurting others. It differs for the individual atheist, but atheists don't need a common code of ethics.[/quote]
In other words, different strokes for different folks, or there [i]is[/i] no universal ethic. Unfortunately, this also undermines all possibilities of a functional society or political system. It has already been proven, in theory as well as in practice, that a society cannot function if all the individuals are doing what is right in their own eyes, so I will not bother to prove it here, just give some examples:
1. Rome: The lack of an applicable and universal ethic is what lead to Rome's increasing decadance and eventual fall, not the barbarians.
2. The French Revolution: The naturalist, enlightenment thinking of the philosophical leaders of the revolution looked to nature (as that they had nothing else to look to) for answers to ethical questions. It is impossible to build an ethical standard from nature as that nature is both cruel and non-cruel, so the naturalistic assumptions had no means of preventing a blood-bath from occuring.
You have probably heard me say it before, but Francis Shaeffer's quote fits here perfectly.
[quote] If there is no absolute by which to judge society, society is absolute. [/quote]
I know that you are going to say otherwise-most people cringe when they see the implications of their own philosophical system and will decieve themselves to avoid seeing it- but what you are suggesting by destroying the concept of a universal ethic, ammounts to destroying:
1. The value of the individual ethical system. It is nothing more than remnant traditions and an individual handicap
2. The value of the individual. The ethical assumption that a person is valuable is meaningless if it need not universally apply.
3. All hope of freedom. Society is absolute, be it anarchy or fascism, there is nothing better about it than a democratic-republic or any other form of government.
4. The assumption that pain (human or otherwise) should be avoided. This has been the foundations of many ethical systems. In order for it to be the case, it must be universally applied. As I said earlier, Atheism is incapable of applying a universal ethic.
5. The value of governmental laws. All laws created by men can be ignored by men, political office or not.
6. Any concept of value at all. If ethics are not absolute, no value can be universally justified, even if it is universally upheld.
What someone does in the name of ethics is irrelavent for ethical logic. How they justify it is the question. The saying "the ends justify the means" cannot apply to ethical logic.
EDIT: About the RRS paper, finding a hole in someone else's position does not ammount to justifying your own, and I have already dealt with the results of a non-absolute ethic like the paper deals with.
There is one other source that you can call upon to create an ethic which complies with your origins view: the Selfish Gene theory (like deludedgod did in my debate with him.)
The selfish gene cannot create an ethic for 2 reasons:
1. The reaction must be automatic for the theory to function.
2. Unless the gene has some means for having a "telepathic connection," or the like, there is no way of associating cause and effect outside of statistics, which can only be suggestive. This ammounts to [i]post hoc ergo propter hoc.[/i]
Again, your argument follows as thus:
There are no logically coherent atheistic morals
Therefore atheism is incorrect
There is an underlying assumption that there are logically coherent morals which exist.
However, if you accept that ethics are just the conglomeration of our attempts to create a working society, ethics do not need to stand on their own, they do not need to be inherently valuable, they just need to complete their goal, and that is to be the glue that holds society together. They can also be supplemented with legal things as well. You're assuming the existence of a set of morals which is inherently true, and therein lies the weakness of your argument.
EDIT: This fallacy is rather well summed up here
http://freethinkingteens.com/i_wouldnt_like_to_think_that
I wouldn't like to think there are no ethics, therefore, atheism must be false
Close... but no. I might have come off that way, but this is the intended argument (which I had not ever fully articulated to date.)
Definitions:
Presuppositions: fundamental thought axioms (beliefs) a person holds without proof and cannot be subjected to inquiry of any sort
Worldview: a web of presuppositions that deals with questions in three areas:
1. Metaphysics
2. Epistemology
3. Ethics
All people have worldviews that answer questions in all of these departments.
The worldview is an interconnected fabric of interdependent ideas. Changes in one area will have influences and implications all across the worldview, so you cannot have a soup of ideas for a worldview, the system fails.
Correct: The empirical case
Incorrect: not the case empirically
Wrong: incorrect from an ethical standpoint
Cruel: That which is ethically wrong and inflicts pain
non-cruel: May inflict pain, but is not ethically wrong
Right: That which is ethically justafiable
Part 1
Minor Premise: Atheism cannot produce a universal ethical code without borrowing or arbitration
Major Premise: Society cannot function without a universally applicable ethic.
Conclusion: Atheism makes for poor government
Part 2
Minor Premise: Atheists themselves hold to differing views of ethics
Major Premise: Atheism cannot create universal ethical codes
Conclusion: The ethical codes that atheists use are not derrived from atheism and are hence either borrowed or extraneous (in either case, they more likely than not contradict premises elsewhere in the worldview.)
Note: this is what Social Darwinism has going for it: you may not like it, but you can't argue with the fact that it is consistant.
Conclusion
Part 1
Society cannot function based on atheistic axioms
Therefore religion is required for society to function
Part 2
Atheists (not atheism) hold beliefs that are internally contradictory to logic or to the implications of Atheism
Therefore Atheism (as in every view held by every atheist) is incorrect.
Part 3
Atheistic thought led to revolution in France in the 1780's via Reaseau and Voltaire
The revolution killed 50,000+ people and enlightenment Atheism, being unable to derrive an ethical system from nature (which is both cruel and non-cruel) could not stop the bloodshed.
Legally, silence is assent.
Therefore, Atheism is wrong.
Closing notes:
Even though I cannot prove this, I would venture to say that Atheism is wrong because it is incorrect. Every worldview that is incorrect will degrade under pressure and lead to wrong results, but as that we can figure out what part of the worldview failed, we can correct it and "discover" the correct worldview via trial and error.
I do not (and I don't think I ever have) claim to have the correct worldview. I merely claim that my present worldview explains more than atheism can.
Also, I cannot "disprove atheism." The Ethical Trancendental argument is powerful, but not that powerful. If I were to use either of the other 2 parts of a worldview (Metaphysics or Epistemology) I could, but as that those are somewhat more technical and it is more appropriate to use Ethics for the laypeople and reserve metaphysical and epistemological arguments for philosiphers and scientists respectively, I use the ethics argument.
...Hard to believe that almost everything except the definitions is original to me....;)
[quote=Egann]Close... but no. I might have come off that way, but this is the intended argument (which I had not ever fully articulated to date.)
Definitions:
Presuppositions: fundamental thought axioms (beliefs) a person holds without proof and cannot be subjected to inquiry of any sort
Worldview: a web of presuppositions that deals with questions in three areas:
1. Metaphysics
2. Epistemology
3. Ethics
All people have worldviews that answer questions in all of these departments.[/quote]
When you say metaphysics, do you mean the traditional definition, referring to questions of 'being' or 'reality', or the newer definition of areas that are beyond the physical world.
[quote]The worldview is an interconnected fabric of interdependent ideas. Changes in one area will have influences and implications all across the worldview, so you cannot have a soup of ideas for a worldview, the system fails.[/quote]
Not if you conclude, among other options, that ethics do not EXIST, other than a set of customs, supplemented with legal systems, with the purpose of creating order and stability.
[quote]
Correct: The empirical case
Incorrect: not the case empirically
Wrong: incorrect from an ethical standpoint
Cruel: That which is ethically wrong and inflicts pain
non-cruel: May inflict pain, but is not ethically wrong
Right: That which is ethically justafiable[/quote]
These had better overlap (namely Right and non-cruel). I would argue that Wrong and Cruel are basically the same thing. I gues there are a FEW things independent to each one, but not many.
[quoote]Part 1
Minor Premise: Atheism cannot produce a universal ethical code without borrowing or arbitration[/quote]
Why not? It doesn't take religion to figure out that society would be far more stable if we had a regulated property system, and didn't support killing. As for individual ethics, they can come from wherever. This premise is not testable.
[quote]Major Premise: Society cannot function without a universally applicable ethic.[/quote]
Sure it could, as long as it had a good legal system.
[quote]Conclusion: Atheism makes for poor government[/quote]
Even if your above argument WERE sound, religion has already existed, and can be borrowed from. In fact, even assuming your argument, one could hold the view that evolutionarily, religion is some form of precursor, the god part of which can be gotten rid of later once advanced ethics have been developed, much like the ear required the formation of jaw bones(at least in this one circumstance).
Part 2
[quote]Minor Premise: Atheists themselves hold to differing views of ethics[/quote]
[quote]Major Premise: Atheism cannot create universal ethical codes[/quote]
It's called a consensus. As a society, you decide what's morally right and morally wrong in general. Changes can be made, but general efficiencies will be reached.
[quote]Conclusion: The ethical codes that atheists use are not derrived from atheism and are hence either borrowed or extraneous (in either case, they more likely than not contradict premises elsewhere in the worldview.)[/quote]
How are ethical issues completely interlocked with saaay...
[quote]Note: this is what Social Darwinism has going for it: you may not like it, but you can't argue with the fact that it is consistant.[/quote]
And? Who said anything about Social Darwinism. Darwinism says what naturally happens, just as economics says what naturally happens. Doesn't mean we should accent that. That's like saying that since the market naturally helps certain things, we should tax the por and give the money to the rich.
[quote]Conclusion
Part 1
Society cannot function based on atheistic axioms
Therefore religion is required for society to function[/quote]
This says nothing about the truth of religion. Secondly, even according to your argument, it only requires religion to have existed at some point.
[quote]Part 2
Atheists (not atheism) hold beliefs that are internally contradictory to logic or to the implications of Atheism[/quote]
Er... wherei s the proof for this?
[quote]Therefore Atheism (as in every view held by every atheist) is incorrect.
Part 3
Atheistic thought led to revolution in France in the 1780's via Reaseau and Voltaire
The revolution killed 50,000+ people and enlightenment Atheism, being unable to derrive an ethical system from nature (which is both cruel and non-cruel) could not stop the bloodshed.[/quote]
Unable? John Locke? Voltaire? You're picking one example, but by nature, the only atheistic governments which have acheived power have been extremist governments, it was the extremism that was the problem, not the atheism.
[quote] Legally, silence is assent.
Therefore, Atheism is wrong.[/quote]
So does that mean that since Christians do not all denounce the Crusades, Christianity is wrong?
[quote]Closing notes:
Even though I cannot prove this, I would venture to say that Atheism is wrong because it is incorrect. Every worldview that is incorrect will degrade under pressure and lead to wrong results, but as that we can figure out what part of the worldview failed, we can correct it and "discover" the correct worldview via trial and error. [/quote]
Does this not prove that ethical systems could be developed throught his same method(as I have predicted) regardless of bleief in God?
[quote]I do not (and I don't think I ever have) claim to have the correct worldview. I merely claim that my present worldview explains more than atheism can
Also, I cannot "disprove atheism." The Ethical Trancendental argument is powerful, but not that powerful. If I were to use either of the other 2 parts of a worldview (Metaphysics or Epistemology) I could, but as that those are somewhat more technical and it is more appropriate to use Ethics for the laypeople and reserve metaphysical and epistemological arguments for philosiphers and scientists respectively, I use the ethics argument. [/quote]
The problem with the ethics argument is it assumes that ethics exist as some sort of inherent existence. Again, I feel like I'm just repeating myself, but you've failed to address it: that ethics could simply be a matter of results, bolstered by legal systems to create stability.
[quote]...Hard to believe that almost everything except the definitions is original to me....;) [/quote]
I can negate all that with a simple quote and rebuttal
(In reference to society functioning without a universal ethical code)
[quote]Sure it could, as long as it had a good legal system.[/quote]
I agree, the problem is that you assume a universal ethical code to create a universally binding legal system. Otherwisem it has nothing to rest upon except human law, which can be over-ruled by another human.
In reference to Atheists borrowing from theist intellectual capital.
[quote]Er... wherei s the proof for this? ([i]sic[/i])[/quote]
See above. You just proved it for me.
Side note:
[quote]So does that mean that since Christians do not all denounce the Crusades, Christianity is wrong?[/quote]
Do a little more research on the crusades, please. the crusades were not an aggressive war on peaceful muslims in Israel, but a defensive campaign to protect pilgrims who were being abused under Islamic Sharia law as Dhemis. I can quote many non-Christian authorities on this. This can be further illustrated with the Crusade in Spain.
I don't intend you to immediately understand worldview borrowing, but eventually you will get the point if I show about thirty or fourty borrowed ideas. Atheists do not live, or even think, consistantly with their own worldview because of these borrowed ideas. They don't have to because they don't have to face the implications of their own worldview.
But you are so innured to your worldview that showing only a couple of examples won't do. You instictively shrug it off and condemn all that I say to be forever ensnarled in combat with your presuppositions and not ever occur to your conscious self.
As that you brought the change, though, with that comment about a functional law system, how do you understand criminal justice.
There are four possible explainations for criminal justice
1 An authority above man tells us to punish criminals. he has justifications, but this is the base reason
2. To intimidate the population into submission to limit chaos
3. To correct activity that is not socially heplful.
4. To rid society of individuals who are not helpful.
I can rest upon 1, but 2,3, and 4 are all limited in source to just society. I hope you see just how utilitarian they are.
3 and 4 suggest that the unemployed should be punished
2 assumes that a society based upon fear is preferable (I seem to remember an atheist saying this about theism, now I can use the same argument in reverse)
In the end for 2, 3 and 4, you cannot know that a punishment for a given crime is acceptable except from the consensus of society, which leads to variable law.
Let's take a closer look at variable law, shall we?
If what is right and what is wrong can change with the consensus of society (probably a majority) Society is absolute.
Now as that the majority of America is theist, what would be wrong according to the variable law principle for them to declare atheism a capital offense? Nothing.
I know this example is extreme and that it would never happen with our current society, but I hope you get the point that your disagreement with your own "consensus" position is arbitrary. You don't have anything to rest your position upon.
(note: I am not saying there [i]is[/i] nothing wrong with that, what I am saying is that you cannot justify it. I can. You must borrow from my intellectual capital to say it is wrong.
[quote=Egann]I can negate all that with a simple quote and rebuttal
(In reference to society functioning without a universal ethical code)
[quote]Sure it could, as long as it had a good legal system.[/quote]
I agree, the problem is that you assume a universal ethical code to create a universally binding legal system. Otherwisem it has nothing to rest upon except human law, which can be over-ruled by another human.
In reference to Atheists borrowing from theist intellectual capital.
[quote]Er... wherei s the proof for this? ([i]sic[/i])[/quote]
See above. You just proved it for me.
Side note:
[quote]So does that mean that since Christians do not all denounce the Crusades, Christianity is wrong?[/quote]
Do a little more research on the crusades, please. the crusades were not an aggressive war on peaceful muslims in Israel, but a defensive campaign to protect pilgrims who were being abused under Islamic Sharia law as Dhemis. I can quote many non-Christian authorities on this. This can be further illustrated with the Crusade in Spain.
I don't intend you to immediately understand worldview borrowing, but eventually you will get the point if I show about thirty or fourty borrowed ideas. Atheists do not live, or even think, consistantly with their own worldview because of these borrowed ideas. They don't have to because they don't have to face the implications of their own worldview.
But you are so innured to your worldview that showing only a couple of examples won't do. You instictively shrug it off and condemn all that I say to be forever ensnarled in combat with your presuppositions and not ever occur to your conscious self.
As that you brought the change, though, with that comment about a functional law system, how do you understand criminal justice.
There are four possible explainations for criminal justice
1 An authority above man tells us to punish criminals. he has justifications, but this is the base reason
2. To intimidate the population into submission to limit chaos
3. To correct activity that is not socially heplful.
4. To rid society of individuals who are not helpful.
I can rest upon 1, but 2,3, and 4 are all limited in source to just society. I hope you see just how utilitarian they are.
3 and 4 suggest that the unemployed should be punished
2 assumes that a society based upon fear is preferable (I seem to remember an atheist saying this about theism, now I can use the same argument in reverse)
In the end for 2, 3 and 4, you cannot know that a punishment for a given crime is acceptable except from the consensus of society, which leads to variable law.
Let's take a closer look at variable law, shall we?
If what is right and what is wrong can change with the consensus of society (probably a majority) Society is absolute.
Now as that the majority of America is theist, what would be wrong according to the variable law principle for them to declare atheism a capital offense? Nothing.
I know this example is extreme and that it would never happen with our current society, but I hope you get the point that your disagreement with your own "consensus" position is arbitrary. You don't have anything to rest your position upon.
(note: I am not saying there [i]is[/i] nothing wrong with that, what I am saying is that you cannot justify it. I can. You must borrow from my intellectual capital to say it is wrong. [/quote]
your example is nullified by one thing I said, that there are certain basics which must be upheld, and those are life and equality. In referencing the constitution I brought up
As for your numbers.
Number 1 implies that there is a good reason aside from the authority.
Number 3 and Number 4 make the same mistake that Social Darwinism does, assuming that since something is the natural outcome, we should facilitate that outcome. But that is actually less viable and efficient. Not to mention violating the safeguards in society, the Constitution. We should punish behavior, however, that threatens those core values.
Secondly, your argument reads thus:
Christian's morals: invent a God, use his commands to justify your morals
Atheists morals: invent morals.
There's hardly a difference empirically, just cut out the middle man.
[quote]your example is nullified by one thing I said, that there are certain basics which must be upheld, and those are life and equality. In referencing the constitution I brought up[/quote]
Remind me, aside from the constitution (which an atheistic Bible, you know, it was written in the context of the Declaration of Independence which specifically mentions the "Creator.") where do you get that life and equality must be upheld? It's arbitrary.
...Especially as that your origins model suggests that death (the opposite of life, I assume) is the sorting factor that got us where we are. This is not a true inconsistancy, but more an arbitrary line segregating thought influences into their own little apartheids.
[quote=Egann]
Remind me, aside from the constitution (which an atheistic Bible, you know, it was written in the context of the Declaration of Independence which specifically mentions the "Creator.") where do you get that life and equality must be upheld? It's arbitrary.[/quote]
[quote]...Especially as that your origins model suggests that death (the opposite of life, I assume) is the sorting factor that got us where we are. This is not a true inconsistancy, but more an arbitrary line segregating thought influences into their own little apartheids.[/quote]
Just because death is the end result and a necessary to progress doesn't mean all death is good. It's like in economics, some people do worse off in order that progress be made. That doesn't make the bad inherently good, but increasing the overall pie is good, and poverty is a biproduct. The question comes down to how much we are willing to tolerate, and how much we are willing to tolerate is arbitrary(actually, one could argue it's much genetic, and altered by culture). And because it is arbitrary, we do need checks, such as Constitutional protections. But there is nothing wrong with it being arbitrary. The goal of it is to fulfill what most of society will prefer, which is preferable(by virtue of the definition of prefer). It is preferable because it is preferred by the most. It's not circular, it's definitional, reflexive.
OK, let me summarize your position: Aside from liberty and equality, what is right and wrong is determined by society's "consensus."
I will give that to you, even though it is arbitrary, not so much because I am a kind soul, but because I largely agree insofar as that liberty and equality need to be protected under any system of ethics, BUT:
Liberty and equality both need to be defined. If "equality" can mean segregation like it was [i]legitimately interpreted to mean by the supreme court[/i] then the definitions are obvioulsly pretty flexible and whatever definition is accepted at the time will totally determine ethcal proceedings.
So, unless you define equality and liberty in a permanent way and have above human authority, what you are proposing is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority.
One step removed, but still, the tyranny of the majority.
My statement on mass genocide of atheists by a theistic whim still applies, you have only succeded in giving me a hoop to jump through first.
Key word, was. I remind you, progress is the key. Fine, I will provide definitions of equality. Freedom from discrimination based on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation without compelling reasons related directly to the quality of their work.
es, having it be open to change, even with checks and balances can cause potential abuses. And 'god-given' dogmas can't?
So how do you know that we are "progressing?"
Now as that you have defined equality and freedom, what is going to enforce [i]your definition[/i] on the social consensus for all time?
Even though you claim to hold moral relativism in accordance with your source of ethics, you are applying it like an absolute by having permanent definitions tacked on. My point is that [i]I am the only one who may logically hold an absolute or apply it like that.[/i] Anything that you say must be held permanently is noting more than an assertion.
An assertion that not only has nothing to rest upon in your system of ethics, but also contradicts the source- the social consensus- by applying what you personally say as a should be law to the whole.