tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5169750831950099954..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Atheist Morality and the Logic of Jeffrey DahmerUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45651555499203705472008-03-06T09:33:00.000-05:002008-03-06T09:33:00.000-05:00Jim, you are committing the "is-ought" fallacy by ...Jim, you are committing the "is-ought" fallacy by proxy. Just because materialists do not believe that Platonic standards for morality exists does NOT mean that we believe people should not behave morally. In other words, just because good as a stand-alone entity IS not does not mean that we OUGHT not strive to be good. <BR/><BR/>The lack of a Platonic standard for good (be it God or something else) would have one important observable difference from the presence of an observable Platonic standard for good. Were good to exist as an observable Platonic ideal, all people would agree as to what "good" was. Were good NOT to exist as an observable Platonic ideal, all people would NOT agree as to what "good" was. As a praticing empiricist, the evidence is towards the latter--people have <B>widely</B> varying opinions as to what is "good". Is slavery good? Forced marriage? Oppression of minorities? Depends on who you ask. <BR/><BR/><I>In other words, when considering the rightness of an action, we don't just use a simple calculus of whether the action benefits "the group." We consider a large number of factors including rights, obligations, good, evil, and so on.</I><BR/><BR/>You are assuming that the existence and enforcement of these rights, oblications, etc. don't factor into the calculus of utilitarian benefit. Many ethical philosophers and laymen would strongly disagree (including myself).<BR/><BR/><I>For example -- let's say that a large group would be very entertained and unified by watching you being tortured, and after you were tortured the group would work better together. Would that be moral? Certainly not.</I><BR/><BR/>And part of the reason why not is because society as a whole (or a large segment of it) would be placed under threat of torture, decreasing their security and happiness. Additionally, you cannot insert magic into your equation--how would torturing me make them work better together? Is it because I have planted a nuclear weapon set to go off in 24 hours, and the information they hope to gather by torturing me would help them work together to diffuse it? In that case, society has determined that this case is not quite as clear-cut as it seems.<BR/><BR/>Finally, you are inserting your own moral judgement here (which is valid and fine--everyone must make their own moral judgement) and assuming it to be representative of a universal morality (which is unjustified). As was previously pointed out, it has in many times and places been considered moral to torture and kill people (usually members of an underclass or an enemy faction) for entertainment and morale purposes. Without resorting to items not in evidence (Platonic ideals for morality) or invalid arguments from consequences, can you demonstrate that your morality is the universal standard?<BR/><BR/>There are some standards that are <I>near</I>-universal. When we look at these (parent-child incest taboos is probably the biggest one, unjustified homicide taboo perhaps another) we invariably see an injunction with serious and easily-identified social and biological consequences. The farther we get from universality, the more removed we get from social/biological imperatives. Does this correlation suggest nothing to you?<BR/><BR/>Now I am sure that I will get the common rejoinder--"If you say morality is relative, how can you say (insert reprehensible act) is wrong?" As I said, every person must make their own moral judgements; I am bound to say something is wrong when it violates my own moral sense. What you are really asking (or should be) is "How can you <B>censor</B> someone for violating your moral code?" Usually, the answer is: I can't. I can only do it if I have the consent and cooperation of my society. <B>I</B> don't jail murderers even though I think what they did is wrong; my society jails murderers with my consent and cooperation. If my society claimed that murder was ok, then my only resort would be vigilanteism.<BR/><BR/>The idea of the person evil in his own mind exists only in comic books. A bare handfull of people will claim to be evil, but they are claiming to be evil by the standards of their society; by their own standards, their actions are justified (even if only by a mental illness). Do you really think, say, the Sept. 11 hijackers thought what they were doing was evil? No; yet you claim that there exists some Platonic ideal of morality that they violated. They obviously could not see it, and their senses are as keen as yours. I say it's evil, and that is sufficient to motivate my actions against it.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82209671234589084922008-02-29T14:15:00.000-05:002008-02-29T14:15:00.000-05:00Dahmer was simply saying what he thought people wa...Dahmer was simply saying what he thought people wanted to hear. There is no way to determine if in fact he was an atheist and did not believe in the existance of god. <BR/><BR/>For me, a person that believes in a god is no more moral that someone that does not. I learned that the hard way. For a society to function and for it's inhabitants to be content we have to renounce those base instincts. i.e. we cannot go around doing whatever the hell we want. <BR/><BR/>If Dahmer wanted to use his lack of belief in a god as a crutch to justify his reprehensible actions then that is his decision. However, do not paint all atheists with that same brush. <BR/><BR/>We do not all act in this manner. Furthermore, think of all the "upstanding", "moral" Christians that kill in the name of god. they are no more right in their actions than Dahmerdmbfan1999https://www.blogger.com/profile/00572501335035779373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58179797453818555052008-02-28T23:54:00.000-05:002008-02-28T23:54:00.000-05:00"let's say that a large group would be very entert..."let's say that a large group would be very entertained and unified by watching you being tortured,"<BR/>Aztec and Mayan human sacrifice. Gladiators. World Wrestling Federation? Inquisition? Teenage video games provide virtual practice.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12514218454739443932008-02-28T22:21:00.000-05:002008-02-28T22:21:00.000-05:00oli writes: Chimps for instance care for the youn...oli writes: <I>Chimps for instance care for the young of the group communally . . . </I><BR/><BR/>A friend wrote his master's thesis in anthropology on the personhood of chimps. There are many other criteria showing that chimps have a significant degree of personhood. <BR/><BR/>oli: <I>The point is that most of our morality, is related to group behaviour and particularly to making groups work better.</I><BR/><BR/>Moral values tend to correlate with that, but it doesn't mean that moral values can be reduced to that.<BR/><BR/>In other words, when considering the rightness of an action, we don't just use a simple calculus of whether the action benefits "the group." We consider a large number of factors including rights, obligations, good, evil, and so on.<BR/><BR/>For example -- let's say that a large group would be very entertained and unified by watching you being tortured, and after you were tortured the group would work better together. Would that be moral? Certainly not. <BR/><BR/>This is the type of problem that develops when morality is stripped of its metaphysical and spiritual content, and is reduced to litle more than a biological principle.Jim Holmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14854720105702925980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81269491111407458562008-02-28T11:11:00.000-05:002008-02-28T11:11:00.000-05:00This has turned intoa fascinating discussion on th...This has turned intoa fascinating discussion on the idea of morality. <BR/><BR/>Quick aside, thank you Shygetz for posting those Dobson quotes, Dare to Discipline and his other books are exactly what i was talking about. This massive authoritarian mindset where a child must obey from fear of consequence, rather than through respect and love. Dobson creates and maintains his authority over his children by fear and his superior strength. This creates an adult conditioned to obey authority figures. You only have to look at Dobsons childhood to see that this is an inherited behaviour and simply creates more authoritarians who equate love and violence, a deeply unhealthy mindset.<BR/><BR/>As for some of th discussion on what morality is, i hear often from christians that humans are elevated above animals by our minds and our morality, seeing in animals a "dog eat dog" world. This ignores behaviour amongst animals that we can see direct parrallels in humans. Chimps for instance care for the young of the group communally, Dogs are deeply loyal to those they befriend even to the point of physically protecting their friends, hunting animals co-operate to bring down larger prey.<BR/><BR/>These things evolve with the creatures because working together enables them to get greater results than working seperately. <BR/><BR/>In humans, this is little different. Humans (or more accurately our ancient ancestors, such as homo erectus, etc) that work together lived longer and had better health than those that didn't. thus they had mor children and eventually dominated the gene pool. Most of our morality evolves from this social nature. <BR/>Don't kill - weakens the group<BR/>don't lie - impedes successful communication weakening the groups efforts<BR/>don't steal - stealing anothers food weakens them making them less useful to the group<BR/>and so on and so forth.<BR/><BR/>The point is that most of our morality, is related to group behaviour and particularly to making groups work better. Religion served in its earliest incarnations as both a means to explain the world and also as a way to promote better group work. The priest kings of sumeria and babylon used the authority of a higher "pack leader" to get their citizens to follow rules of community cohesion. This in turn allowed bigger settlements, settled agriculture and such like. Its also why the big powerhouse civilizations of early human history were all religious based.<BR/><BR/>But we've moved beyond needing these crutches. We can identify the things that make group dynamics work best and use these to base our morality on.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00736338251480507015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46736993914548098602008-02-28T11:03:00.000-05:002008-02-28T11:03:00.000-05:00goprairie writes: I am asking you to define your ...goprairie writes: <I>I am asking you to define your morality. You are the one who makes such fine distinctions. I think it is moral even if I do a 'good' thing for purely selfish reasons, but you seem to take morality away from me if I benefit from it.</I><BR/><BR/>I think we may be talking past each other. I mean, if you were drowning, it would be right for me to rescue you, and wrong to push you further under the water so as to kill you. Correct? Even if I rescued you mostly because I wanted to be thought a hero, rescuing you would still be a good thing.<BR/><BR/>The original point I wanted to make is that in a strongly materialist worldview metaphysical concepts such as "right," "wrong," and "good" either don't mean anything, or they are reinterpreted in a non-moral manner.<BR/><BR/>For example, if you and I are not really "persons," but just sacks of chemical and electrical interactions walking around, then it doesn't make any sense to say that I have obligations to do or not do certain things toward you. In this view we are really just complex machines, not persons.<BR/><BR/>Or the materialist reinterprets moral term in a non-moral way. For the strong materialist "right" really means perhaps that the action has "survival value" from the point of evolution.<BR/><BR/>So my original point was that the problem with atheism isn't atheism per se, but rather the materialism that underlies much of atheist belief -- materialism that significantly undermines traditional thinking about morality.<BR/><BR/>The irony is that many materialists criticize Christianity using the language of traditional morality (e.g., the Christian god is "evil") even as their own thinking denies the concepts that are part of traditional morality.Jim Holmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14854720105702925980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34640475634074332222008-02-28T03:13:00.000-05:002008-02-28T03:13:00.000-05:00right goprairie,there is definitely a biological a...right goprairie,<BR/>there is definitely a biological algorithm that spans species where altruism is concerned. there was a surprising video that can be found on youtube of a bunch of water buffalo stampeding a couple of lions that were attacking a small water buffalo. The prediction was that the herd would scatter, not fight back.<BR/><BR/>in my view, 'morality' is a word to describe a human ideal, that depends on the perspective of the observer.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14069380264714761172008-02-28T02:54:00.000-05:002008-02-28T02:54:00.000-05:00I am asking you to define your morality. You are t...I am asking you to define your morality. You are the one who makes such fine distinctions. I think it is moral even if I do a 'good' thing for purely selfish reasons, but you seem to take morality away from me if I benefit from it. <BR/>Do you live near a zoo that has gorillas or chimpanzees or orangatans in a sizeable number? Go watch them and how they interact with each other and care for their young and share food and help each other get comfortable and play with each other and steal food or bedding from each other. Stay for a couple hours and watch and see how they do behaviors very similar to ours that cannot be beneficial to just the individual. They are not capable of the same reasoning about cost and benefit that we are, yet if you fell into the water pond in their cage and were struggling, they would probably drag you out and haul you to the door for a keeper to come for instead of killing you. I cannot define morality with the precision that you do after such sort of observations of the animal world.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48565599342347149842008-02-28T02:11:00.000-05:002008-02-28T02:11:00.000-05:00goprairie writes: Rescuing you from drowning even...goprairie writes: <I>Rescuing you from drowning even if no one was looking would make me feel competent and strong and capable after wards and that would be my reward to myself, so that would not be purely moral by your definition?</I><BR/><BR/>Let me ask you a simple question: what if rescuing me didn't make you feel that way? Would you let me drown? <BR/><BR/>If so, then I don't see how your decision to rescue me would be a "moral" decision. Instead, it would be an action perhaps consistent with morality, but based on calculated self-interest. Again the question: what if there isn't anything "in it" for you?Jim Holmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14854720105702925980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35303362317455294602008-02-27T22:51:00.000-05:002008-02-27T22:51:00.000-05:00Jim: I feel like you are splitting hairs on the d...Jim: I feel like you are splitting hairs on the definition of moral and maybe it is because I have not studied the specific fields of philosphy you have and am missiing something. But it seems to me that current brain science points to a couple things:<BR/>First, instinct is the reason we do most of what we do. We have an instinct to mate, care for young, find food, make shelter, socialize with others, care for our surroundings, defend ourselves and our family and our things and our terriroty and our group. Those instincts however grouped and named and categorized are what drive us to do what we do and they evolved because they are a set that resulted in a relatively high number of our offspring being successfully raised to maturity. <BR/>Second, we mostly make 'gut' decisisons and then rationalize reasons for them afterwards. The gut decisions are what we feel we 'want' to do and that is what we do unless there is compelling reason not to. Only if there is conflict between two 'gut' choices do we start to actively choose. But by and large, we do what we 'want'. I spend time with my kids because I enjoy their company and 'want' them to grow up to value doing certain things because I 'like' those things and 'value' those things. I do not decide if those things will provide me or them with material reward or will avoid me or them harm or punishment. I volunteer because I 'love' the prairie, the grasses and the flowers and the sounds and the living things out there and I 'enjoy' the company of the other volunteers and the interactions with the public. I am not making active decisions based on rewards or punishments but on how it 'feels': Good. So is it all immoral or ammoral to you? Because I enjoy it and get a kick out of it? The hardest day of work is rewarding to me. Rescuing you from drowning even if no one was looking would make me feel competent and strong and capable after wards and that would be my reward to myself, so that would not be purely moral by your definition?goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12774525013044078082008-02-27T20:20:00.000-05:002008-02-27T20:20:00.000-05:00goprairie writes: Is it really to avoid the negati...goprairie writes: <I>Is it really to avoid the negative that the 'materialist' acts the way he or she does or is it to attain or experience something pleasant? Is the motivation to avoid negative or to seek positive? Does it matter to your analysis?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, the reason could also be to have a positive experience. But even that is not a "moral" reason for doing something, at least not in the Kantian sense.<BR/><BR/>There are all sorts of reasons why someone might act in accordance with morality: to feel good, to avoid bad consequences, because he is being bribed, because someone is holding a gun to his head, or whatever. These are all reasons for acting morally, but they are not "moral" reasons per se, and thus the act is not really a "moral" act.<BR/><BR/>For example, I see that you are drowning, and I rescue you because I hope you will give me some money. That's not really a moral act, because the motivation is all wrong. And that is what I see as wrong with materialism and morality -- the motivation ends up being wrong, in the sense that the person is not really acting morally, though perhaps consistent with morality. <BR/><BR/>goprairie: <I>I do not volunteer at the museum or spend time with my kids or refrain from lying or killing or wasting to avoid social punishment but to be with other people and have pleasant experiences and make the world a nice place for everyone because I want to give back to a system that gives to me.</I><BR/><BR/>I sense that mixed in there is a real moral motivation: you want to "give back." In other words, you feel an obligation to reciprocate, not because of any expected payback but out of a sense of gratitude.<BR/><BR/>goprairie: <I>You can talk defintions and use logic all you want, but I call doing things for the sake of others and the sake of the enviroment and for the embetterment of ones self moral.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't have a problem with that. The key here is how the person views moral actions. The strong materialist tends to view such actions in a materialistic manner -- that the person is merely having "moral feelings," or that the person is playing out some kind of evolutionary survival mechanism. I don't have any sense that this is what you are saying. Rather, you care for people and the environment, and thus you perceive that you have an obligation to help out. <BR/><BR/>goprairie: <I>And without a rule based system, it is a little harder to make decisions about what is moral in a particular situation at a praticular time, but it is worth it and I think it is less 'error prone' to make those decisions on an ongoing basis instead of once when a rule is adopted.</I><BR/><BR/>Personally I am a "situational relativist." By that I mean that moral decisions have to be done in the context of looking at all the relevant factors. Moral decisions are often made as a result of trying to balance two or more moral considerations. We try to make the best decision we can, but yes, there can be difficult moral dilemmas, and the moral path can sometimes be difficult to discern.Jim Holmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14854720105702925980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15865815571195024442008-02-27T16:36:00.000-05:002008-02-27T16:36:00.000-05:00zilch,Thanks for the invite and would love to see ...zilch,<BR/>Thanks for the invite and would love to see Austria someday.<BR/>You seem like a very good person, as do most on this board and I hope you have a blessed day.<BR/><BR/>Some comments on other sites lead me to make some of the comments I have made. <BR/>Just as some Christians can make other Christians look bad, it can work with Atheists as well.<BR/>This board is way more intellectual and mature than some other boards i have been on.Jamie Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13186614354346762218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32069065478210561922008-02-27T15:59:00.000-05:002008-02-27T15:59:00.000-05:00My concept of God is not that of the Bible. I've ...My concept of God is not that of the Bible. I've always tried to follow a code of conduct that I learned when I was a younger man: "Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, curteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent".<BR/><BR/>I also know that many people, including myself, avoid immoral behavior because of it's *earthly* consequences. Prison. Exile. DUI. Angry spouses. Revenge.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12193941136059651535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68327107424763131112008-02-27T14:39:00.000-05:002008-02-27T14:39:00.000-05:00Pastor Steele says: "You guys claim "moral relati...Pastor Steele says: "You guys claim "moral relativism" when it fits and then "moral absolutes" when it fits your own worldview, which is fine with me just be honest about it.."<BR/>People have diverse views of this and people are generally quoting their own personal opinions on it, which are as varied as your christian denominations and their individuals' interpretations of them.<BR/>Studies have been done within societies and accross societies. Certain moral values seem to be innate, instinctive, and others seem to be societal, or societal variences on the instinctive. Even in science, depending on how the study is structured, and who the subject group is, the answers vary. There are several categories of morals, and some are considered more absolute than others and some are considered to be totally the product of the society, and it is a continuum. For example, killing another person is pretty universally accepted as one of the things most immoral, but everyone can come up with a disaster scenaria where that might be justified. We may have encountered that or come close to it in Katrina, where the choice might have been to euthanize terminal patients in order to allow for the rescue others. Would you allow all patients to die for the sake of not being able to move the terminal patients out, if the staff had to leave with the rescued patients, would you abandon the others or help then die gently? You can probably come up with a situation where killing a person could be considered more compassionate. Treatment of a flag is on the other end of the spectrum - there is nothing inherently immoral about treatment of that particular peice of cloth, but the society makes up rules and declares it to be a terrible travesty. <BR/>Again, this stuff is all out there to read about and it is in books and in magazines and on the internet. Brain science. Read about it. It might make you more open minded and clear up some of your errors in thinking what you do about atheists and who is more moral than whom.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91898644195475030922008-02-27T09:48:00.000-05:002008-02-27T09:48:00.000-05:00shygetz- I don't know about yours, but my Bible is...shygetz- I don't know about yours, but my Bible is black, not blue.<BR/><BR/>jamie- I am another atheist who didn't convert so I could carouse and swear: I grew up agnostic, did quite a bit of searching, and ended up convinced that God is a human invention.<BR/><BR/>As far as my morals go, I don't think I'm a bad person. I don't rob banks, I love my kids, I contribute to charities, I've done lots of work with handicapped people, and I don't swear very much.<BR/><BR/>If you ever come to Vienna, or are in the SF Bay Area this summer, drop me a line, and we can chew the fat over a beverage of your choice.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18307053232221516322008-02-27T08:52:00.000-05:002008-02-27T08:52:00.000-05:00"When a youngster tries this kind of stiff-necked ..."When a youngster tries this kind of stiff-necked rebellion, you had better take it out of him, and pain is a marvelous purifier."<BR/><BR/>"Two or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, 'You must obey me.' "<BR/><BR/>"Minor pain can...provide excellent motivation for the child... There is a muscle, lying snugly against the base of the neck... When firmly squeezed, it sends little messengers to the brain saying, 'This hurts; avoid recurrence at all costs'."<BR/><BR/>"Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less, but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining... I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."<BR/><BR/>"When you are defiantly challenged (by your child), win decisively." <BR/><BR/>The Reverend (ha, ha) Dr. (ok, that's legit) James Dobson.<BR/><BR/>Have you ever read his child-rearing books? The child development community has, and they are not amused in the least.<BR/><BR/>My stats showed that the VAST majority of people in prison are professed Christians. Do YOU have any stats to back up the idea that atheists are immoral, as you claimed? Do YOU have any stats to show that most people are atheist when they come into prison? If you'll look at the stats again, you'll see that Catholics are overrepresented. Is the Catholic church really that much more involved in prostelyzation than the Protestant churches? (Hint: the answer is no.) So I guess that in-prison conversion isn't THAT big a confounding factor.<BR/><BR/>Hey, check this quote out:<BR/><BR/>"Out of convicted rapists, 57% admitted to reading<BR/>pornography. 95% admitted to reading the Bible."<BR/><BR/>Hmmm...sounds like this requires blue laws to protect the public.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9526061853553944072008-02-27T08:32:00.000-05:002008-02-27T08:32:00.000-05:00I did a Youtube video that covers this subject, an...I did <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6oJDomu40s" REL="nofollow">a Youtube video</A> that covers this subject, and with humor I make my point.Baconeaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134934827966299989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27734195664294011542008-02-27T07:43:00.000-05:002008-02-27T07:43:00.000-05:00Jim H says: "The fundamentalist acts morally becau...Jim H says: "The fundamentalist acts morally because he fears torment in the afterlife; the materialist acts morally because he fears torment in this life."<BR/>Is it really to avoid the negative that the 'materialist' acts the way he or she does or is it to attain or experience something pleasant? Is the motivation to avoid negative or to seek positive? Does it matter to your analysis? <BR/>I do not volunteer at the museum or spend time with my kids or refrain from lying or killing or wasting to avoid social punishment but to be with other people and have pleasant experiences and make the world a nice place for everyone because I want to give back to a system that gives to me. You can talk defintions and use logic all you want, but I call doing things for the sake of others and the sake of the enviroment and for the embetterment of ones self moral. And without a rule based system, it is a little harder to make decisions about what is moral in a particular situation at a praticular time, but it is worth it and I think it is less 'error prone' to make those decisions on an ongoing basis instead of once when a rule is adopted.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12068211159943576082008-02-27T07:04:00.000-05:002008-02-27T07:04:00.000-05:00James Dobson talking about "Spare the rod, ruin th...James Dobson talking about "Spare the rod, ruin the child", he isn't talking about lack of discipline, he is talking about actually beating his children.<BR/><BR/>-Care to back that up with quotes.<BR/><BR/>"beating children is a strong accusation"<BR/><BR/>Lee Randolph- "appeal to psychopath" is never a good strategy in a debate.<BR/>-point well taken. Lee, by the way great picture..<BR/><BR/>Also you said:And if fear of god is your only motivation to do good, stay a christian, I don't want to meet you in a dark alley.<BR/>"Fear of God is not my motivation for morality. Christ has changed my life and allows me to strive for morality. I don't fear God, I love and worship God."<BR/>And for what it is worth , I don't want to meet you in a dark alley either.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Oli- On his conversion, Jamie, are you comfortable that Gandhi goes to hell, while Dahmer goes to heaven? Is this moral in your eyes? Do you think this is right? <BR/><BR/>Number 1- i hope Dahmer was converted, was he I don't know. <BR/>Gandhi- no where in the Christian Bible does it say "if you are good you can make it into heaven."<BR/>"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."<BR/>Oli- that means me, you, Gandhi, whoever.<BR/>That is why Jesus died to bear our sins and make salvation possible...<BR/><BR/>But thanks for your comments anyway.Jamie Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13186614354346762218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55239967223058656002008-02-27T04:58:00.000-05:002008-02-27T04:58:00.000-05:00I'm going to have to disagree with goprairie on a ...I'm going to have to disagree with goprairie on a point here.<BR/>Atheism does not lead to any kind of moral behaviour or moral code. Atheism is strictly a disbelief in gods. Thats it. <BR/>Now i'd certainly agree that with deities out the way people tend to moral behaviour and many adopt moral codes from elsewhere such as non-theistic Buddhism (and Derek, not all buddhists are atheists), humanism or my personal choice, transhumanism.<BR/>In fact transhumanism is a moral code that some people find deeply disturbing, so to say atheists adopt a moral code depends on what your definition of morality is.<BR/>Shame on you Jamie for evoking the "No True Scotsman" defense for prison christians, Its a bad arguement that doesn't deserve to be used. Otherwise we could simply claim Dahmer wasn't a true atheist (what with the alter building and so on). I think it behoves us to take people at their word until we have good evidence that they are lying. Hence Dahmer was an Atheist and then he converted. <BR/>On his conversion, Jamie, are you comfortable that Gandhi goes to hell, while Dahmer goes to heaven? Is this moral in your eyes? Do you think this is right? Does Dahmer grovelling for forgiveness on his knees make him more valid for a decent afterlife than an entire life dedicated to freedom, peace and love?<BR/>On violence, murder and christianity. It strikes me that liberal christians are unlikely to be more murderous than atheists, but that fundamentalists, with their religious focus on authoritarian punishment, eternal damnation, the rapture, apocalypses and so on, seem far more comfortable with violence ina religious context. Indeed, when you hear freaks like James Dobson talking about "Spare the rod, ruin the child", he isn't talking about lack of discipline, he is talking about actually beating his children. I realise Dobson and his ilk represent an extreme in the faith, but this extreme seems very comfortable with violent rhetoric and themes. I wonder if the stats for violent crimes and fundamentalist christians show any correlation. I have no proof that it is so, but it seems to me that such themes could easily innoculate a person into forceful authoritarianism and from there its only a few steps to slapping the wife, beating the child, etc. Maintaining authority when your only real strength is physical.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00736338251480507015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33517440917500799532008-02-27T02:15:00.000-05:002008-02-27T02:15:00.000-05:00The problem with atheism and morality is not athei...The problem with atheism and morality is not atheism per se but the worldview out of which atheism often emerges.<BR/><BR/>Most people I know try to be moral people not because of the threat of punishment in the afterlife. Rather, they act morally because they believe in a number of metaphysical concepts.<BR/><BR/>These concepts include the idea that certain actions are "right" and "wrong," "good" and "evil." They believe in the existence of "persons," who are free moral agents, who also have "minds" that cannot be reduced to chemical or electrical phenomena. These persons have "rights," "obligations," and "responsibilities." <BR/><BR/>Our entire moral discourse is infused with such metaphysical concepts. <BR/><BR/>While atheism per se does not deny these concepts, the materialistic thinking that underlies much of atheism does. For the materialist, actions are not "really right" or "really wrong." Rather, the materialist tends to dismiss these concepts, or reinterpret them in materialistic terms. Thus "right" and "wrong" as seen merely as shorthand terms for how we <I>feel</I> and that these feelings evolved perhaps because they have a kind of survival value.<BR/><BR/>For example, the author says that <I>As I’ve argued elsewhere there are plenty of good solid reasons for doing good, being kind, helpful and generous with people, based solely on the consequences in this life, which is all any of us will ever have, Christians included.</I><BR/><BR/>Thus for the author one should act morally, not because it's "right" or "good," but as a way of escaping from unfortunate consequences were he to act otherwise. Ironically, these unfortunate consequences function as a kind of materialist version of the fundamentalist Christian "hell." The fundamentalist acts morally because he fears torment in the afterlife; the materialist acts morally because he fears torment in this life. But both have the same basic reason for acting morally, and it is essentially a non-moral reason.<BR/><BR/>Thus the materialist worldview does not make one an immoral person, but it does make one "act morally" for non-moral reasons.<BR/><BR/>In that sense the materialist worldview tends to overthrow traditional moral thinking -- not because it denies God, but because it denies the metaphysical concepts upon which traditional morality is based.Jim Holmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14854720105702925980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1259498314529905302008-02-27T01:45:00.000-05:002008-02-27T01:45:00.000-05:00Jamie-Sorry for misspelling your name.Jamie-<BR/><BR/>Sorry for misspelling your name.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502765198976822221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50956772743444223492008-02-27T01:41:00.000-05:002008-02-27T01:41:00.000-05:00Hi Jaime-I'm the one who said something to the aff...Hi Jaime-<BR/><BR/>I'm the one who said something to the affect of "Now I don't have anyone looking over my shoulder"<BR/><BR/>I certainly didn't mean to imply that now I feel free to debase myself/cheat/steal/or murder. I simply meant to point out that I'm willing and able to avoid doing those things by myself without having to be told by a supreme authority.<BR/><BR/>What's more, I didn't indicate that was the reason I call myself an atheist. Just a perk.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502765198976822221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39921052906403754852008-02-27T01:29:00.000-05:002008-02-27T01:29:00.000-05:00According to Dahmer's Wikipedia page (http://en.wi...According to Dahmer's Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer), he became a born-again Christian while in prison. This leads me to wonder if Dahmer was simply spouting the party line when he made his comments on Dateline.Christopher Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17369621718401986195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62004282952359625562008-02-26T23:29:00.000-05:002008-02-26T23:29:00.000-05:00Hi Jamie,"appeal to psychopath" is never a good st...Hi Jamie,<BR/>"appeal to psychopath" is never a good strategy in a debate.<BR/><BR/>Not only does participation in a group make sense morally, it guarantees more successful outcomes mathematically, and it is a survival strategy that evolves naturally.<BR/><BR/>Fear of god is the least of the reasons why "the golden rule" (of which the first recorded version of it that i can find predates christ by 1500 years and comes out of egypt) is a better strategy than self-centeredness. <BR/><BR/>And if fear of god is your only motivation to do good, stay a christian, I don't want to meet you in a dark alley.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.com