I offer an alternative to mass spewing about Christianity

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 81 - 100 of total 437 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Tvash

climber

Seattle

Aug 20, 2014 - 05:30pm PT

I don't believe any atheists have accused Christians of being Hitler to date LOL. It's interesting that how often atheists seem to spew. I haven't observed that, but I'll carry a smock, just in case.

The oft repeated objection by supporters of civil rights - most notably the 14th Amendments equal protection clause, to the more stringent sects of Christianity theology stems from its inherent exclusivity. A "saved" versus "unsaved" world view enables followers to then exhibit other forms of bigotry against entire groups, women and the LGBT community most notably nowadays.

That opposing some Christians from persecuting others is, itself, a form of bigotry is, of course, nonsense and a commonly used tactic by groups that cannot otherwise provide a moral justification for their actions that jibe in even a remote sense with the principles embodied in the Bill of Rights.

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Aug 20, 2014 - 05:30pm PT

I laugh to myself...

Classic covert arrogance.

WBraun

climber

Aug 20, 2014 - 06:04pm PT

Scripture is dead. Go with the living.

You guys are all dead too.

You guys are all fixed on dead matter.

Just walking robotic corpses and consciousness in your lower chakras.

Tvash

climber

Seattle

Aug 20, 2014 - 06:08pm PT

Always a charmer!

Byran

climber

San Jose, CA

Aug 20, 2014 - 06:11pm PT

But do you think that an atheist moral relativism/subjectivism is any better? If so, how???

For what it's worth, I think a great number (probably the majority, but I don't have any polling data to back that up) of modern day atheists would subscribe to a philosophy of moral realism, which is the opposite of subjectivism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

Moral realism is I think the most logical form of ethics for anyone who holds a scientific materialist view of nature. The idea that without God there is only nihilism is a strawman if there ever was one.

jstan

climber

Aug 20, 2014 - 06:20pm PT

Jawon:
You obviously did not expect this. I think we can understand it under the hypothesis that theistic relations in this country, indeed in the world at large, are in a state that has not existed for hundreds of years. We might have guessed this from the fact the catholic church has had to cough up billions of dollars to settle child abuse charges. Muslim decapitations of journalists weigh in here also.

I think followers of religions need to rethink their position that people must be forced to surrender their own judgment and thinking to an authority, churches.

Churches no longer have clothes.

Tvash

climber

Seattle

Aug 20, 2014 - 06:22pm PT

Sounds complicated.

Try to leave the place better than when you found it.
Stay healthy.
Choice, not control.
Be mindful.
Laugh.

The 6 Actions:

Create
Appreciate
Serve
Connect
Accept
Explore

WBraun

climber

Aug 20, 2014 - 06:27pm PT

Everyone is forced to surrender .... everyone!!!

Your material body will be taken away, you will be kicked out of it.

The atheists and materialists will say this person is dead.

So where's your so called no surrender to authority?

The atheists must surrender to the inferior energy of God called material nature.

Material nature is authority and supreme to the atheists.

Everyone in the cosmic creation is forced to surrender to authority.

One only has minute independent freedom ......

Tvash

climber

Seattle

Aug 20, 2014 - 06:48pm PT

Sounds kinky.

I often wonder how the Born Again movement would fare without God, Heaven, or Hell - and the act of striving to be Christ-like. No carrot, no stick, no salvation, no schadenfreude, no judgement, no end times bloodbath.

Just love.

I'd like to meet all two of them, frankly.

Wait...I think that's called Unitarianism.

Captain...or Skully

climber

in the oil patch...Fricken Bakken, that's where

Aug 20, 2014 - 07:04pm PT

Some atheists rage at "Christos" because those Bastards just won't let it go.
Just leave me be. I don't want your Fricken fairy tales. I will decide what I think when I have enough evidence. Faith is insufficient.
Have a nice Fricken day.

Norton

Social climber

quitcherbellyachin

Aug 20, 2014 - 07:17pm PT

Some atheists rage at "Christos" because those Bastards just won't let it go.

those damn atheists are going to go to hell and they won't even know it they're so stupid

consider the reason for this thread:

the OP says he has an "alternative" to mass spewing about Christianity

and the alternative is.... starting another thread to profess what else?..Christianity

rottingjohnny

Sport climber

mammoth lakes ca

Aug 20, 2014 - 08:01pm PT

Robotic corpses...! LMAO..

Tvash

climber

Seattle

Aug 20, 2014 - 08:21pm PT

One of my sculptures is called "Robot Bone"

GUILTY AS CHARGED.

Tvash

climber

Seattle

Aug 20, 2014 - 08:23pm PT

Why would anyone have a problem with God's Law applying to all of us?

Christian Nation, after all.

Gay marriage ban, anyone?

Poor Christians. So persecuted.

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber

joshua tree

Aug 20, 2014 - 10:00pm PT

Faith involves unquestioning and undivided loyalty and deference to one's deity, as one understands it.

Ken, i hear what your saying. Try thinking of this way, IF the bible, and God's utterings about a war between good and evil in the universe are true. What would be the sweetest gift we could give back to the creator of the universe? To BE good? He tried that with the 10 commandments, and even with direct consultation we failed. So our good works are out! And what would our works be to the inventor of ALL this? Could we offer our smarts, our intelligence? PFFFT! Yea right! If our good deeds, and our super intelligence can't get us closer to God. Do you think ALL of mankinds good deeds, and ALL of our intelligence added up would cause God to say, "Yea their with Me!"? So what then do each and every one of us posses that's more important than all these things? i believe it's love, commitment, and faith.

Let me ask you a question, have you had enough trust in someone that you committed acts just from what they said to you. You have to have faith in that person's word. Anotherwords you would do what they said automatically beacause you felt they couldn't be wrong or would lie to you. That's having faith! And how'd you feel after you acted on their opinion and relized what they had said was in fact true? i bet you felt pretty good about that person, you might even have felt love for that person! You could give someone some education, teach them say, chemistry, or brain surgery, or how to meditate, etc. OR you could give someone a new car, or a million bucks, but what would any of that mean? Isn't giving someone your Word of honor more substantial? Atleast it ought to be! Now for the drum roll.. For someone to have Faith in your Word of honor, to act on it without hesitation, just because you said so. Isn't THAT the best gift they could offer unto you, and your name?

Pardon, i'll get to those differences shortly, must do chores.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Aug 20, 2014 - 10:14pm PT

Actually, the opposite of moral realism is moral anti-realism, which is not equivalent to subjectivism.

The opposite of subjectivism is not moral realism. It is objectivism, which is not equivalent to moral realism.

Moral realism is a metaphysical, rather than epistemological, position that essentially says that moral propositions refer to features of the universe that exist apart from this or that particular perception of what those features are. In other words, the referents (whether or not we could ever know anything about them) are real entities or features of reality. Nothing in moral realism is committed to the position that these real features or entities could actually be known by anybody.

That is different from objectivism, which is an epistemological position that essentially says that our knowledge of the truth conditions of moral propositions is derived from some sort of connection with real moral facts.

And example of, say, mathematical realism would be to say that there is some fact of the matter in the universe regarding, say, (the strong) Goldbach's Conjecture... regardless if it even in principle can be proved one way or the other. Notice that being a mathematical realist does not commit one to any particular claim about the truth conditions of Goldbach's conjecture... only that whatever they are, the truth conditions will be anchored in real entities that exist apart from perception.

Mathematical objectivism, by contrast, would go beyond mere realism and propose that the truth conditions of Goldbach's Conjecture will be tied to this or that particular features of reality... and that we would come to know the truth or falsity of Goldbach's Conjecture via this or that particular connection with those features.

If this seems like a purely academic distinction, I'll bring it to a point regarding your claim.

Most people in general are quite confused about realism/objectivism and anti-realism/subjectivism. There are very different commitments inherent in these positions, so speaking about them loosely only breeds more confusion.

If, as you say, most atheists are moral realists, that is actually a very weak position as regards what the moral facts actually are and what the truth conditions of moral propositions are. It is saying nothing more than: "Morality is grounded in actual features of the universe rather than in features of human beings qua perceivers." Most realist atheists would want to claim that moral facts inhere in brain states, emerging through the process of brain evolution.

Now, YOU contrast that position with moral subjectivism, and it would indeed be interesting if most atheists were actual objectivists. However, in point of fact, you are correct in your first claim but not in the supposed implication you draw from it. Most atheists are NOT true objectivists! And the realist claim is pretty uninteresting apart from a genuine moral objectivism. From an evolutionary theory perspective, the realist claim is basically tautological.

You should read J.L. Mackie's seminal work: Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Here, Mackie does the best work ever done in clearly making the distinctions I summarize, and he comes down firmly as a subjectivist/realist. Some call him a moral skeptic, but he most certainly is not. He ties all moral values to human beings in a very realistic (not qua-perceivers way), but his subjectivism anchors the truth conditions of moral propositions in human perception. Furthermore, he argues vigorously that there is no plausible alternative!

My long experience in professional ethics leads me to believe that the vast majority of atheists are cut from Mackie's cloth. And there's the rub....

You seem to quite blithely assert moral realism, but: 1) that doesn't get you nearly as far as you seem to think; 2) the really interesting questions emerge when trying to defend actual moral objectivism. Mackie doesn't believe it can be done, and he argues compellingly for that case. Most atheists (all that I know or have read) that have actually thought this through are in Mackie's camp. So, you do NOT get objectivism from realism!

Even the best attempt to account for moral objectivism apart from Kant and divine command theory is utilitarianism. And, as many have noticed over the years, that is actually a very subjectivist theory! So, if you are an atheist, and you intend to be an objectivist, you are really left with only Kantian deontology to work with. And the vast majority of modern-day ethics is being done under some neo-Kantian rubric, even as Mackie is ever nipping at the heels of this work. Thus, all modern atheistic ethics is done in a closed subjunctive mode: "IF we could come up with a way to ground Kant's theory on some viable metaphysical theory, deontology would look like this...." And the vast majority of philosophers are NOT prepared to ground logic itself (what would be the best shot at a Kantian moral metaphysics) in mere brain evolution!

There are two great ironies to this state of affairs: 1) Kant was actually a closet divine command theorist, and his theory only works if it is grounded in a realism that is in turn metaphysically grounded in divine commands; 2) most ethicists despise Kant's theory and only continue to work with some "neo" version of it because there are NO good (non-divine-command-theory) alternatives.

So, to sum up, atheists have not yet produced an ethical theory that is truly objectivist and purely secular. The "realism" to which you blithely refer is basically a punt without a thoroughgoing objectivism, and that gets into some very, very thorny terrain for atheists!

These facts are why, in a lecture to the American Philosophical Association on the subject, past president Philip Quinn said (without noted dispute): "... theists have been getting the better of the arguments."

'Pass the Pitons' Pete

Big Wall climber

like Ontario, Canada, eh?

Aug 20, 2014 - 11:12pm PT

Holy sh#t, Richard - no wonder it took you guys a month to climb Wings of Steel!

It might explain why they make you go to church on Saturdays - it probably takes you til Sunday night to finish your damn prayers.

I believe i will have a beer. Is that objective realism?

PtL and PtPPete

Ken M

Mountain climber

Los Angeles, Ca

Aug 20, 2014 - 11:14pm PT

ken M
"Oh, and I really enjoyed the nice touch added by the Christian church members who picketed his funeral, and thanked God for his torture and death. "

i was robbed once by a gang of black guys when i was a kid. do you think i should call all black people crooks?

of course not. stop being an idiot.

No, you shouldn't. But on the other hand, Blacks are not asking you to fall to your knees and worship their God. You are.

I think there are some very fine Christians. But not all, and to paint the "path of Christ" as THE WAY, the ONLY way, and we should listen because it is being said by Christians, and they are all just dandy, doncha know....

This doesn't wash with many.