Atheists? Do you believe in them?
Phil Saunders
was definitely one. Sure Ive seen people who claim to be athiests but then
Ive seen people who claim to be aliens or prophets of some god, or the new
Jesus. I have friends who say they have met atheists but Im just not sure. I
mean how can one prove that one is an atheist? Some people who claimed to be
atheists later turned out to be Christians so that cant be right can it?
If it cant be proven that one is an atheist then surely a logical person
shouldnt believe that there atheists until it can be proven?
So should I be agnostic about the existence of atheists? Should I be more
hard line and say that there definitely are none?
Its so hard to know what to do.
Merry Christmas
Phil
Emma Pease
Depends on your definition of 'atheist'. Under some people's
definitions, I'm an atheist; under others, not.[1] Given that you've
never met someone you consider an atheist, I'm probably not one under
your definition.
> Merry Christmas
A good yuletide to you and all the rest in the group in return.
Emma
anyone for some virtual chocolate crinkles (chocolate cookie dough
rolled in powdered sugar then baked)?
[1] And under some, admittedly uncommon, definitions you would be
classified as an atheist.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
John Blake
Of course there is no such thing as an atheist. As all gods are
fictitious, there is nothing for an atheist to not believe in, so they
don't exist either.
Happy Solstice.
John
Gareth McCaughan
> Of course there is no such thing as an atheist. As all gods are
> fictitious, there is nothing for an atheist to not believe in, so they
> don't exist either.
On the contrary. If there are no gods, then *everyone* is an
atheist in the following sense: there is no god in whom they
believe. That is, in formal terms: let G be an god; then they
don't believe in G. (This is a trivial consequence of there
being no gods; for "ex falso quodlibet".) :-)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Tim W
news:J7Cof.37038$7p5....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> I know there are supposed to be atheists but Ive never seen one I could
say
>
> Its so hard to know what to do.
>
Actually I think I always knew that they said they were atheists but you
knew they couldn't live by their faith. They are always so full of the
crappy excuses for all their most noble and irrational impulses, all that
bollo about humanism and socialism and universal values and humanitarian
needs. You know they know that it doesn't add up.
At least that was how it was for me when I was an atheist. I cultivated
selfishness as best I could but I couldn't really do it. I tried to think
rationally and clear headedly about how best to get my genes propagated at
the expense of everybody else's ( except the hundreds of fortunate women
with whom I planned to mate), but I was a fool. I couldn't stop caring. I
tried to remember when the world was at its most beautiful that it was
really just a coincidence, that it wasn't ever meant to be looked at with a
sigh. And when things seemed most desperate, when I was in the depths of
remorse and self reproach I knew there was know point in crying out for
forgiveness, but I still wanted to.
Anyway luckily I slapped myself around the chops finally and said to myself
"you can't live by bread alone you idiot! You can't spend your whole life in
denial of everything which makes life worth living. Wake up and smell the
incense for Christ's sake.
But I could go on too long.
Tim W
John Blake
William
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
In the same way, there probably aren't any people who do not believe
in the existence of Thor. Some people claim they don't believe he
exists but how can you prove they don't? Should we just be agnostic
about there being people who don't believe in the existence of Thor?
Should we be more hard line and say that there definitely are no
people who don't believe in his existence?
William
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
I wouldn't worry about it much.
Martin Willett
What would I have to do to convince you that I was an atheist?
Is this enough?
http://mwillett.org/SMITECAM_III.htm
http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm
http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_V.htm
or do I have to sell my soul?
http://mwillett.org/atheism/selling_my_soul.htm
Seriously, what do I need to do to convince you that I'm not you with
your beliefs but in denial?
--
Martin Willett
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>
>What would I have to do to convince you that I was an atheist?
>
>Is this enough?
>
>http://mwillett.org/SMITECAM_III.htm
>
>http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm
>
>http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_V.htm
Actually, these are things that make me wonder whether, deep down, you
really want God to exist after all. A bit like the way that extreme
homophobes are often over-compensating for their own repressed
homosexual tendencies.
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Here we are now, entertain us"
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:22:41 +0000, Martin Willett put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
> >What would I have to do to convince you that I was an atheist?
> >Is this enough?
> >http://mwillett.org/SMITECAM_III.htm
> >http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm
> >http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_V.htm
> Actually, these are things that make me wonder whether, deep down, you
> really want God to exist after all. A bit like the way that extreme
> homophobes are often over-compensating for their own repressed
> homosexual tendencies.
It cannot be denied that lots of people really do want a God to exist.
But perhaps a better analogy might be to say that many Islamophobes are
over-compensating for their own repressed Muslim tendencies. At least
such an analogy would be a religious sort of analogy, and so more
analogous to Martin's own, rather unique, religious views.
William
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:22:41 +0000, Martin Willett put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>>
>>What would I have to do to convince you that I was an atheist?
>>
>>Is this enough?
>>
>>http://mwillett.org/SMITECAM_III.htm
>>
>>http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm
>>
>>http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_V.htm
>
>Actually, these are things that make me wonder whether, deep down, you
>really want God to exist after all. A bit like the way that extreme
>homophobes are often over-compensating for their own repressed
>homosexual tendencies.
Or devout Christians deep down really don't want God to exist after
all; or selfless and caring parents are really over-compensating for
their own repressed child abusing tenancies. Maybe anyone who behaves
with conviction is covering up for the fact that they really have the
opposite conviction.
William
Gareth McCaughan
[Mark Goodge, to Martin Willett:]
>> Actually, these are things that make me wonder whether, deep down, you
>> really want God to exist after all. A bit like the way that extreme
>> homophobes are often over-compensating for their own repressed
>> homosexual tendencies.
[Steven:]
> But perhaps a better analogy might be to say that many Islamophobes are
> over-compensating for their own repressed Muslim tendencies. At least
> such an analogy would be a religious sort of analogy, and so more
> analogous to Martin's own, rather unique, religious views.
I take it you're taking the piss here, but actually I think
some of the people who rant most loudly about what they tend
to call "Islamofascism" are indeed rather enamoured of violence,
coercion, and narrowmindedness, which tend to be the characteristics
they decry in "Islamofascism".
Gareth McCaughan
> or do I have to sell my soul?
>
> http://mwillett.org/atheism/selling_my_soul.htm
£30k? Pull the other one. It's worth either infinitely more
or a great deal less.
Tony Gillam
> Martin Willett wrote:
>
>> or do I have to sell my soul?
>>
>> http://mwillett.org/atheism/selling_my_soul.htm
>
> £30k? Pull the other one. It's worth either infinitely more
> or a great deal less.
Perhaps he should test the market on EBay
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
David Aldred
> What would I have to do to convince you that I was an atheist?
>
> Is this enough?
>
> http://mwillett.org/SMITECAM_III.htm
Well, no: that page actually contains a section addressed to the gods,
implying you are not an atheist really.
>
> http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm
Again inconclusive: you can't decide whether the gods are non-existent or
merciful.
>
> http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_V.htm
>
And again......
> or do I have to sell my soul?
>
> http://mwillett.org/atheism/selling_my_soul.htm
Apart from showing that you have the rather quaint idea that you can be
detached from your soul while remaining alive, this doesn't seem to confirm
very much. It says the soul under consideration - yours - is 'an
atheist's', but given the doubt apparently expressed on your previous
pages, this is probably just as delusional as your belief about souls.
So no, none of those pages is enough.
Indeed I'm not sure any web page would be a real proof. Unless, of course,
you'd renounce your views as a result of seeing a web page purporting to be
published by a god - I'm sure one could be provided......
--
David Aldred
Gareth McCaughan
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>
>>> or do I have to sell my soul?
>>>
>>> http://mwillett.org/atheism/selling_my_soul.htm
>>
>> £30k? Pull the other one. It's worth either infinitely more
>> or a great deal less.
>
> Perhaps he should test the market on EBay
Seems like a good idea. But I think he'd have to say more
about exactly what sort of condition it's in, and about
how he'd verify delivery.
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> > Martin Willett wrote:
> >
> >> or do I have to sell my soul?
> >>
> >> http://mwillett.org/atheism/selling_my_soul.htm
> >
> > £30k? Pull the other one. It's worth either infinitely more
> > or a great deal less.
>
> Perhaps he should test the market on EBay
That's been tried. Ebay no longer allow such offfers.
Martin Willett
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:22:41 +0000, Martin Willett put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>>What would I have to do to convince you that I was an atheist?
>>
>>Is this enough?
>>
>>http://mwillett.org/SMITECAM_III.htm
>>
>>http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm
>>
>>http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_V.htm
>
>
> Actually, these are things that make me wonder whether, deep down, you
> really want God to exist after all. A bit like the way that extreme
> homophobes are often over-compensating for their own repressed
> homosexual tendencies.
>
Oh for goodness sake not that old chestnut! "The more you deny it the
more you're confirming it. That means I was right about you." Face up to
it: not everybody's gay and not everybody's a Christian either. Other
people are in fact other people, not just a version of you in denial.
Whether I might want a god or gods to exist has nothing to do with the
central point at issue: whether I believe gods exist. I don't. I also
don't believe that by believing in something I can summon it into
existence like fairies in a ruddy pantomime.
In some ways yes I would like there to be god. I would like there to be
a simple and clear meaning and purpose to life. I would like life the
universe and everything to be fundamentally fair. I would like virtue to
be rewarded and sins forgiven. I would like there to be something nice
to enjoy after death. But I don't believe that is the way the universe
is. I don't believe the universe gives a stuff about what I believe and
I don't believe my beliefs will have any effect on the existence or
otherwise of any kind of god or other mythical (not)beings. And I would
despise myself for being a total moral coward if I chose to believe
something I'd like to be true and I disregarded the evidence that
suggests it is not true. I regard faith as a great sin against the self.
I don't know how much clearer I have to be. I. Don't. Believe. In. Gods.
Any of 'em. Ever. I don't believe in a soul. I don't believe in any form
of afterlife. I am not totally certain about anything, my atheism is not
an article of faith it is simply a belief I hold which I consider to be
well founded and well backed up by many arguments and reasonable evidence.
I don't hate God (or any other mythical supernatural entities) any more
than I hate Albus Dumbledore, James Bond or Superman, for very similar
reasons. The concept of hating a fictional character is simply
ridiculous to me.
Do you believe that women are really men in denial? That Muslims are
really Christians in denial? Or perhaps that all foreigners are jealous
and resentful that they're not English?
I find it utterly mind-blowing that Christians can believe that a god
would be alone, create an entire universe from absolutely nothing with
wisdom that came without experience and then be both jealous of other
gods who don't exist and lonely, create a world from his perfect mind
and perfect wisdom, find it faulty, then have to impregnate a woman to
be his own father to allow himself to be sacrificed (to himself) by his
failed creations to placate his own wrath, saving his creations from his
own judgement but only allowing those who believe the right story to be
saved. <deep breath> .... and yet somehow find the existence of
/atheists/ a bit too much to actually believe. Oy vey! Mamma mia!
Tony Gillam
Postage and packing could also make it less attractive a proposition
although from Robert Winston's programme tonight I discover that the soul
weighs in at 21grams.
Martin Willett
> Martin Willett wrote:
>
>
>>What would I have to do to convince you that I was an atheist?
>>
>>Is this enough?
>>
>>http://mwillett.org/SMITECAM_III.htm
>
>
> Well, no: that page actually contains a section addressed to the gods,
> implying you are not an atheist really.
How can you even start to prove something does not exist by ignoring it?
Don't you recognize a rhetorical question when you see one?
>
>
>>http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm
>
>
> Again inconclusive: you can't decide whether the gods are non-existent or
> merciful.
No. The believers can't decide. The other gods didn't smite me because
they don't exist but their god didn't smite me because he was merciful.
To them this was obvious. But why couldn't it have been the other way
around? The "evidence" was identical. I called upon gods to kill me or
perform miracles or to ask me not to tempt them and I might just as well
have been talking to Hansel and Gretel, Goldilocks or the Tooth Fairy.
Nothing happened. Exactly the same nothing happened no matter which god
was named.
>
>
>>http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_V.htm
>>
>
>
> And again......
>
>
>>or do I have to sell my soul?
>>
>> http://mwillett.org/atheism/selling_my_soul.htm
>
>
> Apart from showing that you have the rather quaint idea that you can be
> detached from your soul while remaining alive, this doesn't seem to confirm
> very much. It says the soul under consideration - yours - is 'an
> atheist's', but given the doubt apparently expressed on your previous
> pages, this is probably just as delusional as your belief about souls.
*My* ideas about the soul are quaint? That's hilarious.
>
> So no, none of those pages is enough.
>
> Indeed I'm not sure any web page would be a real proof. Unless, of course,
> you'd renounce your views as a result of seeing a web page purporting to be
> published by a god - I'm sure one could be provided......
>
The point I was meant to be proving was that I am an atheist. I showed
evidence that I am not frightened of challenging gods (I make no
distinctions, all gods are false) to show themself or to kill me. That's
because I don't believe in gods. I am also not afraid to sell my soul
because I don't believe there is any such thing.
Of course no website can prove that gods don't exist, gods have been
designed specifically to have qualities that makes disproof impossible.
They're invisible. They don't respond to provocation, unless they decide
to, for their own reasons, which you can't understand, but a child
could, maybe. They work in mysterious ways. They get you after you're
dead, like the school bully that says he knows where you live... They
are everywhere equally (except when they're walking in another part of
the garden). They only talk to people who believe in them, possibly, but
no guarantees.
There is nothing that can be done to disprove the existence of any god.
Even if you were to be burning in the pits of Hades surrounded by
foreign Pagan gods for a thousand years I could imagine you swimming up
to the surface and shouting "just you wait until - splutter - Jesus
finds out what you've done!"
Mere logic or truth is no defence against faith, because truth doesn't
"feel true", why should it? But faith always does.
David Aldred
> David Aldred wrote:
>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What would I have to do to convince you that I was an atheist?
>>>
>>>Is this enough?
>>>
>>>http://mwillett.org/SMITECAM_III.htm
>>
>>
>> Well, no: that page actually contains a section addressed to the gods,
>> implying you are not an atheist really.
>
> How can you even start to prove something does not exist by ignoring it?
How can you ignore something you don't think is actually there? 'Ignoring'
implies taking the trouble to avoid noticing someting real!
>
> Don't you recognize a rhetorical question when you see one?
I do: but you seemed to have missed Phil's rhetorical device, so I thought
I'd follow suit!
>>>http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm
>>
>>
>> Again inconclusive: you can't decide whether the gods are non-existent or
>> merciful.
>
> No. The believers can't decide.
Hey, it's your text - you wrote it!
>>
>>
>>>or do I have to sell my soul?
>>>
>>> http://mwillett.org/atheism/selling_my_soul.htm
>>
>>
>> Apart from showing that you have the rather quaint idea that you can be
>> detached from your soul while remaining alive, this doesn't seem to
>> confirm
>> very much. It says the soul under consideration - yours - is 'an
>> atheist's', but given the doubt apparently expressed on your previous
>> pages, this is probably just as delusional as your belief about souls.
>
> *My* ideas about the soul are quaint? That's hilarious.
Well, if you prefer, your delusions about what the soul is. I though
'quaint idea' was less harsh, but it's your call. The fact is that in any
normal understanding of the word 'soul', it's not possible for a human
being to remain alive without one - your understanding is defective.
> The point I was meant to be proving was that I am an atheist. I showed
> evidence that I am not frightened of challenging gods (I make no
> distinctions, all gods are false) to show themself or to kill me. That's
> because I don't believe in gods. I am also not afraid to sell my soul
> because I don't believe there is any such thing.
Fine: but you web pages as such fail to demonstrate this. There could be
any number of reasons why you would make what are (as I've said ambiguous
statements about the existence or otherwise of deities. They certainly
don't prove the existence of atheists: they do indicate (not prove, since
anyone could have put them up as a joke) that it would be possible for
people with such delusional views to exist, but that's far from the same
thing.
> Of course no website can prove that gods don't exist
..but that isn't the topic of this thread, is it? The question is whether
atheists exist, and at this stage I see no evidence to support that
proposition at anywhere near the level of support for the proposition hat
God exists.
--
David Aldred
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
> Tony Gillam wrote:
>
> > Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> >> Martin Willett wrote:
> >>
> >>> or do I have to sell my soul?
> Seems like a good idea. But I think he'd have to say more
> about exactly what sort of condition it's in, and about
> how he'd verify delivery.
I have a picture of my soul in the attic, if anybody wants to verify
the condition of my soul.
Having looked at the picture recently, I don't think I'm going to get
much for it.
Michael J Davis
<mwille...@invalid.invalid> writes
>
>Seriously, what do I need to do to convince you that I'm not you with
>your beliefs but in denial?
Dear Queen Cleopatra,
I'm not sure that I believe in all your Egyptian gods, but I know that
you take them quite seriously. Which god would be best if I want to
avoid being smitten?
I notice that you have been challenging one or two, how about Horus?
Which has come furthest from dealing with you? Or should I have a
different one for each day of the week?
On which day do you develop boils? When do you have that particularly
bad headache - is it when you challenge Ra? I'm sure that such a queen
of denial can provide some helpful advice? With your experience tell us.
M.
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
Most of the atheists I know don't believe
in the same God I don't believe in
<><
jewels
>snip<
> I find it utterly mind-blowing that Christians can believe that a god
> would be alone, create an entire universe from absolutely nothing with
> wisdom that came without experience and then be both jealous of other
> gods who don't exist and lonely, create a world from his perfect mind
> and perfect wisdom, find it faulty, then have to impregnate a woman to
> be his own father to allow himself to be sacrificed (to himself) by his
> failed creations to placate his own wrath, saving his creations from his
> own judgement but only allowing those who believe the right story to be
> saved. <deep breath> .... and yet somehow find the existence of
> /atheists/ a bit too much to actually believe. Oy vey! Mamma mia!
>
> --
> Martin Willett
>
Puts me in mind of the following scripture:
1 Corinthians 1:17 God didn't send me out to collect a following for myself,
but to preach the Message of what he has done, collecting a following for
him. And he didn't send me to do it with a lot of fancy rhetoric of my own,
lest the powerful action at the center--Christ on the Cross--be trivialized
into mere words.
1Co 1:18 The Message that points to Christ on the Cross seems like sheer
silliness to those hellbent on destruction, but for those on the way of
salvation it makes perfect sense. This is the way God works, and most
powerfully as it turns out.
1Co 1:19 It's written, I'll turn conventional wisdom on its head, I'll
expose so-called experts as crackpots.
1Co 1:20 So where can you find someone truly wise, truly educated, truly
intelligent in this day and age? Hasn't God exposed it all as pretentious
nonsense?
1Co 1:21 Since the world in all its fancy wisdom never had a clue when it
came to knowing God, God in his wisdom took delight in using what the world
considered dumb--preaching, of all things!--to bring those who trust him
into the way of salvation.
1Co 1:22 While Jews clamor for miraculous demonstrations and Greeks go in
for philosophical wisdom,
1Co 1:23 we go right on proclaiming Christ, the Crucified. Jews treat this
like an anti-miracle--and Greeks pass it off as absurd.
1Co 1:24 But to us who are personally called by God himself--both Jews and
Greeks--Christ is God's ultimate miracle and wisdom all wrapped up in one.
1Co 1:25 Human wisdom is so tinny, so impotent, next to the seeming
absurdity of God. Human strength can't begin to compete with God's
"weakness."
From The Message Bible.
Jewelsx
>
>
Martin Willett
It is written? What kind of illiterate jerks regard "it is written" as
being some kind of guarantee of cosmic significance?
That Californian style translation merely puts into stark relief that
Christianity began as a flaky cult just like the cults of L Ron Hubbard
and Joseph Smith.
You can be de-programed.
Peter R
> That Californian style translation merely puts into stark relief that
> Christianity began as a flaky cult just like the cults of L Ron Hubbard
> and Joseph Smith.
I've just learnt something from this! Having never actualy having seen his name written down I always thought it was Elron Hubbard
> You can be de-programed.
Indeed! I shall spell it that way henceforth.:-)
Peter R
Peter R
<big snip>
> In some ways yes I would like there to be god. I would like there to be
> a simple and clear meaning and purpose to life. I would like life the
> universe and everything to be fundamentally fair. I would like virtue to
> be rewarded and sins forgiven. I would like there to be something nice
> to enjoy after death. But I don't believe that is the way the universe
> is. I don't believe the universe gives a stuff about what I believe and
> I don't believe my beliefs will have any effect on the existence or
> otherwise of any kind of god or other mythical (not)beings.
Im with you to this point.
>And I would
> despise myself for being a total moral coward if I chose to believe
> something I'd like to be true and I disregarded the evidence that
> suggests it is not true. I regard faith as a great sin against the self.
Now this is fascinating.
1)If there are no Gods how can anything you you disregard, or not, be considered "moral cowardice".
2)If disregarding it were to make you a better functioning and happier human being, how on earth could it be a "sin against the self"
BTW I ask this, not as some kind of argument against atheism, but because it is pretty much how I am.
Peter R
William
<plast...@maxnet.co.nz> wrote:
>Martin Willett
>
>>And I would
>> despise myself for being a total moral coward if I chose to believe
>> something I'd like to be true and I disregarded the evidence that
>> suggests it is not true. I regard faith as a great sin against the self.
>
>Now this is fascinating.
>1)If there are no Gods how can anything you you disregard,
>or not, be considered "moral cowardice".
Why would the lack of Gods make any difference?
>2)If disregarding it were to make you a better functioning and
>happier human being, how on earth could it be a "sin against the self"
Because morality and functionality do not always go together.
William
Peter R
>>Now this is fascinating.
>>1)If there are no Gods how can anything you you disregard,
>>or not, be considered "moral cowardice".
William
> Why would the lack of Gods make any difference?
Try as I might I have never been able to understand the concept of morality void of there being someone or thing that could reasonably be considered a) the arbiter and b) have the ability to enforce it. Even a base "concept" that could reasonably be defined as the final arbitration point would help, and in that respect I have heard it asserted that "survival of the species" fits that bill, but for me that causes more problems than it solves. It certainly couldn't be used as an argument in your point about disregarding what we believe to be evidence so that we might have a "happier" life.
Me
>>2)If disregarding it were to make you a better functioning and
>>happier human being, how on earth could it be a "sin against the self"
William
> Because morality and functionality do not always go together.
Yes well I certainly agree with that, but I would really like to know then, in the absence of God(s) how do you define what is moral?
Peter R
William
<plast...@maxnet.co.nz> wrote:
>Me
>>>Now this is fascinating.
>>>1)If there are no Gods how can anything you disregard,
>>>or not, be considered "moral cowardice".
>
>William
>> Why would the lack of Gods make any difference?
>
>Try as I might I have never been able to understand the
>concept of morality void of there being someone or thing
>that could reasonably be considered a) the arbiter and b)
>have the ability to enforce it.
I've met this several times in this ng. Are you saying that unless you
believe that God tells you that something is morally wrong you would
have no natural sense as to whether it is morally wrong or not?
>Even a base "concept" that
>could reasonably be defined as the final arbitration point
>would help, and in that respect I have heard it asserted
>that "survival of the species" fits that bill, but for me that
>causes more problems than it solves.
It's a very simplistic assertion.
>It certainly couldn't
>be used as an argument in your point about disregarding
>what we believe to be evidence so that we might have
>a "happier" life.
I don't think I said that.
>Me
>>>2)If disregarding it were to make you a better
>>>functioning and happier human being, how on earth
>>>could it be a "sin against the self"
>
>William
>> Because morality and functionality do not always go
>>together.
>
>Yes well I certainly agree with that, but I would really like
>to know then, in the absence of God(s) how do you define
>what is moral?
Defining what is moral does not produce the subjective sense of what
is moral. If infanticide was defined (by God or anyone else) as
morally right would you suddenly feel it was right or would you have
some deep down sense that it was morally wrong and that God would
never tell you it was morally right? What is *your* final arbiter?
Note that all kinds of atrocities have been carried out because it was
believed God had so directed.
William
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
<skip>
> Yes well I certainly agree with that, but I would really like to know then, in the absence of God(s) how do you define what is moral?
Happiness and suffering are objective, if hard to measure accurately.
What increases happiness overall is moral.
What increases suffering overall is immoral.
This is what is meant by morality. It is just what we mean by the word
moral. No need for a god for that, no more than we need a god to tell
us what the word 'green' means.
Of course, doing the calculations of what increases happiness and what
decreases suffering is fraught with difficulties.
But basically, you don't need a rule maker to decide what sort of
things increase happiness or suffering, no more than you need a rule
maker to decide what sort of things increase the number of trees in the
world, or the number of clouds.
I don't need a god to tell me that if I want more trees in the world,
then I should do something about planting more trees.
If I want more happiness in the world, then I don't need a god to tell
me that I should do something to help the lot of my fellow man.
But if you have a god who arbitrarily decides that he doesn't like
trees, but prefers rose-bushes instead, then why should his desire for
rose bushes carry more weight than my desire for trees?
Similarly, if a god decides that the aroma of sacrificed animals is
pleasing to him, and declares that it is moral to sacrifice animals to
him, why should that carry any weight?
Basing morality on the likes and dislikes of a being is the very
definition of subjective morality. It means that a god who tolerates
the existence of 'X-factor' means that the existence of 'X-factor' is
moral, and that we should allow it to exist.
That can't be right surely?
Similarly, Christmas reminds us that it is moral to save our child from
the clutches of an evil tyrant, and allow him to kill other people's
children. That is, if you believe it is moral for God to do what he did
in the Bible - save his own child from Herod and let the others look
out for themselves.
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
> Dear Queen Cleopatra,
>
> I'm not sure that I believe in all your Egyptian gods, but I know that
> you take them quite seriously. Which god would be best if I want to
> avoid being smitten?
> On which day do you develop boils? When do you have that particularly
> bad headache - is it when you challenge Ra? I'm sure that such a queen
> of denial can provide some helpful advice? With your experience tell us.
Talking about denial, it is about time for the annual 'Deny that the
Bible describes the supernatural' competition.
Exodus 7
20 Moses and Aaron did just as the LORD had commanded. He raised his
staff in the presence of Pharaoh and his officials and struck the water
of the Nile, and all the water was changed into blood. 21 The fish in
the Nile died, and the river smelled so bad that the Egyptians could
not drink its water. Blood was everywhere in Egypt.
22 But the Egyptian magicians did the same things by their secret
arts...
The competition is to produce a natural explanation of how the Egyptian
magicians did not do the same thing as Moses and Aaron, because .......
(complete in 20 words or less)
Incidentally, there is a programme on Channel 4 this Christmas about
duplicating Biblical miracles, under the strange delusion that if you
can duplicate a supernatural effect, that proves it was not done by
supernatural means.
Phil Saunders
news:1135512535.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Peter R wrote:
>
> <skip>
>
>> Yes well I certainly agree with that, but I would really like to know
>> then, in the absence of God(s) how do you define what is moral?
>
> Happiness and suffering are objective, if hard to measure accurately.
Are they? I dont see how.
> What increases happiness overall is moral.
> What increases suffering overall is immoral.
Says who? (other than you)
> This is what is meant by morality.
Meant by whom?
Phil
Peter R
>>Try as I might I have never been able to understand the
>>concept of morality void of there being someone or thing
>>that could reasonably be considered a) the arbiter and b)
>>have the ability to enforce it.
William
> I've met this several times in this ng. Are you saying that unless you
> believe that God tells you that something is morally wrong you would
> have no natural sense as to whether it is morally wrong or not?
No. I'm saying that I cannot come to grips with an understanding of what "morality" actually means without a final arbiter of what morality actually is.
Please don't get me wrong here. I am not saying that such an understanding cannot be had, it is possibly because of my lack of cognitive ability, or perhaps my lack of reading and discussion on the subject, but *for me* if I was going to be an Atheist, and as I admitted in another thread in many ways I am very close to that position, I would have to resign myself to the idea that along with God I had to let go of morality and meaning as having any form of existance. BTW I do have a few aetheist friends who entirely agree with me on this and live "in the void" as one of them put it to me once.
Peter R
Peter R
>>Even a base "concept" that
>>could reasonably be defined as the final arbitration point
>>would help, and in that respect I have heard it asserted
>>that "survival of the species" fits that bill, but for me that
>>causes more problems than it solves.
William
> It's a very simplistic assertion.
Umm...how is it a simplistic assertion to say; *for me* something causes more problems than it solves? I'd happily go into a full explanation of why "survival of the species" as a base concept for morality causes more problems *for me* than it solves but that would take a lot of time and effort and hardly seems worth it given that you don't seem to adhere to the view any more than I do?
Me
>>>>2)If disregarding it were to make you a better
>>>>functioning and happier human being, how on earth
>>>>could it be a "sin against the self"
William
>>> Because morality and functionality do not always go
>>>together.
Me
>>Yes well I certainly agree with that, but I would really like
>>to know then, in the absence of God(s) how do you define
>>what is moral?
William
> Defining what is moral does not produce the subjective sense of what
> is moral. If infanticide was defined (by God or anyone else) as
> morally right would you suddenly feel it was right or would you have
> some deep down sense that it was morally wrong and that God would
> never tell you it was morally right? What is *your* final arbiter?
Yes I agree that this is a problem.
So far I can honestly say that in my reading of scripture (and you should know at this point that I am by no means a literalist) and within my own experience of God there is nothing that S/He would demand that seriously contradicts my inate "moral sense" other than, I suspect that I am far more *liberal* than I would otherwise have been without an understanding of the Cross.
> Note that all kinds of atrocities have been carried out because it was
> believed God had so directed.
Yes yes and Stalin and Mao were atheists blah blah blah.
Personally I have no more time for the argument "Atheists did (x) atrocity therefore beware of Atheism" than I do for "Religious people did (y) atrocity therefor etc etc". In my reading of history atrocities are invariably carried out by "fundamentalists" whether religious or not. So "Beware of Fundamentalism"! :-)
Peter R
Matt Helliwell
> Peter R wrote:
>
> <skip>
>
>>Yes well I certainly agree with that, but I would really like to know then, in the absence of God(s) how do you define what is moral?
>
>
> Happiness and suffering are objective, if hard to measure accurately.
>
> What increases happiness overall is moral.
>
> What increases suffering overall is immoral.
>
> This is what is meant by morality. It is just what we mean by the word
> moral. No need for a god for that, no more than we need a god to tell
> us what the word 'green' means.
Sounds like ethical hedonism to me. I don't see how that is better than
any other moral system that an atheist may adopt and certainly isn't the
definitive meaning of moral.
Personally, I tended towards moral relativism in my atheist days.
> Of course, doing the calculations of what increases happiness and what
> decreases suffering is fraught with difficulties.
Completely impossible in practice would be more accurate so doesn't seem
much point trying to follow and hedonistic moral code.
Well I'm off to play cards with the mother in law. I hope everybody
reading is enjoying there Christmas as much as me.
--
Matt Helliwell
matt at helliwell dot me dot uk
www.helliwell.me.uk
William
<plast...@maxnet.co.nz> wrote:
>Me
>>>Try as I might I have never been able to understand the
>>>concept of morality void of there being someone or thing
>>>that could reasonably be considered a) the arbiter and b)
>>>have the ability to enforce it.
>
>William
>> I've met this several times in this ng. Are you saying that
>> unless you believe that God tells you that something is
>> morally wrong you would have no natural sense as to
>> whether it is morally wrong or not?
>
>No. I'm saying that I cannot come to grips with an
>understanding of what "morality" actually means without a
>final arbiter of what morality actually is.
I don't understand what your 'no' refers to. If it means that you do
have natural sense whether something is morally wrong then you do have
an understanding of what morality actually means without a final
arbiter.
>Please don't get me wrong here. I am not saying that
>such an understanding cannot be had, it is possibly because
>of my lack of cognitive ability, or perhaps my lack of reading
>and discussion on the subject, but *for me* if I was going to
>be an Atheist, and as I admitted in another thread in many
>ways I am very close to that position, I would have to resign
>myself to the idea that along with God I had to let go of morality
>and meaning as having any form of existance.
That's very sad, (giving up one's faith is far worse than never having
had one) and, if your morality depends on it, a bit frightening. If
your morality depends on your belief in God then you may need to keep
your faith at all costs.
Meaning is a different issue. One can live with local meaning and
moral values whether or not there is some ultimate meaning or purpose.
>BTW I do
>have a few aetheist friends who entirely agree with me on this
>and live "in the void" as one of them put it to me once.
I know Christians who see this life as a void.
William
William
<plast...@maxnet.co.nz> wrote:
>Me
>>>Even a base "concept" that
>>>could reasonably be defined as the final arbitration point
>>>would help, and in that respect I have heard it asserted
>>>that "survival of the species" fits that bill, but for me that
>>>causes more problems than it solves.
>
>William
>> It's a very simplistic assertion.
>
>Umm...how is it a simplistic assertion to say;
>*for me* something causes more problems than it
>solves?
I don't think it is. But that isn't what I was referring to.
What is simplistic is the assertion that "survival of the species"
fits the bill.
>I'd happily go into a full explanation of why
>"survival of the species" as a base concept for morality
>causes more problems *for me* than it solves but
>that would take a lot of time and effort and hardly
>seems worth it given that you don't seem to adhere
>to the view any more than I do?
If we agree that it is a simplistic assertion and raises more problems
than it solves then you are probably right.
>William
>> Defining what is moral does not produce the subjective sense of what
>> is moral. If infanticide was defined (by God or anyone else) as
>> morally right would you suddenly feel it was right or would you have
>> some deep down sense that it was morally wrong and that God would
>> never tell you it was morally right? What is *your* final arbiter?
>
>Yes I agree that this is a problem.
>So far I can honestly say that in my reading of scripture (and you
>should know at this point that I am by no means a literalist) and within
>my own experience of God there is nothing that S/He would demand
>that seriously contradicts my inate "moral sense" other than, I suspect
>that I am far more *liberal* than I would otherwise have been without an
>understanding of the Cross.
So what is your final arbiter?
>> Note that all kinds of atrocities have been carried out because it was
>> believed God had so directed.
>
>Yes yes and Stalin and Mao were atheists blah blah blah.
But they didn't get their morality from their belief that God was
directing them.
>Personally I have no more time for the argument "Atheists did (x)
>atrocity therefore beware of Atheism" than I do for "Religious people
>did (y) atrocity therefor etc etc".
Nor have I. But that was not the point.
William
William
>Peter R wrote:
>
><skip>
>
>> Yes well I certainly agree with that, but I would really like to
>> know then, in the absence of God(s) how do you define what is moral?
>
>Happiness and suffering are objective, if hard to measure accurately.
>What increases happiness overall is moral.
>What increases suffering overall is immoral.
That sounds too much like basing your morality on Utilitarianism. This
has come up in another thread. It's a pretty shaky basis for morality.
Driving the old and infirm into the sea would likely qualify as moral
on that basis. Fortunately, it would be resisted on the basis of the
good old-fashioned sense of moral repulsion we are all born with.
William
Peter R
>>> I've met this several times in this ng. Are you saying that
>>> unless you believe that God tells you that something is
>>> morally wrong you would have no natural sense as to
>>> whether it is morally wrong or not?
Me
>>No. <snip>
William
> I don't understand what your 'no' refers to.
It refers directly to your question, you asked; "Are you saying etc etc". My answer to that question is "no" that's not what Im saying. I then go on to explain what I am saying; "I'm saying that I cannot come to grips with an understanding of what "morality" actually means without a final arbiter of what morality actually is".
>If it means that you do
> have natural sense whether something is morally wrong then you do have
> an understanding of what morality actually means without a final
> arbiter.
I, like everyone else, have a bunch of subjective ideas of how I would prefer things to be and people to act. I have no inclination to call those ideas morality and apply them to others, or even worse expect others to live by them.
Peter R
Peter R
>>So far I can honestly say that in my reading of scripture (and you
>>should know at this point that I am by no means a literalist) and within
>>my own experience of God there is nothing that S/He would demand
>>that seriously contradicts my inate "moral sense" other than, I suspect
>>that I am far more *liberal* than I would otherwise have been without an
>>understanding of the Cross.
William
> So what is your final arbiter?
God. (To the best of my understanding/ability)
Peter R
Peter R
>>>>Even a base "concept" that
>>>>could reasonably be defined as the final arbitration point
>>>>would help, and in that respect I have heard it asserted
>>>>that "survival of the species" fits that bill, but for me that
>>>>causes more problems than it solves.
>>
>>William
>>> It's a very simplistic assertion.
>>
>>Umm...how is it a simplistic assertion to say;
>>*for me* something causes more problems than it
>>solves?
William
> I don't think it is. But that isn't what I was referring to.
> What is simplistic is the assertion that "survival of the species"
> fits the bill.
Ahhh, yes I see now. Sorry bout that. :-)
Peter R
Peter R
>> Yes well I certainly agree with that, but I would really like to know then, in the absence of God(s) how do you define what is moral?
Steven
> Happiness and suffering are objective, if hard to measure accurately.
>
> What increases happiness overall is moral.
Whos happiness. An individuals, a groups, a countries, the worlds?
Actually in many ways I agree with most of what you say, and one of the reasons I still "believe" is that it has been my experience that without God I generally fail to understand the best ways of creating and sustaining happiness.
That being said I still don't understand why, without God(s), you would call your base premise "morality". Isn't it simply the way *you* see things? Arn't you therefore implying that you are some kind of god yourself?
Peter R
Simon Woods
news:8fauq19rk2oqvjv4v...@4ax.com...
... but there's obviously no need to obey that 'good old-fashioned sense of
moral repulsion' if you can satisfy yourself that drowning the old and
infirm is a better way - be it psychopathic or completely rational - is
there?
John Blake
<plast...@maxnet.co.nz> wrote:
>I, like everyone else, have a bunch of subjective ideas of how I would prefer things to be and people to act.
> I have no inclination to call those ideas morality and apply them to others, or even worse expect others to live by them.
But you have no problem with following someone else's ideas on
morality though, as long as you call that other person God. But you
have no way of telling if those ideas were originally from God or
just some early philosopher. I find this very hard to understand.
John
Phil Saunders
news:3bfvq1112nsfqjlei...@4ax.com...
You follow other people's idea and teaching on morality. You call it
society. Society as a source of ultimate morals? But yes that is where you
get them from and still worse many of those moral values come from an
alleged God that you know definitely doesnt exist. now following that and
espousing it, that i find truly hard to understand.
Phil
William
<plast...@maxnet.co.nz> wrote:
>William
>> I don't understand what your 'no' refers to.
>
>It refers directly to your question, you asked;
>"Are you saying etc etc". My answer to that question
>is "no" that's not what Im saying. I then go on to explain
>what I am saying; "I'm saying that I cannot come to grips
>with an understanding of what "morality" actually means
>without a final arbiter of what morality actually is".
>
>
>> If it means that you do have natural sense whether
>> something is morally wrong then you do have an
>> understanding of what morality actually means without
>> a final arbiter.
>
>I, like everyone else, have a bunch of subjective ideas
>of how I would prefer things to be and people to act.
>I have no inclination to call those ideas morality and
>apply them to others, or even worse expect others to live by them.
Quite. I, also, have lots of ideas about how I would prefer people to
act; I'd like some people to listen to the same music and have the
same subjective appreciation I do. I, too, don't call that morality.
Morality is not just preference or inclination; it is a perception of
how people *should* behave. If you have no in-built perception of
moral *should* then learning rules or obeying the commands of a
supreme being don't have much moral meaning or resonance.
William
William
So if, to the best of your understanding/ability, God told you that it
was morally right to abuse an innocent child you would accept it and
see it as morally right?
William
William
<simonSPAMM...@virginNOTMESPAM.net> wrote:
>"William" <tie...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote
>> ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>>Peter R wrote:
>>>> Yes well I certainly agree with that, but I would really like to
>>>> know then, in the absence of God(s) how do you define what is moral?
>>>
>>>Happiness and suffering are objective, if hard to measure accurately.
>>>What increases happiness overall is moral.
>>>What increases suffering overall is immoral.
>>
>> That sounds too much like basing your morality on Utilitarianism. This
>> has come up in another thread. It's a pretty shaky basis for morality.
>> Driving the old and infirm into the sea would likely qualify as moral
>> on that basis. Fortunately, it would be resisted on the basis of the
>> good old-fashioned sense of moral repulsion we are all born with.
>
>... but there's obviously no need to obey that 'good old-fashioned sense of
>moral repulsion' if you can satisfy yourself that drowning the old and
>infirm is a better way - be it psychopathic or completely rational - is
>there?
I agree. We do not have to do what we feel to be morally right or not
do what we feel morally wrong. People can live with guilt. I'm not
talking about physchopaths or those who have no natural moral sense
(or have never had one).
William
Peter R
>>>>So far I can honestly say that in my reading of scripture (and you
>>>>should know at this point that I am by no means a literalist) and within
>>>>my own experience of God there is nothing that S/He would demand
>>>>that seriously contradicts my inate "moral sense" other than, I suspect
>>>>that I am far more *liberal* than I would otherwise have been without an
>>>>understanding of the Cross.
>>
>>
>>William
>>> So what is your final arbiter?
Me
>>God. (To the best of my understanding/ability)
William
> So if, to the best of your understanding/ability, God told you that it
> was morally right to abuse an innocent child you would accept it and
> see it as morally right?
Yes.
OK your turn;
If your "in-built perception of moral should" allowed you to feel OK about having sex with a 5 year old would you see it as moraly right?
Peter R
Simon Woods
What do you think underpins that 'good old-fashioned sense of moral
repulsion'? BTW I'm don't mean the social/developmental aspect but rather
that personal sense? Is it purely a product or biology/chemistry?
William
<plast...@maxnet.co.nz> wrote:
>>>William
>>>> So what is your final arbiter?
>
>Me
>>>God. (To the best of my understanding/ability)
>
>William
>> So if, to the best of your understanding/ability, God told you that it
>> was morally right to abuse an innocent child you would accept it and
>> see it as morally right?
>
>Yes.
That is really quite chilling - particularly if you live near young
children.
>OK your turn;
> If your "in-built perception of moral should" allowed you to feel OK
>about having sex with a 5 year old would you see it as moraly right?
You are asking if what I instictively see as morally right is what I
instinctively see as morally right.That sounds like some sort of
tautology.
The answer is that I instinctive find the idea of having sex with a 5
year old as morally repugnant - full stop. I don't have to see whether
I see it. I don't have to sit down and decide whether it is or not. I
don't have to ask anyone or consult a list of rules.
William
William
<simonSPAMM...@virginNOTMESPAM.net> wrote:
>"William" <tie...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote
>> "Simon Woods"<simonSPAMM...@virginNOTMESPAM.net> wrote:
>>>"William" <tie...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> That sounds too much like basing your morality on Utilitarianism. This
>>>> has come up in another thread. It's a pretty shaky basis for morality.
>>>> Driving the old and infirm into the sea would likely qualify as moral
>>>> on that basis. Fortunately, it would be resisted on the basis of the
>>>> good old-fashioned sense of moral repulsion we are all born with.
>>>
>>>... but there's obviously no need to obey that 'good old-fashioned sense
>>>of
>>>moral repulsion' if you can satisfy yourself that drowning the old and
>>>infirm is a better way - be it psychopathic or completely rational - is
>>>there?
>>
>> I agree. We do not have to do what we feel to be morally right or not
>> do what we feel morally wrong. People can live with guilt. I'm not
>> talking about physchopaths or those who have no natural moral sense
>> (or have never had one).
>
>What do you think underpins that 'good old-fashioned sense of moral
>repulsion'? BTW I'm don't mean the social/developmental aspect but rather
>that personal sense? Is it purely a product or biology/chemistry?
I don't know. I have lots of built-in senses, imperatives and passions
- my sense of moral outrage at the idea of drowning the old and infirm
is one of them. In the absence of any other testable explanation I
would probably put it down to biology/chemistry and that such things
were selected for in our distant past.
William
Gareth McCaughan
>>> So if, to the best of your understanding/ability, God told you that it
>>> was morally right to abuse an innocent child you would accept it and
>>> see it as morally right?
...
>> OK your turn;
>> If your "in-built perception of moral should" allowed you to feel OK
>> about having sex with a 5 year old would you see it as moraly right?
>
> You are asking if what I instictively see as morally right is what I
> instinctively see as morally right.That sounds like some sort of
> tautology.
No, he's asking you a hypothetical question like the one
you asked him.
You asked him to imagine that *his* source of moral authority,
namely God, suddenly changed character and started approving
of the abuse of innocent children, and asked him what he would
make of that. He answered.
He asked you to imagine that *your* source of moral authority,
namely your "inbuilt perception", suddenly changed character
and started approving of the abuse of innocent children, and
asked you what you would make of that. You answered a different
question.
> The answer is that I instinctive find the idea of having sex with a 5
> year old as morally repugnant - full stop. I don't have to see whether
> I see it. I don't have to sit down and decide whether it is or not. I
> don't have to ask anyone or consult a list of rules.
Fine. So, to repeat the perfectly reasonable question Peter
asked you, what if your instinctive repugnance for the idea
went away and you found that your "inbuilt perception" of
right and wrong had started to approve of abusing children?
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Phil Saunders
Ah so you require straight answers but you cant give them.
How pathetic. Oh and the cheap shot about children living near the
poster....well I wonder how they could trust people who cant answer
honestly?
Phil
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
> <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > What increases happiness overall is moral.
>
> > What increases suffering overall is immoral.
>
>
> Says who? (other than you)
>
>
> > This is what is meant by morality.
>
>
> Meant by whom?
Meant by people who have the welfare of the human race at heart.
Of course, there are people who think it moral to sacrifice their
children if their God tells them to (see Abraham) or fly planes into
skyscrapers.
But they are concerned only with saving their skin from Hell, rather
than what benefits makind as a whole.
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
> That sounds too much like basing your morality on Utilitarianism. This
> has come up in another thread. It's a pretty shaky basis for morality.
> Driving the old and infirm into the sea would likely qualify as moral
> on that basis. Fortunately, it would be resisted on the basis of the
> good old-fashioned sense of moral repulsion we are all born with.
If you can make a good case that driving the old and the infirm into
the sea would increase the happiness of the human race, I would listen
to you.
Until then, I think your objection is on the lines of 'We should not
eat breakfast food that we believe is healthy and nutritious. Because
we might believe rat poison was healthy and nutritious.And by the logic
that we should eat what we believe is healthy and nutritious, we would
then think it right to eat rat poison.'
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
> "William" <tie...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote in message
> > That sounds too much like basing your morality on Utilitarianism. This
> > has come up in another thread. It's a pretty shaky basis for morality.
> > Driving the old and infirm into the sea would likely qualify as moral
> > on that basis. Fortunately, it would be resisted on the basis of the
> > good old-fashioned sense of moral repulsion we are all born with.
> ... but there's obviously no need to obey that 'good old-fashioned sense of
> moral repulsion' if you can satisfy yourself that drowning the old and
> infirm is a better way - be it psychopathic or completely rational - is
> there?
You may have satisfied yourself that drowning the old and the infirm is
a better way, but you would be in a minority.
Even if you could make a case , I remind you of Proverbs 18:17 ' : The
first to present his case seems justified, and then his neighbour comes
and questions him.'
What is morality? Revelation 2 reminds us of Christian morality ' So I
will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit
adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I
will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I
am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you
according to your deeds.'
Bow the knee, or be killed. That is Christian morality.
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
CARR
> > Similarly, Christmas reminds us that it is moral to save our child from
> > the clutches of an evil tyrant, and allow him to kill other people's
> > children. That is, if you believe it is moral for God to do what he did
> > in the Bible - save his own child from Herod and let the others look
> > out for themselves.
> Actually in many ways I agree with most of what you say, and one of the reasons I still "believe" is that it has been my experience that without God I generally fail to understand the best ways of creating and sustaining happiness.
> That being said I still don't understand why, without God(s), you would call your base premise "morality". Isn't it simply the way *you* see things? Arn't you therefore implying that you are some kind of god yourself?
Well, somebody has to play God.
In reality, I am but one person, and democracy in practice dictates
what is or what is not moral. But morality cannot be based on slavish
obedience to commands. Morality must have an objective. Moral actions
must increase some good.
Obedience, per se, is not a good.
Happiness and well-being seem like the sorts of goods that morality
should produce as an end-effect.
Tim W
news:1135722764.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Phil Saunders wrote:
>
> > > What increases happiness overall is moral.
> >
> > > What increases suffering overall is immoral.
> >
>
>
> Of course, there are people who think it moral to sacrifice their
> children if their God tells them to (see Abraham) or fly planes into
> skyscrapers.
>
> But they are concerned only with saving their skin from Hell, rather
> than what benefits makind as a whole.
Really? I sort of imagined that exactly those kinds of terrible things were
done precisely because they thought that it would benefit mankind as a
whole.
Tim ~w
Peter R
>>>> So if, to the best of your understanding/ability, God told you that it
>>>> was morally right to abuse an innocent child you would accept it and
>>>> see it as morally right?
Me
>>> OK your turn;
>>> If your "in-built perception of moral should" allowed you to feel OK
>>> about having sex with a 5 year old would you see it as moraly right?
Wiliam
>> You are asking if what I instictively see as morally right is what I
>> instinctively see as morally right.That sounds like some sort of
>> tautology.
Gareth
> No, he's asking you a hypothetical question like the one
> you asked him.
>
> You asked him to imagine that *his* source of moral authority,
> namely God, suddenly changed character and started approving
> of the abuse of innocent children, and asked him what he would
> make of that. He answered.
>
> He asked you to imagine that *your* source of moral authority,
> namely your "inbuilt perception", suddenly changed character
> and started approving of the abuse of innocent children, and
> asked you what you would make of that. You answered a different
> question.
Thank you Gareth. I won't bother adding to this except to say;
"Gareths right William, so please do me the curtesty of answering the actual question, especially given that I answered you so frankly".
Peter R
Kendall K. Down
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Fine. So, to repeat the perfectly reasonable question Peter
> asked you, what if your instinctive repugnance for the idea
> went away and you found that your "inbuilt perception" of
> right and wrong had started to approve of abusing children?
Just to chip in, the question is not so terribly hypothetical. Brain damage
- accident or stroke - has produced similar personality changes.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premiere archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Phil Saunders
>
>> <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> > What increases happiness overall is moral.
>>
>> > What increases suffering overall is immoral.
>>
>>
>> Says who? (other than you)
What no answer?
>> > This is what is meant by morality.
>>
>>
>> Meant by whom?
>
> Meant by people who have the welfare of the human race at heart.
Oh and who might this include? (try an actual answer rather than a vague
comment next time)
> Of course, there are people who think it moral to sacrifice their
> children if their God tells them to (see Abraham) or fly planes into
> skyscrapers.
Im sure there are people who have all sorts of odd morals. I note that China
and the USSR have some very odd moral tenets. But then thats atheism for
you.
> But they are concerned only with saving their skin from Hell, rather
> than what benefits makind as a whole.
Whereas the atheists, unburdened by the weight of religious morality can
kill more of their own people than Hitler (in the case of Stalin) and can
send in the army to slaughter its own people (do you remember) Tianaman
Square. And of course the G8 isnt ruled by religious considerations and yet
it helps to oppress the majority of the worlds population in favour of the
few.
Perhaps, just for a brief respite, you ought to stop talking bollocks about
morals just for a day or two since it is quote clear that you are incapable
of posting anything that even a child would struggle to see is nonsense.
Then in the New Year you could make a resolution like "I will not claim that
religious morality is flawed and therefore worse than non religious morality
until I have some intelligent reason for claiming it."
Its a thought. It wont happen I know.
Rant away space
for your reply
Phil
Phil Saunders
news:1135723009.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
One person dies every 3 seconds from being poor. The countries that do the
most to alleviate the problem are
1) Those that have a moral system based upon religion
2) Those that have a moral system derived from a non religious source
A simple choice for you.
Phil
Phil Saunders
news:1135723447.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What was the difference then between that (your alleged Christian morality)
and that of the atheist Stalin?
Phil
Phil Saunders
news:1135723902.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Peter R wrote:
>
> CARR
>
>> > Similarly, Christmas reminds us that it is moral to save our child from
>> > the clutches of an evil tyrant, and allow him to kill other people's
>> > children. That is, if you believe it is moral for God to do what he did
>> > in the Bible - save his own child from Herod and let the others look
>> > out for themselves.
>
>> Actually in many ways I agree with most of what you say, and one of the
>> reasons I still "believe" is that it has been my experience that without
>> God I generally fail to understand the best ways of creating and
>> sustaining happiness.
>> That being said I still don't understand why, without God(s), you would
>> call your base premise "morality". Isn't it simply the way *you* see
>> things? Arn't you therefore implying that you are some kind of god
>> yourself?
>
> Well, somebody has to play God.
Oh?
> In reality, I am but one person, and democracy in practice dictates
> what is or what is not moral. But morality cannot be based on slavish
> obedience to commands. Morality must have an objective. Moral actions
> must increase some good.
Objective morality? lmao
> Obedience, per se, is not a good.
>
> Happiness and well-being seem like the sorts of goods that morality
> should produce as an end-effect.
And you, of course, having the morals you do exert your fullest efforts to
increase the happiness and well being of all around you?
lol
Phil
Simon Woods
>> > That sounds too much like basing your morality on Utilitarianism. This
>> > has come up in another thread. It's a pretty shaky basis for morality.
>> > Driving the old and infirm into the sea would likely qualify as moral
>> > on that basis. Fortunately, it would be resisted on the basis of the
>> > good old-fashioned sense of moral repulsion we are all born with.
>> ... but there's obviously no need to obey that 'good old-fashioned sense
>> of
>> moral repulsion' if you can satisfy yourself that drowning the old and
>> infirm is a better way - be it psychopathic or completely rational - is
>> there?
> You may have satisfied yourself that drowning the old and the infirm is
> a better way, but you would be in a minority.
(For the record I have not satisfied myself that drowning the old and infirm
is a better way.)
Surely you don't think it is morally wrong to be in a minority?
> Bow the knee, or be killed. That is Christian morality.
Jesus bowed the knee and was killed, so I don't think it is.
Fear of suffering, grief or death can be a cruel tyrant.
Paul Dean
> William wrote:
>
>> That sounds too much like basing your morality on Utilitarianism. This
>> has come up in another thread. It's a pretty shaky basis for morality.
>> Driving the old and infirm into the sea would likely qualify as moral
>> on that basis. Fortunately, it would be resisted on the basis of the
>> good old-fashioned sense of moral repulsion we are all born with.
>
> If you can make a good case that driving the old and the infirm into
> the sea would increase the happiness of the human race, I would listen
> to you.
Driving the unhappy into the sea, plus those who would be made unhappy by
driving people into the sea, certainly would.
--
Paul
William
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>No, he's asking you a hypothetical question like the one
>you asked him.
We were discussing *definitions* of morality against our innate
in-built *sense* of morality. Peter stated that he would take a
definition of morality (to the best of his understanding/ability, by
God) over his innate sense of morality. It was he who put himself in
the position of having to choose a moral arbiter. So my question to
him was valid and he answered it. I cannot answer his question to me
and I thought I had indicated why.
My innate sense of moral wrongness or rightness *is* my morality.
Moral repugnance is an experience - it is not the intellectual
knowledge of what someone defines as morality. Therefore I cannot
answer the question of whether, if my innate moral sense was
different, I would see it as morally right. I would be using my sense
of moral rightness to see whether my sense of moral rightness was
morally right.
For those who place what they think God is telling them is morally
right over their inbuilt sense of moral repugnance in these extreme
cases, the issues raised are pretty important and relevant.
I seem to remember that you and I got to a similar stage in a recent
discussion when you dropped out.
But, seeing the over-reaction of others in this ng, it is clearly a
touchy subject.
William
William
<plast...@maxnet.co.nz> wrote:
> "Gareths right William, so please do me the curtesty
>of answering the actual question, especially given that
>I answered you so frankly".
First of all, thank you for answering my question so frankly.
The question was on the basis of you having to decide what you would
take as your final arbiter - your innate sense of morality or a
definition of morality (by God, to the best of your
understanding/ability).
If your understanding of God's definition of morality was that it was
morally right to abuse a child then you would see it as morally right
even though you had an innate sense of moral repugnance at the idea.
My answer to that question would have been different. I would have
questioned my understanding of what God's definition was.
As far as your question to me is concerned, I cannot answer it. I only
have my innate sense of moral rightness or wrongness, so to see
whether that sense is right or wrong is to invoke itself - a pointless
exercise. I thought I had got that over to you.
William
Gareth McCaughan
> Driving the unhappy into the sea, plus those who would be made unhappy
> by driving people into the sea, certainly would.
If iterated (so that no one is driven into the sea unless
all who'd be upset by that suffer the same treatment), it
might result in just about the entire population being
driven into the sea. That would involve certain logistical
problems :-).
Gareth McCaughan
> As far as your question to me is concerned, I cannot answer it. I only
> have my innate sense of moral rightness or wrongness, so to see
> whether that sense is right or wrong is to invoke itself - a pointless
> exercise. I thought I had got that over to you.
But you *don't* only have that innate sense. You have,
or at least I presume you have on the basis of what
seems like good evidence, a mind that is capable of
spotting inconsistencies and the like. You have information
about many other people's innate senses of right and wrong.
You have all sorts of things. *Of course*, tautologously,
nothing but your "innate sense" determines what your
"innate sense" says; but there's no reason why other
things shouldn't play a role in determining what, all
things considered, you regard as the best thing to do
in any given situation.
Gareth McCaughan
[me:]
>> No, he's asking you a hypothetical question like the one
>> you asked him.
[William:]
> We were discussing *definitions* of morality against our innate
> in-built *sense* of morality. Peter stated that he would take a
> definition of morality (to the best of his understanding/ability, by
> God) over his innate sense of morality. It was he who put himself in
> the position of having to choose a moral arbiter. So my question to
> him was valid and he answered it. I cannot answer his question to me
> and I thought I had indicated why.
I still don't understand why you can't answer his question.
It's a perfectly straightforward question.
We're *all* in the position of "having to choose a moral
arbiter", every time we decide what to do. We could adopt
a policy of just going with our instincts all the time,
which seems to be what you're saying you do. But I don't
trust my instincts that much; I think they're liable to
be swayed by self-interest, by hormonal and emotional
fluctuations, and so on; and I think they could easily
give inconsistent answers. So, having the good fortune
to be endowed with a mind as well as instincts, I submit
my moral instincts to rational examination in the light
of all the other information I have. That other information
includes what I know and guess about the will of God; of
course, there's more guessing than knowing there.
> My innate sense of moral wrongness or rightness *is* my morality.
In that case, it seems to me that you can give a perfectly
straightforward answer to Peter's perfectly straightforward
question: if your innate sense of moral rightness and wrongness
told you that it was OK to molest children, then you would
regard it as OK to molest children and would presumably do so
if you felt like it (unless, of course, there were strong
prudential reasons against, like the danger of being caught).
And it seems to me that this is precisely as "chilling"
(to use your term) as what Peter said, and in exactly
the same way.
(And, for what it's worth, neither what Peter has said
nor what you have said would make me particularly reluctant
to leave either of you in charge of children. It is very
unlikely that either your instinctive moral sense or Peter's
understanding of God's will will start declaring that
molesting children is OK. Though both have been known
to happen.)
> For those who place what they think God is telling them is morally
> right over their inbuilt sense of moral repugnance in these extreme
> cases, the issues raised are pretty important and relevant.
>
> I seem to remember that you and I got to a similar stage in a recent
> discussion when you dropped out.
Perhaps we did; I don't remember. (If you think I dropped out
because I couldn't answer your points, or something, then by
all means give me a message-ID and I'll take a look.)
> But, seeing the over-reaction of others in this ng, it is clearly a
> touchy subject.
It isn't "others in this ng" who implied that it is unsafe
to have Peter living near young children. That was you,
and it was as fine and as offensive a piece of over-reaction
as anyone could hope to see.
Phil Saunders
I hear the sound of clucking
Phil
Paul Dean
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:10:43 +1300, "Peter R"
> <plast...@maxnet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> "Gareths right William, so please do me the curtesty
>> of answering the actual question, especially given that
>> I answered you so frankly".
>
> First of all, thank you for answering my question so frankly.
>
> The question was on the basis of you having to decide what you would
> take as your final arbiter - your innate sense of morality or a
> definition of morality (by God, to the best of your
> understanding/ability).
That's where you're going wrong then - that is not the question that
anyone other than you is considering. The question is, given a choice of
moral definitions between a) ones innate sense of morality and b) an
interpretation of God's mind, what are the consequences for a change in
what those two different sources of morality telling us. If either tells
us something unexpected, which one is more likely to lead to bad
consequences? I'd suggest it's clearly the "innate sense of morality"
which is most easily subject to manipulation by circumstances or events;
the interpretation of God's mind has the safety net of the interpretation
being done by millions of people to arrive at the answers. Your innate
sense is just yours and no-one can contradict it.
--
Paul
John Blake
<paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:
Taking God's track record in the OT into consideration, I wouldn't be
surprised if he commanded all sorts of atrocities to be carried out.
Of course what we are really looking at is what the Church leaders
decide is morally right. This is why there are suicide bombers who are
convinced they are doing God's work, the Pope or his underlings
putting out lies with regard to the effectiveness of condoms in
combating aids, and the homophobia which is still present to a great
extent in certain sections of society. And as for the 'millions of
people' that applies far more to secular society than the religious
who are persuaded into their morality by their leaders.
John
Paul Dean
<johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2005 09:03:26 +0100, "Paul Dean"
> <paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:
>
>> I'd suggest it's clearly the "innate sense of morality"
>> which is most easily subject to manipulation by circumstances or events;
>> the interpretation of God's mind has the safety net of the
>> interpretation
>> being done by millions of people to arrive at the answers. Your innate
>> sense is just yours and no-one can contradict it.
>
> Taking God's track record in the OT into consideration, I wouldn't be
> surprised if he commanded all sorts of atrocities to be carried out.
While I wouldn't completely discount it, our present understanding of the
time we are in indicates that He would not do so now - the meaning of the
OT instances hopefully do not need to be repeated.
> Of course what we are really looking at is what the Church leaders
> decide is morally right.
No, we're not really looking at that at all. Personal choice,
responsibility and conscience is paramount when one decides what is
morally right. I certainly pay little attention to what "Church leaders"
think, let along letting them decide for me.
> This is why there are suicide bombers who are
> convinced they are doing God's work,
How are you sure they never are?
> the Pope or his underlings
> putting out lies with regard to the effectiveness of condoms in
> combating aids,
Condoms are not effective in combating HIV/AIDS, unless as one small part
in an overall social survival package.
> and the homophobia which is still present to a great
> extent in certain sections of society.
What lies with regard to homophobia are you referring to?
> And as for the 'millions of
> people' that applies far more to secular society than the religious
> who are persuaded into their morality by their leaders.
That's yet aother source of morality, one for which William was not
arguing. The argument remains, however, that William insists Christians
answer a question he is either unwilling or incapable of answering for his
own source of morality. There is none so blind as they that won't
question their own faith. We are all persuaded into all sorts of things
by our leaders, in a sense I suppose, if you take 'leadership' to mean
'influence'. Who is influencing you and are you even aware of it?
--
Paul
John Blake
<paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 11:34:08 +0200, John Blake
><johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>> On 29 Dec 2005 09:03:26 +0100, "Paul Dean"
>> <paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd suggest it's clearly the "innate sense of morality"
>>> which is most easily subject to manipulation by circumstances or events;
>>> the interpretation of God's mind has the safety net of the
>>> interpretation
>>> being done by millions of people to arrive at the answers. Your innate
>>> sense is just yours and no-one can contradict it.
>>
>> Taking God's track record in the OT into consideration, I wouldn't be
>> surprised if he commanded all sorts of atrocities to be carried out.
>
>While I wouldn't completely discount it, our present understanding of the
>time we are in indicates that He would not do so now - the meaning of the
>OT instances hopefully do not need to be repeated.
Umm - would you repeat some of them anyway, please. Are you saying
they were not as described in the Bible?
>
>> Of course what we are really looking at is what the Church leaders
>> decide is morally right.
>
>No, we're not really looking at that at all. Personal choice,
>responsibility and conscience is paramount when one decides what is
>morally right. I certainly pay little attention to what "Church leaders"
>think, let along letting them decide for me.
>
Well then, that's identical to the way atheists arrive at theirs. I'm
really puzzled now.
>> This is why there are suicide bombers who are
>> convinced they are doing God's work,
>
>How are you sure they never are?
I would hope they are not, otherwise who would worship such a god?
>
>> the Pope or his underlings
>> putting out lies with regard to the effectiveness of condoms in
>> combating aids,
>
>Condoms are not effective in combating HIV/AIDS, unless as one small part
>in an overall social survival package.
I should have written 'combating the spread of aids' :-(
>
>> and the homophobia which is still present to a great
>> extent in certain sections of society.
>
>What lies with regard to homophobia are you referring to?
No lies, just the split in the Christian population with one part
condemning and the other condoning homosexuality. The Church leaders
don't seem able to reach a consensus. Perhaps they should seek
guidance?
>
>> And as for the 'millions of
>> people' that applies far more to secular society than the religious
>> who are persuaded into their morality by their leaders.
>
>That's yet aother source of morality, one for which William was not
>arguing. The argument remains, however, that William insists Christians
>answer a question he is either unwilling or incapable of answering for his
>own source of morality. There is none so blind as they that won't
>question their own faith. We are all persuaded into all sorts of things
>by our leaders, in a sense I suppose, if you take 'leadership' to mean
>'influence'. Who is influencing you and are you even aware of it?
I will admit to being influenced by many people, groups etc. But in
the end I have made my own decisions, just as you have.
John
Phil Saunders
news:8ma7r11v29q4nvp02...@4ax.com...
So you are totally incapaable of answering a question.
I thought as much.
Phil
John Blake
Nobody has asked me a question.
John
Phil Saunders
Nobody addresses you at all and yet you comment but add nothing. You dont
deal with the question being asked but instead post drivel.
well done
Phil
John Blake
Who addressed you, and do you think you added anything except for your
usual silly comments?
John
Phil Saunders
Well I see that you have abandoned your argument without even a single line
of defense.
I'm not sure my comments are my usual ones.
Phil
William
>On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:26:21 +0200, William <tie...@mail.clara.fl.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:10:43 +1300, "Peter R"
>> <plast...@maxnet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> "Gareths right William, so please do me the curtesty
>>> of answering the actual question, especially given that
>>> I answered you so frankly".
>>
>> First of all, thank you for answering my question so frankly.
>>
>> The question was on the basis of you having to decide what you would
>> take as your final arbiter - your innate sense of morality or a
>> definition of morality (by God, to the best of your
>> understanding/ability).
>
>That's where you're going wrong then - that is not the question that
>anyone other than you is considering.
It is the question Peter was considering. And it is the question he
answered.
>The question is, given a choice of
>moral definitions between a) ones innate sense of morality and b) an
>interpretation of God's mind, what are the consequences for a change in
>what those two different sources of morality telling us.
We were discussing innate 'moral sense' vs a 'definition' of morality
>If either tells us something unexpected, which one is more likely
>to lead to bad consequences?
What do you mean by 'bad'?
>I'd suggest it's clearly the "innate sense of morality" which is most
>easily subject to manipulation by circumstances or events;
Maybe that is because you don't believe we have an innate (natural)
sense of morality and you don't believe anyone else does either; and
you think I have been duped if I think we have (your post to me in
message op.sqe8w9n6wpdz4z@paul )
>the interpretation of God's mind has the safety net of the interpretation
>being done by millions of people to arrive at the answers.
Thousands of different answers. On what basis (excluding any innate
sense of what is morally right) do you act according to one rather
than another?
>Your innate sense is just yours and no-one can contradict it.
Do you have an innate sense of it being morally right to do what God
tells you? Presumably not.
William
William
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>"William" wrote:
>
>> As far as your question to me is concerned, I cannot answer it. I only
>> have my innate sense of moral rightness or wrongness, so to see
>> whether that sense is right or wrong is to invoke itself - a pointless
>> exercise. I thought I had got that over to you.
>
>But you *don't* only have that innate sense.
Correct.
>You have, or at least I presume you have on the basis of what
>seems like good evidence, a mind that is capable of
>spotting inconsistencies and the like.
That is correct too.
>You have information
>about many other people's innate senses of right and wrong.
>You have all sorts of things.
And that.
>*Of course*, tautologously, nothing but your "innate
>sense" determines what your "innate sense" says;
I agree with that too. But it is not what I was referring to.
>but there's no reason why other things shouldn't play a role in
>determining what, all things considered, you regard as the best thing to do
>in any given situation.
Correct
William
William
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
[large snips. I'll come back to the relevant bits after we have
cleared up some key points that have continuously been missed]
>In that case, it seems to me that you can give a perfectly
>straightforward answer to Peter's perfectly straightforward
>question: if your innate sense of moral rightness and wrongness
>told you that it was OK to molest children,
[breaking in at this point]
Bearing in mind that in our recent discussion on this subject you said
that "I doubt that someone with no instinctive moral sense at all
would have any notion of "morally wrong" I'd like to ask you the kind
of perfectly straightforward answer you had in mind, taking account of
the following:
My question to Peter was on the basis of there being both an innate or
instinctive sense of what is morally wrong and there being a
definition by God (according to Peter's understanding/ability) of what
is morally wrong.
His question to me was on the basis of there being only an innate
(instinctive) sense of what is morally wrong.
Bearing in mind all the above, would you, first of all, clarify the
following points:
What does "innate sense of moral rightness" mean to you? And what do
you mean by 'OK' in this context. Presumably it doesn't mean 'morally
right' - or does it?
[snip]
I've just seen this ending to your post:
>It isn't "others in this ng" who implied that it is unsafe
>to have Peter living near young children. That was you,
>and it was as fine and as offensive a piece of over-reaction
>as anyone could hope to see.
OK, for the sake of argument, let's say you have a young daughter.
Your priest talks to you about the scandals in the church. He tells
you that, despite his deeply innate moral sense to the contrary, if he
thought God [final arbiter] told him it was morally right to abuse
your innocent daughter he would see it OK to do it.
You would not find that statement chilling. Moreover, you would have
the nerve to tell me that, if I found it even quite chilling, it would
be "as fine and as offensive a piece of over-reaction as anyone could
hope to see"
You have gone down in my estimation. But then, you, too, have a
hotline to the arbiter of all morals, so what does my opinion matter?
Pity you can't produce a scrap of tangible evidence that this final
arbiter actually exists.
William
Paul Dean
wrote:
> My question to Peter was on the basis of there being both an innate or
> instinctive sense of what is morally wrong and there being a
> definition by God (according to Peter's understanding/ability) of what
> is morally wrong.
Ah, it all comes together now. Your question was on the basis of you
being right. I knew you wouldn't answer Peter's question, and I think
it's because you can't question your own assumptions. Peter had to
question his in order to answer you.
> Pity you can't produce a scrap of tangible evidence that this final
> arbiter actually exists.
s/final arbiter/innate moral sense/
--
Paul
Gareth McCaughan
>> In that case, it seems to me that you can give a perfectly
>> straightforward answer to Peter's perfectly straightforward
>> question: if your innate sense of moral rightness and wrongness
>> told you that it was OK to molest children,
> [breaking in at this point]
>
> Bearing in mind that in our recent discussion on this subject you said
> that "I doubt that someone with no instinctive moral sense at all
> would have any notion of "morally wrong" I'd like to ask you the kind
> of perfectly straightforward answer you had in mind, taking account of
> the following:
>
> My question to Peter was on the basis of there being both an innate or
> instinctive sense of what is morally wrong and there being a
> definition by God (according to Peter's understanding/ability) of what
> is morally wrong.
>
> His question to me was on the basis of there being only an innate
> (instinctive) sense of what is morally wrong.
I don't know what you mean by "there being only ...", especially
as when I pointed out (elsewhere in this thread) various other
apparently relevant things that there are, you basically just
said "yes" to them.
However: I've already *said* what sort of perfectly straightforward
answer I had in mind. I said so in the grandparent of this article,
the one to which you were replying to when you said "I'd like to
ask you the kind of perfectly straightforward answer you had in
mind".
> Bearing in mind all the above, would you, first of all, clarify the
> following points:
>
> What does "innate sense of moral rightness" mean to you? And what do
> you mean by 'OK' in this context. Presumably it doesn't mean 'morally
> right' - or does it?
I'm using "innate sense of moral rightness" as shorthand for
*whatever* it is that you're talking about when you use those
words. But I've been assuming it means something along the
lines of an internal faculty that unreflectively produces
judgements about the rightness and wrongness of situations
or actions you contemplate.
By "OK" in the paragraph quoted above I mean "not morally wrong",
which might not be the same thing as "morally right". (Some things
might be neutral.)
And by "regard it as OK to molest children" (in the bit of
that paragraph that you snipped), I meant something like
"on balance, not consider there to be anything other than
self-interest that would provide good reason not to molest
children".
That is, in case it still isn't clear: What I'm asking you
about is the relationship between this "innate sense of
morality" of yours and the decisions you make about what
you will and won't do. I'm asking whether, if that "innate
sense" tells you that something is OK, there is *anything*
else that might lead you to judge, on balance, after reflection,
that you *ought* not to do whatever-it-is.
>> It isn't "others in this ng" who implied that it is unsafe
>> to have Peter living near young children. That was you,
>> and it was as fine and as offensive a piece of over-reaction
>> as anyone could hope to see.
>
> OK, for the sake of argument, let's say you have a young daughter.
> Your priest talks to you about the scandals in the church. He tells
> you that, despite his deeply innate moral sense to the contrary, if he
> thought God [final arbiter] told him it was morally right to abuse
> your innocent daughter he would see it OK to do it.
>
> You would not find that statement chilling. Moreover, you would have
> the nerve to tell me that, if I found it even quite chilling, it would
> be "as fine and as offensive a piece of over-reaction as anyone could
> hope to see"
Well, you know, that isn't quite what I said, and all the
differences happen to be ones that put me in a worse light
than an entirely accurate account would have. Odd, that.
In your imaginary scenario, (1) it seems that this priest
isn't being interrogated by me about what he would do, but
just feels that he ought to tell me that he'd abuse a child
if he thought God was telling him to do so; and (2) he chooses
to frame the matter not as a general principle, but with
specific reference to my (hypothetical) young daughter.
Both of *those* decisions would be somewhat alarming. (Not
because they change the meaning of his general claim about
right and wrong, but because they themselves say something
about his character. And because his bothering to say so
might suggest that he regarded it as a somewhat-plausible
possibility.)
So, suppose (getting a bit nearer to the actual discussion
you had with Peter) I insisted on his telling me whether,
if he were convinced that God wanted him to abuse a child
he would do so; and suppose he said yes. My reaction to that,
unlike your reaction to Peter, wouldn't be to denounce him
at once as a potential child abuser; rather, I would try to
understand more about what he meant and how worried (if at all)
I should be by it.
So, for instance, I would ask him -- as you didn't ask Peter --
questions like these:
- "What about the other way around? If you believed that
God wanted you *not* to abuse an innocent child, would
there be anything that would make you think it was OK
anyway?"
- "What would it take to convince you that God wanted you
to abuse an innocent child?"
- "Do you think it's at all likely that he might tell you
to do so?"
Returning briefly to the real world, I bet that Peter's answers
would be, respectively, "No, there wouldn't"; "I'm not sure,
but it would have to be absolutely spectacular to overcome my
present conviction that abusing innocent children is wrong and
that God therefore wouldn't tell me to do it"; and "No, of
course not".
And if our hypothetical priest gave answers like those, then
indeed I would not find his position chilling. (Assuming I
believed him.)
Could something happen that would do away with Peter's
moral objections to abusing children? Yes, he says: he
could become convinced that God wanted him to do it.
(But, I conjecture, that is extremely unlikely to happen.)
Could something happen that would do away with your
moral objections to abusing children? Yes, I think you
have said: your innate moral sense could start telling
you that it's OK to do. (But, I conjecture, that is
extremely unlikely to happen.)
If there's a difference between those two paragraphs
that justifies calling one of them chilling and not the
other, I'd be interested to know what it is.
> You have gone down in my estimation. But then, you, too, have a
> hotline to the arbiter of all morals, so what does my opinion matter?
> Pity you can't produce a scrap of tangible evidence that this final
> arbiter actually exists.
I don't have a hotline to the arbiter of all morals.
Paul Dean
wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2005 09:03:26 +0100, "Paul Dean"
> <paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:
>
>> I'd suggest it's clearly the "innate sense of morality" which is most
>> easily subject to manipulation by circumstances or events;
>
> Maybe that is because you don't believe we have an innate (natural)
> sense of morality
Just as you don't believe anyone discerns God's mind.
--
Paul
Phil Saunders
news:87r77ub...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
> "William" wrote:
snip
>> You have gone down in my estimation. But then, you, too, have a
>> hotline to the arbiter of all morals, so what does my opinion matter?
>> Pity you can't produce a scrap of tangible evidence that this final
>> arbiter actually exists.
>
> I don't have a hotline to the arbiter of all morals.
>
> --
> Gareth McCaughan
> .sig under construc
Do you want my number :-)
Phil
(acting arbiter of all morals until Jan 1st)
Paul Dean
<johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2005 12:17:52 +0100, "Paul Dean"
> <paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 11:34:08 +0200, John Blake
>> <johnremov...@f2s.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Taking God's track record in the OT into consideration, I wouldn't be
>>> surprised if he commanded all sorts of atrocities to be carried out.
>>
>> While I wouldn't completely discount it, our present understanding of
>> the
>> time we are in indicates that He would not do so now - the meaning of
>> the OT instances hopefully do not need to be repeated.
>
> Umm - would you repeat some of them anyway, please. Are you saying
> they were not as described in the Bible?
Umm - sorry I wasn't clear. What I mean is that the commands are unlikely
to be repeated because the meaning is unlikely to need repeating, since
their purpose in preparing for salvation through Christ[1] has already
been fulfilled.
[1] through preparing Israel to receive Christ
>>> Of course what we are really looking at is what the Church leaders
>>> decide is morally right.
>>
>> No, we're not really looking at that at all. Personal choice,
>> responsibility and conscience is paramount when one decides what is
>> morally right. I certainly pay little attention to what "Church
>> leaders" think, let along letting them decide for me.
>
> Well then, that's identical to the way atheists arrive at theirs. I'm
> really puzzled now.
What has puzzled you?
>>> This is why there are suicide bombers who are
>>> convinced they are doing God's work,
>>
>> How are you sure they never are?
>
> I would hope they are not, otherwise who would worship such a god?
Many.
>>> the Pope or his underlings
>>> putting out lies with regard to the effectiveness of condoms in
>>> combating aids,
>>
>> Condoms are not effective in combating HIV/AIDS, unless as one small
>> part in an overall social survival package.
>
> I should have written 'combating the spread of aids' :-(
In which case I should have written the very same thing :-(
>>> and the homophobia which is still present to a great
>>> extent in certain sections of society.
>>
>> What lies with regard to homophobia are you referring to?
>
> No lies, just the split in the Christian population with one part
> condemning and the other condoning homosexuality. The Church leaders
> don't seem able to reach a consensus. Perhaps they should seek
> guidance?
They have sought guidance I assure you and they appear to be somewhat in
consensus. Which church leaders are you thinking of who condone active
homosexuality? I don't know any, but then I don't really keep up with the
news.
>>> And as for the 'millions of
>>> people' that applies far more to secular society than the religious
>>> who are persuaded into their morality by their leaders.
>>
>> That's yet aother source of morality, one for which William was not
>> arguing. The argument remains, however, that William insists Christians
>> answer a question he is either unwilling or incapable of answering for
>> his own source of morality. There is none so blind as they that won't
>> question their own faith. We are all persuaded into all sorts of things
>> by our leaders, in a sense I suppose, if you take 'leadership' to mean
>> 'influence'. Who is influencing you and are you even aware of it?
>
> I will admit to being influenced by many people, groups etc. But in
> the end I have made my own decisions, just as you have.
Exactly - that is how the vast majority of us operate and why I say that
if you, with William, think your inner sense of morality is the perfect
arbiter then you are very likely to be deceived. If you measure and, if
necessary, heavily modify it by millenia of hard thinking and by what
appears to be a spectacular revelation of God's mind, then you will be
less likely deceive yourself. You can be deceived by others, of course,
but that's why it's useful to get as wide a consensus as possible and only
be sure about those things that there is absolute harmony throughout the
Christian tradition and through the past millenia of interpreting God's
revelation. Put alongside that, William is proposing we all just do
whatever we feel comfortable with, with our 'innate moral sense'.
Now the atheist has the problem that there's no way they can trust the
'revelation' and I sympathise with that a lot because that used to be me.
Personally (and other people differ on this) I think it's completely
reasonable to not trust revelation if you haven't experienced it. When
you do experience it, you'll know, and I wouldn't personally try to
convince you of it other than to describe my own experience.
--
Paul
Gareth McCaughan
[me:]
>> I don't have a hotline to the arbiter of all morals.
[Phil:]
> Do you want my number :-)
>
> Phil
> (acting arbiter of all morals until Jan 1st)
Now *that's* a good job title.
William
<paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:
>William <tie...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote:
>> "Paul Dean"<paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd suggest it's clearly the "innate sense of morality" which is most
>>> easily subject to manipulation by circumstances or events;
>>
>> Maybe that is because you don't believe we have an innate (natural)
>> sense of morality
>
>Just as you don't believe anyone discerns God's mind.
Please refer me to the post where I said that.
William
Tony Gillam
> "Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:87r77ub...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gareth McCaughan
>> .sig under construc
>
> Do you want my number :-)
>
> Phil
> (acting arbiter of all morals until Jan 1st)
Shouldn't that be April 1st?
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Paul Dean
wrote:
I assumed it based on various things you have said. I'm sorry to have
jumped to conclusions if that's not true, but it leaves me very confused
as to where you're coming from. I also assumed you don't believe in God,
from the various things you've said about how He should prove Himself, so
naturally such a person would not believe anyone discerns God's mind. Do
you?
--
Paul
William
<paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:
>William <tie...@mail.clara.fl.com> wrote:
>
>> My question to Peter was on the basis of there being both an innate or
>> instinctive sense of what is morally wrong and there being a
>> definition by God (according to Peter's understanding/ability) of what
>> is morally wrong.
>
>Ah, it all comes together now. Your question was on the basis of you
>being right.
My question was on the basis of what he told me about his position. He
understood the question and answered it frankly and honestly. It has
nothing to do with me being right.
Personally, I'm surprised he answered the question with a 'yes'. I
would have expected him to say he would question his
understanding/ability of what God was telling him, or simply say he
didn't (or couldn't) know the answer - I (unlike others) would have
accepted that answer too.
> I knew you wouldn't answer Peter's question, and I think
>it's because you can't question your own assumptions. Peter had to
>question his in order to answer you.
It might be a good idea to stop thinking up what my motives might be
and stick to what you know about them (which, clearly, isn't very
much)
There are ambiguities in Peter's question. One is whether "feeling OK"
is a feeling of it being morally right or just 'feeling OK' (ie, an OK
feeling').
Here is my take on what I think covers the interpretations of the
question (and others like it) and I'll give my answers. 'X' will be
repugnant acts such as abusing an innocent child.
Q - Do you feel it is morally right that you feel X is morally wrong?
Would you feel it morally right if you felt X was morally right?
A - I don't think I can answer. I can't stand back and 'feel' whether
my feeling of moral 'wrong' is morally right.
Q - If your feeling that X is morally wrong allowed you to feel that X
was morally right would you see it as morally right?
A - I don't think I can untangle that in a way that would let me
answer the question properly [is the 2nd feeling subordinate to the
1st; does it replace it, would I think it is morally right to replace
it etc], but if pushed I'd probably say the answer is no.
Q - If you feel X is morally wrong but it gave you an' OK feeling'
would you see it as morally right?
A - No.
Q - What if, sometime in the future, you actually feel X is morally
right?
A - I'd be worse than psychopathic (or sociopathic [potential
sociopath] as the current term is). I hope I'd be locked up or
restricted in some way[1]. And I would find it chilling if I thought I
could flip into that state just from what I thought was an order from
some higher authority.
Q - If you feel X is morally wrong (which you do) but thought God was
telling you it is morally right, would you overcome your feeling that
it is morally wrong and see it as morally right?
A - No. I would question my understanding of what God was telling me.
Q - But could you overcome your feeling that it is morally wrong and
*feel* that it is morally right?
A - Only if I was worse than psychopathic and thought God was too.
William
[1] note that I have never denied the possibility that you or I or the
Queen, or the Pope could turn into a psychopath (or worse) at some
point in the future. I, personally, would deny the possibility that
God would (or has done) or that he would ask anyone to flip into that
state. Perhaps I'm in a minority here.
Paul Dean
wrote:
> There are ambiguities in Peter's question. One is whether "feeling OK"
> is a feeling of it being morally right or just 'feeling OK' (ie, an OK
> feeling').
Peter asked you your own question back at you, which was:
"So if, to the best of your understanding/ability, God told you that it
was morally right to abuse an innocent child you would accept it and
see it as morally right?"
but replacing "God" with whatever source of morals you have (in your case
apparently an innate moral sense). Peter, regardless of his actual
wording, was asking you,
"So if, to the best of your understanding/ability, your innate moral sense
told you that it was morally right to abuse an innocent child you would
accept it and see it as morally right?"
To which your answer must be yes, just as his was. The closest question
to this in your alternatives, although it's not exact, was:
> Q - What if, sometime in the future, you actually feel X is morally
> right?
I say this is the closest question, since your source of morals is a
"sense" i.e. presumably some kind of feeling and "what if your innate
moral sense told you..." becomes close to "what if you actually feel..."
Your answer was:
> A - I'd be worse than psychopathic (or sociopathic [potential
> sociopath] as the current term is). I hope I'd be locked up or
> restricted in some way[1]. And I would find it chilling if I thought I
> could flip into that state just from what I thought was an order from
> some higher authority.
Which, unlike Peter's answer, is no answer at all. What I think you meant
was "yes, I would accept it and see it as morally right, but I hope I'd be
locked up or restricted", but you can't say that because you'll look silly
for how you responded to Peter.
ta ta,
--
Paul
Simon Woods
>>What do you think underpins that 'good old-fashioned sense of moral
>>repulsion'? BTW I'm don't mean the social/developmental aspect but rather
>>that personal sense? Is it purely a product or biology/chemistry?
>
> I don't know. I have lots of built-in senses, imperatives and passions
> - my sense of moral outrage at the idea of drowning the old and infirm
> is one of them. In the absence of any other testable explanation I
> would probably put it down to biology/chemistry and that such things
> were selected for in our distant past.
Could you elaborate on "selected", please? i.e. Chosen for a particular
purpose or situation?
William
<paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:
>William <tie...@mail.clara.fl.com>wrote:
>
>> There are ambiguities in Peter's question. One is whether "feeling OK"
>> is a feeling of it being morally right or just 'feeling OK' (ie, an OK
>> feeling').
>
>Peter asked you your own question back at you, which was:
>
>"So if, to the best of your understanding/ability, God told you that it
>was morally right to abuse an innocent child you would accept it and
>see it as morally right?"
That was my question to Peter after he implied he had a natural moral
sense but required a final arbiter, which he then told me was God . My
question was a perfectly reasonable response to that. He answered it.
>but replacing "God" with whatever source of morals you have (in your case
>apparently an innate moral sense). Peter, regardless of his actual
>wording,
Oh yes, regardless of his actual wording . . . What sort of game are
you playing?
>was asking you,
>
>"So if, to the best of your understanding/ability, your innate moral sense
>told you that it was morally right to abuse an innocent child you would
>accept it and see it as morally right?"
No he didn't. Regarding *the actual wording* he said:
"If your "in-built perception of moral should" allowed you to feel OK
about having sex with a 5 year old would you see it as moraly right?"
I went to the trouble of going into the detail of explaining the
various ways I could take that and giving my honest answers.
>To which your answer must be yes, just as his was. The closest question
>to this in your alternatives, although it's not exact, was:
>
>> Q - What if, sometime in the future, you actually feel X is morally
>> right?
Too true, it's not exact. The closest were the following two:
Q - If your feeling that X is morally wrong allowed you to feel that X
was morally right would you see it as morally right?
A - I don't think I can untangle that in a way that would let me
answer the question properly [is the 2nd feeling subordinate to the
1st; does it replace it, would I think it is morally right to replace
it etc], but if pushed I'd probably say the answer is no.
Q - If you feel X is morally wrong but it gave you an' OK feeling'
would you see it as morally right?
A - No.
And the answer I gave was 'no'
And, as far as the question you picked out is concerned, I answered
that too:
>> A - I'd be worse than psychopathic (or sociopathic [potential
>> sociopath] as the current term is). I hope I'd be locked up or
>> restricted in some way[1]. And I would find it chilling if I thought I
>> could flip into that state just from what I thought was an order from
>> some higher authority.
>
>Which, unlike Peter's answer, is no answer at all. What I think you meant
>was "yes, I would accept it and see it as morally right, but I hope I'd be
>locked up or restricted",
You will know from my post that what I might 'see' as morally right is
subject to what I actually 'feel' as morally right. My morality is
what I 'feel' or 'sense'.
That was also clear in the question you snipped:
[start of re-insert>
Q - If you feel X is morally wrong (which you do) but thought God was
telling you it is morally right, would you overcome your feeling that
it is morally wrong and see it as morally right?
A - No. I would question my understanding of what God was telling me.
[end of re-insert]
Therefore, according to the answer to the question you picked out,
what I clearly meant (and took from the question) was that I would
actually feel X was morally right (ie, a complete reversal (flip))
from what I feel now. And, from the perspective of now, I would hope
I'd be locked up or restricted.
What more can I say? My feeling (or sense) of what is morally wrong
today could completely reverse at some point in the future. I would
hope (today) that if that happened with something I feel to be grossly
morally offensive that I would be locked up or otherwise restricted.
Clearly there is some sort of witch-hunt going on here. Nothing I say
will satisfy anyone. Misrepresent and run away if you like.
William