A closer look at demonstration

[JustJim]

Belief in god is a choice, not a logical conclusion.

Atheistic beliefs are a choice, not a logical conclusion.

I don't think either theistic or atheistic beliefs are choices. In particular, I think our beliefs about the existence of God (and other religious beliefs) are either something we 'inherit' - from our parents, other authority figures, institutions, and our cultures - as things we take for granted and don't really feel any need to seriously question, or else they're opinions we develop over the years as we question those 'inherited' beliefs and either confirm them or reject them, and as we develop our own views and ideas and concepts based on our experiences and what we've absorbed from them.

IOW, I have no choice about whether I believe in God or not. I can no more choose to believe in God than Rian or Joey or Mitch can choose not to. You either believe, based on what convinces and persuades you from your own life experiences and interpretations of them, or you don't believe, based on the same criteria.

In a way, I suppose if I could choose to believe in God like I once did, I would. In many ways, life was much simpler then. But I can't "make" myself believe....

If any believers could find a way to demonstrate that (a) God exists and (b) God is just like the Bible describes him to be - and do those things in a way that convinces me and persuades me sufficiently - I'm sure I'd believe. We've already hashed over and over all the reasons why believers believe and why non-believers don't find those reasons persuasive or convincing enough to accept them as sufficient demonstrable evidence of God's existence. What's left?

You say God exists; I say, "Show me!" You can't. I say, "Prove it!" You say that's not possible. I say, "Convince me!" You can only tell me what convinces you, and none of those things convinces me. I don't know what's left. When you can show me, prove to me, or convince me that God exists, then I'll believe - of course. How could I not? Or, maybe I'll have my own experiences that convince and persuade me. Until then, though............

Jim

[JustJim]

In order for morality to have any meaning whatsoever it must be objective, at least in part. For if it was purely subjective and assuming you avoided hypocrisy you would have no claim against a person who did not agree with homosexuality. What response can we give to the person who is born with what they claim to be a lust for fresh human blood? What response can we give to someone who is born with what they claim a natural hatred for people of another race? What response can we give to someone who simply cannot get rid of there desire to have sex with young boys? Morality must have an objective component or it becomes utterly meaningless.

Morality can be, and is, based solely upon mutually shared and agreed upon subjective morality.

I can have a claim against people who "don't agree with" (whatever you meant by that) homosexuality because they're willing to deny other human beings their full human rights and dignity, and therefore present a potential danger to me and my family and friends because they might be willing to deny one or more of us our full human rights and dignity. People who have a lust for fresh human blood might try to take my blood, which presents a danger to me. FYI, people are not "born with" a natural hatred for people of another race, but whether they were born with it or learned it, they present a potential danger to me and my family. People who can't lose their desire to have sex with young boys might try to have sex with young boys in my family or among my friends or within my social group (society), and so they're a potential danger to the world I live in.

As long as we as a society agree on moral standards of behavior, based on our subjective moral values, then we don't need an outside objective morality to spell out our morality for us. If the only reason you don't beat up homosexuals, drink human blood, hate people who are of races other than yours, or have sex with young boys is because your God tells you it's morally wrong to do those things, then I'm scared of you. Personally, I don't need any God to tell me those things are wrong....

Jim

[Aaron]

IOW, I have no choice about whether I believe in God or not. I can no more choose to believe in God than Rian or Joey or Mitch can choose not to.

Hi Jim. What you said made the story of Joshua and Caleb come to my mind. I would say that the Israelites chose not to believe that God could give them the promise land, they did not have any faith that God would or could do what he said he would do, while Joshua and Caleb chose to believe that God would keep his promise, they had faith.

Now I'm not saying that this situation is directly applicable to your situation today - you don't get to see miracles like those that God performed for them. And it also doesn't apply because its not really an exact parallel: in a sense the Israelites really had no choice but to believe that God existed, to deny that fact would have been quite difficult (assuming the Biblical account is accurate). So I think I agree with what you've said although I think by taking the stance you have you've missed the real issue.

And here's why I think that. God performed many awesome works during the exodus of Israel. I think it would have been crystal clear to them that God was real and that he had power. But then the real test came and only TWO out of the millions of people that witnessed all of those awesome acts of God actually believed that God would do what he said he would do. That says to me the real issue is the heart, its got nothing to do with external demonstrations, in the end what really matters is whats in the heart of the man.

Jim do you think its possible for a person to read the Bible, know all about Christianity, attend church and other similar activities and listen to sermons and still never really put their faith in Christ (if we were to assume that Christ was real), just like the Israelites witnessed all of those things and made covenants with God and still never really put their faith in Him?

[Keep The Reason]

And here's why I think that. God performed many awesome works during the exodus of Israel. I think it would have been crystal clear to them that God was real and that he had power. But then the real test came and only TWO out of the millions of people that witnessed all of those awesome acts of God actually believed that God would do what he said he would do. That says to me the real issue is the heart, its got nothing to do with external demonstrations, in the end what really matters is whats in the heart of the man.

Unless, of course, you're one of the two men who would have been convinced. Seems to do otherwise merely adds two more souls sent to perdition.

[Aaron]

I can have a claim against people who "don't agree with" (whatever you meant by that) homosexuality because they're willing to deny other human beings their full human rights and dignity, and therefore present a potential danger to me and my family and friends because they might be willing to deny one or more of us our full human rights and dignity

Yeah I do not argue that you can't personally have a claim against someone else, but what I want to know is how their claim against you is any less legitimate? Who defines what full human rights are and under what circumstances they should and should not be granted? Why should someone who wants to protect the lives of infants be ignored for someone who wants to give people the option to control their lives even if it means ending the life of another? Just because people agree on a moral view does not make it right. People once agreed that woman shouldn't be allowed to vote. Nazis once agreed that their race was supreme above all the others. Simply having a view and finding others that agree with your view doesn't make your view right.

As long as we as a society agree on moral standards of behavior, based on our subjective moral values, then we don't need an outside objective morality to spell out our morality for us.

Yeah, as long as the Nazis were able to cleanse the world from the sub-human races there'd be no one left to have any other view. They could define whatever concept of what is right that they wanted.

If the only reason you don't beat up homosexuals, drink human blood, hate people who are of races other than yours, or have sex with young boys is because your God tells you it's morally wrong to do those things, then I'm scared of you. Personally, I don't need any God to tell me those things are wrong....

See right there. That's what I'm talking about. You're talking at me like I should know better. You're basically saying, "Don't you know that those things are wrong!? Good grief, you don't need to read about it in some religious print to find out that you shouldn't do those things". And I totally one hundred percent agree with you. Those things are wrong! But you're being dishonest in your approach to me. You can't in one instance say, "My morality is totally subjective" and then condemn my views by appealing to some moral sense that I should just have, like I should just know that those things are wrong. Morality cannot be both purely subjective and yet achieve its power through some appeal to objectivity. And that's exactly what I think you're doing. You're saying you make your own rules and then on the next turn your basically saying, "well don't you know that such and such is wrong!". What am I missing here Jim?

[Keep The Reason]

See right there. That's what I'm talking about. You're talking at me like I should know better. You're basically saying, "Don't you know that those things are wrong!? Good grief, you don't need to read about it in some religious print to find out that you shouldn't do those things". And I totally one hundred percent agree with you. Those things are wrong! But you're being dishonest in your approach to me. You can't in one instance say, "My morality is totally subjective" and then condemn my views by appealing to some moral sense that I should just have, like I should just know that those things are wrong. Morality cannot be both purely subjective and yet achieve its power through some appeal to objectivity. And that's exactly what I think you're doing. You're saying you make your own rules and then on the next turn your basically saying, "well don't you know that such and such is wrong!". What am I missing here Jim?

It can if it's grounded in our evolved natures as social creatures. I have no problem pointing to our nature, evolved as it has naturally, amplified by our sapience, being the taproot of our morality. In my worldview, I don't make up my own rules. If I were a feral child, among other ferals, we'd have a loose social structure where we didn't just kill one another and we staked out and defended territory, helping our in-group kin defend theirs as well.

So when you go around saying "You create your own rules" I say, "yeah, some of them, but that's the veneer of civilization; stripped away, even if we were in a nature red in tooth and claw model, we'd have social constructs to adhere to instinctively".

[JustJim]

I can have a claim against people who "don't agree with" (whatever you meant by that) homosexuality because they're willing to deny other human beings their full human rights and dignity, and therefore present a potential danger to me and my family and friends because they might be willing to deny one or more of us our full human rights and dignity

Yeah I do not argue that you can't personally have a claim against someone else, but what I want to know is how their claim against you is any less legitimate? Who defines what full human rights are and under what circumstances they should and should not be granted? Why should someone who wants to protect the lives of infants be ignored for someone who wants to give people the option to control their lives even if it means ending the life of another? Just because people agree on a moral view does not make it right. People once agreed that woman shouldn't be allowed to vote. Nazis once agreed that their race was supreme above all the others. Simply having a view and finding others that agree with your view doesn't make your view right.

It's not a matter of which claim is legitimate or who is "right" or "wrong". Moral standards of behavior are determined by social/group consensus and agreement. What makes the Nazis "wrong" is that the world consensus said so. Ditto regarding women voting in this country (Saudi Arabia and other places share a different consensus on that...). If the group/society in which you live says it's wrong to deny women the right to vote, for example, then in your society it IS wrong.... In Saudi Arabia, it's not yet considered "wrong" by enough people to change their laws and customs. So in Saudi Arabia, denying women the right to vote is NOT "wrong". If everyone agreed it was not wrong to kill people any time you felt like it, then it wouldn't be wrong to kill indiscriminately. But as you can see, our collective subjective morality eventually tends toward behaviors that are conducive to propagation of the species, reduced danger and threat to safety and comfort, general well-being and happiness, etc. Those ends shape our moral values without the necessity of any outside "Morality Giver"....

As long as we as a society agree on moral standards of behavior, based on our subjective moral values, then we don't need an outside objective morality to spell out our morality for us.

Yeah, as long as the Nazis were able to cleanse the world from the sub-human races there'd be no one left to have any other view. They could define whatever concept of what is right that they wanted.

I think you missed the part where the world rose up an denied them that opportunity. The consensus of the rest of the world won out. It always will, even if it takes longer than you'd like it to take. And, if you'll take note of it, the Nazi's did what they did even though your God says it was wrong. So how is having a morality giver like your God any better, or even different, from no God at all? The argument from morality is very, very weak, Aaron....

If the only reason you don't beat up homosexuals, drink human blood, hate people who are of races other than yours, or have sex with young boys is because your God tells you it's morally wrong to do those things, then I'm scared of you. Personally, I don't need any God to tell me those things are wrong....

See right there. That's what I'm talking about. You're talking at me like I should know better. You're basically saying, "Don't you know that those things are wrong!? Good grief, you don't need to read about it in some religious print to find out that you shouldn't do those things". And I totally one hundred percent agree with you. Those things are wrong!

Well then why do you think you need a God to tell you those things are wrong if you already figured it out yourself?

But you're being dishonest in your approach to me. You can't in one instance say, "My morality is totally subjective" and then condemn my views by appealing to some moral sense that I should just have, like I should just know that those things are wrong.

That's NOT what I'm saying. You DON'T "just have" a sense of morality. You've learned it and developed it and refined it - all within the context of your environment, experiences, and external influences. You weren't born with it.

Morality cannot be both purely subjective and yet achieve its power through some appeal to objectivity. And that's exactly what I think you're doing. You're saying you make your own rules and then on the next turn your basically saying, "well don't you know that such and such is wrong!". What am I missing here Jim?

What you're missing is that I'm NOT saying everyone makes up their own rules of morality. Those rules are developed and evolve over millennia of socialization among families, groups, tribes, villages, towns, countries, etc. What works best to keep us going, keep us healthy and safe and happy - those things determine and become our moral standards. Those who disagree and refuse to abide by them pay the price of that. We lock them up or kill them. There is no objective morality. And, as we've all discussed here before, even if there WAS an objective morality, how could you know it, except via your subjectivity?

Don't be upset, Aaron. It's okay for us all to agree to be nice to each other and abide by commonly agreed upon moral values, even without any gods around to tell us how to act. We've got a way to go, but we've figured much of it out already. Keep on keeping' on.....

Jim

[JustJim]

Jim do you think its possible for a person to read the Bible, know all about Christianity, attend church and other similar activities and listen to sermons and still never really put their faith in Christ (if we were to assume that Christ was real), just like the Israelites witnessed all of those things and made covenants with God and still never really put their faith in Him?

Absolutely it's possible for a person to read the Bible, know all about Christianity, attend church and other similar activities and listen to sermons and still never really put their faith in Christ (if we were to assume that Christ was real)! Most of the atheists you're talking with on this forum would fit that description! (Except that most probably did "put their faith in Christ" until they reasoned otherwise and stopped doing that.)

The Israelites didn't "witness" any of those things. Even in the biblical accounts, it was just Moses and Aaron and a few others who did all that. The rest of the people just eked out their survivals doing their day-to-day things they had to do. They were extremely superstitious, gullible, uneducated people who fell for just about anything their religious leaders told them. That is, of course, if you assume any of the story of the Israelites in Egypt and the Exodus, as portrayed in the Bible, is even remotely true or accurate, which virtually the entire historical record says it was not. But that's another thread, by a long shot. (And BTW, the movie The Ten Commandments is not an accurate historical record of anything!)

Jim

[Aaron]

Ditto regarding women voting in this country (Saudi Arabia and other places share a different consensus on that...). If the group/society in which you live says it's wrong to deny women the right to vote, for example, then in your society it IS wrong.... In Saudi Arabia, it's not yet considered "wrong" by enough people to change their laws and customs. So in Saudi Arabia, denying women the right to vote is NOT "wrong".

Scenario time. I'm a guy with my own views. I think those views are purely subjective. One day I sit down in a rather thoughtful state and ask myself, "I claim that I value fairness and honesty, how is it then that if I really believe my views are subjective that I should try to force the people around me to conform to my views, people who also have views which are purely subjective?". How is a guy living in Saudi Arabia supposed to come to terms with the fact that his views are purely subjective and yet try and make other people give woman the right to vote? Its unfair and its being dishonest to my belief that morality is purely subjective, how can I in all fairness expect someone else to change their subjective views just because they don't match up with my subjective views? What makes them different than me, what makes me so special? How can I do that without being awfully selfish?

I must believe that morality has some sort of objective component so that I can say to someone else, "We ought to be acting in this way or that way". Now hang on a second. I'm not saying that by objective component that those people are therefore saying the moral view itself is objective truth (although they might think that), but what I am saying is that as soon as the view is called a moral view it inherits the objective nature that morality carries with it. Whether or not the moral view is itself in reality an objective truth remains to be seen, but as soon as its called a moral view - meaning we believe other people should conform to that view - it achieves its power because we actually believe moral views have objective characteristics and if we say we don't believe that then I contend that we sure live that way in practice.

Thanks for making me think by the way Jim

[Aaron]

See right there. That's what I'm talking about. You're talking at me like I should know better. You're basically saying, "Don't you know that those things are wrong!? Good grief, you don't need to read about it in some religious print to find out that you shouldn't do those things". And I totally one hundred percent agree with you. Those things are wrong! But you're being dishonest in your approach to me. You can't in one instance say, "My morality is totally subjective" and then condemn my views by appealing to some moral sense that I should just have, like I should just know that those things are wrong. Morality cannot be both purely subjective and yet achieve its power through some appeal to objectivity. And that's exactly what I think you're doing. You're saying you make your own rules and then on the next turn your basically saying, "well don't you know that such and such is wrong!". What am I missing here Jim?

It can if it's grounded in our evolved natures as social creatures. I have no problem pointing to our nature, evolved as it has naturally, amplified by our sapience, being the taproot of our morality. In my worldview, I don't make up my own rules. If I were a feral child, among other ferals, we'd have a loose social structure where we didn't just kill one another and we staked out and defended territory, helping our in-group kin defend theirs as well.

So when you go around saying "You create your own rules" I say, "yeah, some of them, but that's the veneer of civilization; stripped away, even if we were in a nature red in tooth and claw model, we'd have social constructs to adhere to instinctively".

So you're saying morality is objective in so far as it finds common ground in all of us through natural selection over millions of years? I have some things to say about that, but if thats what you're saying then thats good. I just need to get Jim to the point of hopefully understanding that morality carries with it an inherent appeal to something objective, something common to us all even though our actual moral views may be drastically different, and then I can continue on explaining what I think. If that's not what you're saying then I guess its just back to the beginning.

[Keep The Reason]

So you're saying morality is objective in so far as it finds common ground in all of us through natural selection over millions of years? I have some things to say about that, but if thats what you're saying then thats good. I just need to get Jim to the point of hopefully understanding that morality carries with it an inherent appeal to something objective, something common to us all even though our actual moral views may be drastically different, and then I can continue on explaining what I think. If that's not what you're saying then I guess its just back to the beginning.

I'm saying we can demonstrate that there are simpler, less nuanced versions of social rules that our sapience have amplified. And yes this has come via the evolutionary mechanism of a balance between competition and cooperation essential for animals to survive and flourish. This is as grounded in demonstrable evidence as is possible.

[gary_s]

Belief in god is a choice, not a logical conclusion. It is a method of soothing the fear of death. It is a way of abdicating moral values to authority.

Atheistic beliefs are a choice, not a logical conclusion. They are a method of soothing the fear that there is a more powerful being out there than you, and he can see what's in your innermost heart and will call you to account for your choices. It is a way of trying to get rid of guilt over things you have done that you know are wrong.

I find these type of ape-like mimicking of someone else's post to be in poor taste and an indication of little or no imagination in how to respond. At the very least it demonstrates a lack of respect for the other person's right to have an opinion.

And interestingly enough, Rian, your last point about becoming an atheist to rid yourself of guilt is demonstrably false. I can't speak for you, but I feel guilt all the time when I've done something I later regret, and I believe in no god whatsoever. So, please explain how "choosing" atheism is a way of ridding oneself of guilt? It certainly has done nothing to eliminate this emotion in my mind. Another point you might want to consider is that I know many, many Christians who openly admit to picking and choosing Christian values or tenets that they agree with. IOW, they do not accept all Christian tenets as valid; therefore THEY (Christians) are choosing to rid themselves of guilt for things that their church considers to be wrong by simply ignoring these rules. A prime example would be the Catholic ban on birth control which is ignored by something like 95% of Catholics. Now, to me, this seems far more hypocritical than any atheist approach to guilt. At least there are no atheist tenets that we can blatantly ignore.

[Keep The Reason]

And interestingly enough, Rian, your last point about becoming an atheist to rid yourself of guilt is demonstrably false. I can't speak for you, but I feel guilt all the time when I've done something I later regret, and I believe in no god whatsoever. So, please explain how "choosing" atheism is a way of ridding oneself of guilt? It certainly has done nothing to eliminate this emotion in my mind. Another point you might want to consider is that I know many, many Christians who openly admit to picking and choosing Christian values or tenets that they agree with. IOW, they do not accept all Christian tenets as valid; therefore THEY are choosing to rid themselves of guilt for things that their church considers to be wrong by simply ignoring these rules. Now, to me, this seems far more hypocritical than any atheist approach to guilt. At least there are no atheist tenets that we can blatantly ignore.

Great points, gary. This accusation by theists is the old chestnut "you are your own gods!" ploy. It's roots are in "you're sinful and you just want to keep sinning so you pretend you don't believe in god in order to make it all right to do all the "x" sinful things you want to do. This makes you your "own god".

The problem with this, of course, is that if theists are right, we haven't successfully done anything-- so the idea that we are somehow knowingly disbelieving for nefarious purposes (i.e., to sin) is just patently ridiculous. I reject a god because the ones that the theists have offered don't show any signs of being real. It's as simple as that.

[mitchellmckain]

I find these type of ape-like mimicking of someone else's post to be in poor taste and an indication of little or no imagination in how to respond. At the very least it demonstrates a lack of respect for the other person's right to have an opinion.

I think any poor taste and lack of imagination simply reflects the poor taste and lack of imagination in the original response and that is the whole point. I think it is YOUR ape-like response HERE that demonstrates a lack of respect for the other person's right to have an opinion!!!

Belief in god is a choice, not a logical conclusion. It is a method of soothing the fear of death. It is a way of abdicating moral values to authority.

Atheistic beliefs are a choice, not a logical conclusion. They are a method of soothing the fear that there is a more powerful being out there than you, and he can see what's in your innermost heart and will call you to account for your choices. It is a way of trying to get rid of guilt over things you have done that you know are wrong.

Since this is a typical tactic that I use, I am certainly not going to complain about it. But it provides me the opportunity to clarify the point that is being made by using it.

Yuri should see how ridiculous the claims that Rian just made are and compare them to his own to see that his are just as ridiculous.

That something is a choice does not mean it is not logical conclusion and that something is a logical conclusion does not mean that it is not a choice. Logic only takes us from premises to conclusions so the use of logic cannot change the fact that you have chosen to embrace the premises upon which your logic is founded.

Perhaps some do indeed believe in God to sooth a fear of death and perhaps some don't believe in God to sooth a fear of judgement, BUT it is just plain wrong to think that such reasons are universal. I find the idea of non-existence far more comforting than what I actually believe is the case, but that particular atheist comfort just seems way too easy to me. On the other hand, its not like I believe in a vengeful God out to torture anyone who does not fall in line. Besides being ridiculous, I actually relish the idea of defying such a contemptable "god". Non-exstence provides nothing whatsoever to fear, and I don't pretend to have some god in my pocket that is going guarantee that everything is going to be hunky dory for me. I believe that consequences of our choices cannot be escaped and I fear that they bear the seeds of evil and self-destructive habits that will devour us. I trust in the God I believe in, because I know He will do what is best, but I am well acquainted with my own weaknesses and flaws and I feel no grounds for confidence that I will be bailed out of them in the end.

[gary_s]

I think any poor taste and lack of imagination simply reflects the poor taste and lack of imagination in the original response and that is the whole point. I think it is YOUR ape-like response HERE that demonstrates a lack of respect for the other person's right to have an opinion!!!

That wasn't an opinion that She expressed, just childish mockery that does nothing but perpetuate unnecessary argument. I don't lack respect for Rian's beliefs about atheists, but I do know that much of them are simply wrong and it would be more useful to simply ask why she has such opinions than to mock them. I have done this and I find that her reasons for believing these things are invalid. In this case I don't even think she really believes what she posted. It just appeared to me that she was taunting. And my response was anything but ape-like, as you should be able to understand. I was pointing out the pointlessness of her comments, not mimicking or mocking her comments. Please try to be more accurate in your insults.

Belief in god is a choice, not a logical conclusion. It is a method of soothing the fear of death. It is a way of abdicating moral values to authority.

Atheistic beliefs are a choice, not a logical conclusion. They are a method of soothing the fear that there is a more powerful being out there than you, and he can see what's in your innermost heart and will call you to account for your choices. It is a way of trying to get rid of guilt over things you have done that you know are wrong.

Since this is a typical tactic that I use, I am certainly not going to complain about it. But it provides me the opportunity to clarify the point that is being made by using it.

My opinion is that this tactic is deplorable. I see Yuri's point and don't necessarily agree. He does have some validity in his comments and some not so. Rian's retort is just a schoolyard taunt that is incredibly easy to disprove.

Yuri should see how ridiculous the claims that Rian just made are and compare them to his own to see that his are just as ridiculous.

His weren't entirely ridiculous. Most of it was pretty much truth.

That something is a choice does not mean it is not logical conclusion and that something is a logical conclusion does not mean that it is not a choice. Logic only takes us from premises to conclusions so the use of logic cannot change the fact that you have chosen to embrace the premises upon which your logic is founded.

Yes, his use of logic and choice was not something I would agree with. A choice should use logic, although it doesn't have to. But it certainly could be a logical conclusion to chose religion, if a person's beliefs of existence line up that way. It isn't a totally logic-less decision.

Perhaps some do indeed believe in God to sooth a fear of death and perhaps some don't believe in God to sooth a fear of judgement, BUT it is just plain wrong to think that such reasons are universal. I find the idea of non-existence far more comforting than what I actually believe is the case, but that particular atheist comfort just seems way too easy to me. On the other hand, its not like I believe in a vengeful God out torture anyone who does not fall in line. Besides being ridiculous, I actually relish the idea of defying such a contemptable "god". Non-exstence provides nothing whatsoever to fear, and I don't pretend to have some god in my pocket that is going guarantee that everything is going to be hunky dory. I believe that consequences of our choices cannot be escaped and I fear that they bear the seeds of evil and self-destructive habits that will devour us. I trust in the God I believe in, because I know He will do what is best, but I am well acquainted with my own weaknesses and flaws and I feel no grounds for confidence that I will be bailed out of them in the end.

And this is why I would never accuse you of a mindless choice to follow Christianity. But you are certainly not a member of the majority of Christians.