Religious arguments and analogies that really bother you

[DrZoidberg]

You're obviously full of shit. Anyone--whether they be atheist or theist, could tell you that all humans have a right to be free from slavery.

It's even included the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although that is not a requirement for something to be considered a human right.

I think what he means is that atheists can't point to a sacred book to settle the argument. I think Lion thinks that think that the fact that atheists have to think about it and can't just obey an authority is a weakness. He doesn't understand how ethics from argument is a strength, while blind obedience is a weakness. Yeah I know, weird

 

[bigfield]

Lion IRC is far from the only Christian to get stuck on the idea that morality must come from some higher authority.

It's a premise of several arguments from morality. For example:

1. If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
2. Morality is objective and absolute.
3. Therefore, God must exist.

Premise #2 is not true. Morality is subjective: humans define morality, and our beliefs about what is moral change over time.

The idea of human rights is itself an example of the fact that humans invent new moral codes as their culture changes. In the Western world, human rights emerged as a visible idea during the enlightenment, but early ideas about human rights where concerned primarily with civil and political rights. The socialist movement conceived of social, cultural and cultural human rights, including fundamental rights such as the right to food, shelter and clean water. The West has only recently considered the Eastern idea of collective human rights--those that apply to groups, not individuals--such as the right to a clean environment and a sustainable human habitat. These later generations of human rights is not as widely accepted as the first, and are largely ignored by documents such as the Universal Declaration.

 

[bigfield]

I think what he means is that atheists can't point to a sacred book to settle the argument. I think Lion thinks that think that the fact that atheists have to think about it and can't just obey an authority is a weakness. He doesn't understand how ethics from argument is a strength, while blind obedience is a weakness. Yeah I know, weird

Ironically, the Bible doesn't provide an acceptable moral code, either. The moral codes of >99% of Christians in the West are contradictory to the moral lessons of the Bible. Christians, like everyone else, have their own subjective moral codes that disagree with their sacred book, and to a lesser extent, with each other.

 

[Lion IRC]

Biblical theists say objective morality entails the existence of a maximally great Higher Being who is both law-giver and law enforcer. When two biblical theists are debating their opinions of right and wrong the one thing they BOTH agree on is that God could and should settle the matter.

When two atheists are arguing over meta-ethics one terrestrial opinion is as mundane and subjective as the other.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Some places in Africa even have police forces that specialize in finding witches.

In the United States of America if there was a witch abducting little kids, torturing them,
burning them alive and then cannibalising their remains, you can bet the police there
would also hunt them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Biblical theists say objective morality entails the existence of a maximally great Higher Being who is both law-giver and law enforcer. When two biblical theists are debating their opinions of right and wrong the one thing they BOTH agree on is that God could and should settle the matter.

Odd how you talk about laws in the bible when others say that faith alone is all that matters.

- - - Updated - - -

Lion IRC is far from the only Christian to get stuck on the idea that morality must come from some higher authority.

It's a premise of several arguments from morality.

Wait... that is an actual argument for God?!

 

[Rayschism]

Odd how you talk about laws in the bible when others say that faith alone is all that matters.

- - - Updated - - -

Lion IRC is far from the only Christian to get stuck on the idea that morality must come from some higher authority.

It's a premise of several arguments from morality.

Wait... that is an actual argument for God?!

HEre are a lot more arguments for God, if you or anyone else is interested. I really love this site.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

 

[Sarpedon]

Wow Jimmy, I'm amazed you haven't seen that one before, you've been here longer than I have! Maybe your brain edits out dumb arguments.

As far as the argument goes, it isn't too difficult to figure out how morality can be evolved in social creatures. Take a look at game theory.

 

[Lion IRC]

Odd how you talk about laws in the bible when others say that faith alone is all that matters.

Are we not supposed to "talk about" laws in the bible?
I'm not aware of any Christian doctrine which says faith pre-empts us from talking about laws in the bible.
Wanna start a faith versus works discussion thread?
I love discussing that stuff.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Odd how you talk about laws in the bible when others say that faith alone is all that matters.

Are we not supposed to "talk about" laws in the bible?
I'm not aware of any Christian doctrine which says faith pre-empts us from talking about laws in the bible.

The laws are irrelevant. The faith doctrine did that. Pretty much nullified 50% of the bible.

Feel free to talk about things that are irrelevant to your god. Might as well talk about net neutrality.

 

[bilby]

...Some places in Africa even have police forces that specialize in finding witches.

In the United States of America if there was a witch abducting little kids, torturing them,
burning them alive and then cannibalising their remains, you can bet the police there
would also hunt them.

Indeed. But not because of the 'witch' thing.

In the US, a non-witch who did the same would be hunted with equal vigour.

In the parts of Africa where witches are hunted, an alleged witch who had done nothing to hurt anyone would be hunted with equal vigour.

But, importantly, in the modern US, nobody is hunted by police merely for claiming to be a witch, or for being suspected of witchcraft.

- - - Updated - - -

Biblical theists say objective morality entails the existence of a maximally great Higher Being who is both law-giver and law enforcer. When two biblical theists are debating their opinions of right and wrong the one thing they BOTH agree on is that God could and should settle the matter.

Sure. But they are mistaken.

When two atheists are arguing over meta-ethics one terrestrial opinion is as mundane and subjective as the other.

The same is true of the theists - they are just ignorant of the fact.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Biblical theists say objective morality entails the existence of a maximally great Higher Being who is both law-giver and law enforcer. When two biblical theists are debating their opinions of right and wrong the one thing they BOTH agree on is that God could and should settle the matter.

When two atheists are arguing over meta-ethics one terrestrial opinion is as mundane and subjective as the other.

View attachment 11038

It's the other way around. When atheists debate ethics they need to base them on rational arguments. That's what ethics originally meant.

Theists on the other hand have to base their ethics on nothing. Why, nothing? Because the wishes of God are unknowable. You have no idea which holy book should count, if any. If Christian you have no idea which Bible should count. You have no idea which Biblcal verses should have precedent over another (when there's conflict). You don't need to study Christianity long to understand that Christian morals are based on traditions. Basically, whatever is trendy. It's completely and utterly subjective. Not only subjective, but are above having to be argued for. "This is what I think because this is what I believe God thinks"

To me, when theists say I base my morals on "objective morality entails the existence of a maximally great Higher Being who is both law-giver and law enforcer" means, "I have no idea what I'm talking about, thinking makes my brain hurt, but I still want to have an opinion and you should respect it"

 

[braces_for_impact]

Odd how you talk about laws in the bible when others say that faith alone is all that matters.

Are we not supposed to "talk about" laws in the bible?
I'm not aware of any Christian doctrine which says faith pre-empts us from talking about laws in the bible.
Wanna start a faith versus works discussion thread?
I love discussing that stuff.

Isn't this precisely the point? You can all argue faith vs. works, once saved, only saved, literal or figurative hell, any number of subjects, and none of you have anything you can point to in order to verify who is right. It's the same reason I watch interfaith panels with bemusement. All of them sitting there with conflicting, mutually conflicting theology, dancing around the issues and trying to (if you'll pardon the pun) interact on good faith. This is why there's been no real advancement in theology in a long, long time, if there ever was. None of you can prove who's right, but you can all damn well be wrong. The questions you and your holy clergy love to debate will never have an answer, even in principle.

Real world concepts simply do not work that way. Even for answers we don't know right now, there's an opportunity that one day we may know the answer, and there's an agreed upon method for knowing who is right should we encounter any data. Even if we don't think we'll ever know the end game, the present circumstances can be studied to see what the various outcomes may be.

A natural explanation of phenomena has NEVER given way to a supernatural one in terms of understanding. EVER. Not once. Obviously, we cannot say the same is true in reverse. In fact, we find that religion thrives in those margins of the unknown, and as soon as more becomes revealed by it simply retreats ever further into the murky areas once again in order to assert more claims.

Even if you don't think that supernatural thinking and religion retard curiosity, since you like to debate unrelated semantics, you must admit that if you're asking the wrong questions, you're not very likely to get a good answer. Science isn't (regardless as some claim) all about the answer, it's about asking the right questions.

 

[Learner]

If there was a world without theism, would then this advancement as for science, also mean advancement in morality? Of course not. The "real world" is where "material things" for some people become more valuable than human life. The more you own the more you worry less about those that do not own a thing ( in a manner of speaking).

 

[DrZoidberg]

If there was a world without theism, would then this advancement as for science, also mean advancement in morality? Of course not. The "real world" is where "material things" for some people become more valuable than human life. The more you own the more you worry less about those that do not own a thing ( in a manner of speaking).

Well.. it's the best we can do. Secular morality is better than morals based on nothing but whims and trends. Christian morality is basically, might makes right. The powerful majority is given a free pass to opress minorities, and then use the Bible to justify it. The gay rights movement is a good example. The conservative Christians are against gay rights, because why? It makes no sense.

In a secular world, we have to ask ourselves the question, "what is the harm...?", everytime we want to ban something. Christians don't need to do that. Christians just need to feel that "this" is what the Bible must have meant all along.

Before we can even begin to base morals on the Bible you need to start by showing how the Bible is moral at all. And to do that you need to use ethics. Ie secular morals. So you might as well just throw out the Bible. That book adds nothing. It's a waste of energy and time.

 

[Sarpedon]

There has been a correlation between moral advancement and scientific advancement. Of course that does not mean that one causes the other. More likely, they are both the products of a healthy society.

The societies of the past were not the utopias religious people like to imagine they were. You talk as if the concept that things are more valuable than people is something non-religious people invented. Not so. How many people have been killed for 'blasphemy,' the belief that words are more important than people? How many people have been killed in Crusades, and other squabbles over sacred places? Places are more important than human life. And your absurd belief that somehow religion promotes equality, despite every single religious regime ever to exist valuing certain people above others. To this day, it is clear that in religious organizations the clergy value themselves over the laity. Learner, your assertions that these are atheistic concepts are simply lies. Anyone with more than a trivial knowledge of history can see that, to the point where it is absolutely unnecessary for me to give examples, as anyone with even a high school education should recall several for each.

And how many times have these and similar concepts been used as a mask for the simple accumulation of wealth and power? That is all religion is. The mask of control.

 

[bigfield]

Biblical theists say objective morality entails the existence of a maximally great Higher Being who is both law-giver and law enforcer. When two biblical theists are debating their opinions of right and wrong the one thing they BOTH agree on is that God could and should settle the matter.

The irony is that the Bible is subjective: The stories and rules were imagined by humans, the compilation of the Bible was conducted by humans, and every Christian interprets the moral lessons of the Bible differently from their fellows. Christians' morals are all over the map on questions of human rights, and as a group, their morals have changed over the centuries as society has progressed. After more than two millenia, the history of Christianity has become firm evidence that humans do not get their moral code from an absolutely authority, but from their culture.

 

[bigfield]

If there was a world without theism, would then this advancement as for science, also mean advancement in morality?

The fact that morality advances at all is evidence that it is not god-given. Unless Yahweh changes his mind...often.

Of course not. The "real world" is where "material things" for some people become more valuable than human life. The more you own the more you worry less about those that do not own a thing ( in a manner of speaking).

As the history of Christendom, shows, both wealth and power corrupt people to not only disregard the needs of their fellow people, but perpetrate horrific crimes against humanity. Christian kings, Christian emperors and the Catholic Church are all guilty of grossly immoral acts, and many of those acts have been explicitly justified as righteous and holy. Christians are still burning "witches" to this very day.

For the majority of Christianity's history, Christian with wealth and power have behaved very, very badly. Many of our modern ideas about right and wrong are younger than the enlightenment: the idea of human rights has gradually evolved over the last few centuries, and humanism is even younger than that. These contemporary moral frameworks are based on reason, and reason is independent of religion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Biblical theists say objective morality entails the existence of a maximally great Higher Being who is both law-giver and law enforcer. When two biblical theists are debating their opinions of right and wrong the one thing they BOTH agree on is that God could and should settle the matter.

When two atheists are arguing over meta-ethics one terrestrial opinion is as mundane and subjective as the other.

View attachment 11038

How is the theist position less subjective? If they're having an argument over the matter, it means that the objective position is unclear, and their arguments are just based on their subjective opinion of what God wants. Ignoring the fact hat an omniscient being could make every one of his positions abundantly clear to everyone who ever hears them with exactly the same amount of effort as it would take him to give a vague stance on a single position, their making an interpretation of God's will has the same level of subjectivity that making an interpretation based on any other factor does.

 

[Rayschism]

The idea of free will is always one I have had major problems with.

The general attitude of Christians seems to be that you must blindly obey God's edits and dogma, and you can't question him in any way. If ypu dp, then you get to go to hell and burn for all eternity.

That does not seem to be free will to me.

Also, I really have a lot of hostility towards the ideas of simply unbelieving is no different than commtting horrible crimes against ten year old children. I have an exceptionally hard time fathoming that mentality.