Why do Atheists Bother?

[Human]

It isn't a refutation of your assertion that unconsensually inflicted suffering is morally wrong, it's a refutation of your assertion that suffering is always bad for the sufferer. You said:

"Suffering is bad to the sufferer. That is inalienable (claim 1), and that is the basis I assert for my moral belief that causing unconsensual suffering is bad. (claim 2)"

Suffering is unpleasant for the sufferer. It's not morally 'bad' for him. It's morally bad to inflict it unless benevolently because of the fact that no person likes to suffer unconsensually, due to its obviously unpleasant nature. Context. I wrote two sentences together in a paragraph because they're contextually dependent.

If claim 1 serves as the basis for claim 2, then it would seem as though they aren't one in the same as they aren't logically identical. The stove example is directed towards claim #1, which is an absolute statement about suffering itself rather than specifically oriented towards human-inflicted suffering.

Overall, your entire argument is still a non-sequitur. Yes, we know that you don't want to suffer without giving consent. Yes, we know that other people don't want to suffer without consent either. We know that you can understand this because you are capable of empathizing with others.

No valid logical link has been presented that would direct us towards a conclusion stating that one ought not to inflict suffering on others without their consent other than your own subjective desires. You said that "[f]

rom that empathy, comes a desire to alleviate or reduce physical suffering in another individual as it arises, as well as a desire not to actively cause suffering in another individual." You're missing some sort of premise such as "one ought to fulfill the desire that comes from empathy."

If you inflict suffering on others without their consent, you are not a man of moral integrity. Your actions do not have solidarity with your own mental desires. If you hurt someone else against their will, then you, by right of fairness, must accept for others to hurt you against your own. Whether you fulfill the desire to act upon empathy or not will determine the solidarity of your moral choices; it will either render your moral code hypocritical and divisible or coherent and sincere. If morality is to do with human interaction, then it befits a moral consideration to me empathetic, otherwise a moral decision gives more value to the 'I' of the circumstance rather than the 'we' of the circumstance and fails to fulfill its function, which from my perspective is to make the world a place of less unnecessary sufferin -- to serve humanity for the better, to make people happy in a manner that does not come at the cost of the unhappiness of others.

You have an urge to help people based on empathy - your capacity to understand their feelings? Cool story - some people have an incredible urge control, torture, and murder other human beings. What exactly makes the fulfillment of your desire moral, and theirs not moral? Is there anything that would make your deduction superior to their own?

Empathy is a cognitive function, not a desire. The want to not cause unconsensual suffering out of empathy is the desire, and that desire is more moral than murdering, raping or killing because of its deductive method (viewing humanity inherently equally, recognizing the reality that unconsensual suffering is not pleasant for either I or they) and the outcome of that circumstance; being that nobody is made so suffer unconsensually, nobody is violated against their will, nobody is killed, maimed, tortured, hurt, raped, whatever it may be -- things that nobody wants to be victim to; morality should serve humanity, and that certainly serves humanity.

 

[Human]

The argument for the objectivity of moral virtues isn't based on saying that good eyesight is good for being a sniper. Rather, that simply serves as a convenient example. It's an analogy dealing with the wider ontological view of the Good; moral virtue is simply one kind of goodness particular to certain types of beings (such as humans). The virtues appropriate to a "good sniper" (non-moral) and the virtues appropriate to a "good person" (moral) are completely different, but they are derived from the same ontological definition.

"Moral virtue" is concerned with being a good person, akin to how "physical virtue" is concerned with being a good athlete. The example of the sniper is simply there to illustrate how the general understanding of the Good applies in a variety of settings - including moral virtue.

Here's a sample moral deduction (obviously "good virtues" is redundant, but I put it that way for clarity):

1. Properties which are conducive to the excellence of any given being are objectively good virtues in relation to the nature of that being;

2. Empathy is conducive to the excellence of social beings that render one another mutual assistance;

Therefore, empathy is an objectively good virtue in relation to social beings that render one another mutual assistance.

1. All X's are Y's
2. Z is an X
Therefore, Z is a Y

And a sample non-moral deduction using the same form:

1. Properties which are conducive to the excellence of any given being are objectively good virtues in relation to the nature of that being;

2. Muscular strength is conducive to the excellence of an athlete who is a competitive weight-lifter;

Therefore, muscular strength is an objectively good virtue in relation to an athletes who are competitive weight-lifters.


As for the point regarding the impossibility of objective morality from disagreement: it's possible for people to simply be drawing incorrect moral conclusions. The fact that two or more people currently disagree over the answer to a given question does not mean there is no correct answer.

It's a given that morality is applied to human social socieities, yes, and it isn't applied to circumstances without a moral subtext or inanimate objects. We get that.

As for the last statement, I never said there's no 'correct' answer, I said nobody knows what the hell the perfectly objective morality it is because morality is subject to personal cognition (subjective), which for all intents and purposes might as well be the same thing.

 

[Red_Tory]

Suffering is unpleasant for the sufferer. It's not morally 'bad' for him. It's morally bad to inflict it unless benevolently because of the fact that no person likes to suffer unconsensually, due to its obviously unpleasant nature. Context. I wrote two sentences together in a paragraph because they're contextually dependent.



If you inflict suffering on others without their consent, you are not a man of moral integrity. Your actions do not have solidarity with your own mental desires. If you hurt someone else against their will, then you, by right of fairness, must accept for others to hurt you against your own. Whether you fulfill the desire to act upon empathy or not will determine the solidarity of your moral choices; it will either render your moral code hypocritical and divisible or coherent and sincere. If morality is to do with human interaction, then it befits a moral consideration to me empathetic, otherwise a moral decision gives more value to the 'I' of the circumstance rather than the 'we' of the circumstance and fails to fulfill its function, which from my perspective is to make the world a place of less unnecessary sufferin -- to serve humanity for the better, to make people happy in a manner that does not come at the cost of the unhappiness of others.



Empathy is a cognitive function, not a desire. The want to not cause unconsensual suffering out of empathy is the desire, and that desire is more moral than murdering, raping or killing because of its deductive method (viewing humanity inherently equally, recognizing the reality that unconsensual suffering is not pleasant for either I or they) and the outcome of that circumstance; being that nobody is made so suffer unconsensually, nobody is violated against their will, nobody is killed, maimed, tortured, hurt, raped, whatever it may be -- things that nobody wants to be victim to; morality should serve humanity, and that certainly serves humanity.

Would it be possible to put your overall argument into a syllogism so that the logical validity can be easily seen? From what I see, "one ought not to inflict suffering upon others against their will" or anything along those lines just doesn't follow as a matter of logical necessity from your statements about empathy without the inclusion of additional premises.

It also seems as though you beg the question against the 'moral code' of the sadist by saying that your desire is superior to theirs because it has a superior outcome (with the moral superiority of the outcome being deduced from your system in the first place).

 

[Red_Tory]

It's a given that morality is applied to human social socieities, yes, and it isn't applied to circumstances without a moral subtext or inanimate objects. We get that.

As for the last statement, I never said there's no 'correct' answer, I said nobody knows what the hell the perfectly objective morality it is because morality is subject to personal cognition (subjective), which for all intents and purposes might as well be the same thing.

Yes, morality is understood as being related to social creatures. I wouldn't expect inanimate objects or even solitary creatures to have moral virtue - they have virtues all unto themselves (e.g. empathy may be a virtue for a human being, but predatory instinct would be more appropriate for a shark instead).

A point of clarification: when you say that morality is "subjective" I've been assuming you're referring to something standard such as "being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." Is this the case, or are you referring to something else?

 

[Dan_473]

You, like others, are compartmentalizing motive, means and outcome. But they are inter-related and in my moral perspective interdependent. You're implying that a surgeon performing a painful surgery (motive being to help someone who has been in an accident live) can be morally equivalent to someone murdering, raping and pillaging (which was the context in which I asked the question you replied to) without the consent of victims. That is grossly erroneous.

As for suffering being necessary to avert an evil, I can understand and even condone it in matters of self-defense if a person so wishes to defend themselves by inflicting suffering upon another person (since the defender never gave his consent to be attacked, obviously), but in other cases it becomes a matter of trying to predict the future and torturing others to potentially save others and becomes awfully messy and risky. In my opinion, the latter isn't justifiable simply because the probability of outcome cannot be calculated; it is inflicting intense suffering for wishful thinking.



I don't necissarily agree that focusing on suffering is looking at things the wrong way round. ''Well-being'' is wooly. The deaths of a few million contributed to Stalin's mental well being (in that he didn't have to then deal with having those potential detractors running around fuelling his paranoia), but that came at the cost of millions of lives, and at grave suffering to the victims. The basic idea here is personal empathy regarding suffering. I do not like to suffer unconsensually, therefore I should not endeavour to make others suffer unconsensually. Obviously, motivations play a role in this too. What I should have said is that I should not cause others to suffer unconsensually where my motivations are maliceful in any way towards the individual upon whom I would inflict suffering (and that's important, because it removes the loophole to 'torture people for good ol' USA').

If I cause an individual to suffer, in the brilliant example you mentioned of a surgeon performing a surgery, say without anaesthetic since there is not any at hand (war-zone medic perhaps) then this is motivated by a desire to save that individual's life. Malicefully inflicting suffering by some imagined merit based on uncalculable predictions (he might give us information that'll save who knows how many lives, or he might know nothing whatsoever) is not the same. Neither is, of course, raping and pillaging.

I suppose we can surmise now that these are the personal criteria for the moral system I live by:

1. Empathy in regards to suffering. By my estimation, I do not like to suffer unconsensually, thus others do not like to suffer unconsensually.
2. From that empathy, comes a desire to alleviate or reduce physical suffering in another individual as it arises, as well as a desire not to actively cause suffering in another individual. It is impossible to reduce present existent suffering in a particular individual by the infliction of present suffering on that individual, nor is it logical to reduce suffering by contradicting their survivial instincts as understood by my own (I want to live, thus killing everyone to reduce their suffering would be non empathetic).
2b. I can, however, inflict a necessary level of suffering on an individual in medical circumstances where it is absolutely the only way to help, or in the case of self-defence of oneself or of innocents, which does require a level of willingness to inflict harm. These are warranted because in empathy I know survival is important thus operating on the individual is the right course of action, and that self defense is warranted because I did not consent to being attacked, neither did innocents, however, this infliction of suffering (either in self defense or medicine) should ideally not be of a level of unnecessary force (shooting a man who attacks with his fists, for instance, or cutting off the arm when you can just pop the shoulder back in).
3. Apart from as in point 2b, I should never cause suffering in an individual to reduce suffering in them; this is oxymoronic. I do however believe in the right of painless euthanasia in circumstances where intense unbearable physical pain and suffering cannot be alleviated by any other means, as, for instance, in the case of a person with untreatable illness causing such intense agony that it cannot be helped with painkillers. (The recent case of the eight year old girl in Great Ormond Street Hospital who would scream day in night in agony regardless of the morphine given her, whose illness was incurable and for all intents and purposes untreatable).
5. Apart from in self defence, maliceful motivations must not be present in any moral endeavour in any context whatsoever.

Now, this is my morality, and I don't believe you or anybody else has to live by this moral code, but for me, it is the one I've chosen and weighing up the options it seems the best one, to my reasoning.

"...for me, it is the [moral code] I've chosen and weighing up the options it seems the best one, to my reasoning."

Very cool! Other people will have other reasoning, assumptions, values... to them, a different moral code will seem to be the best one...

 

[Dan_473]

Actually, it does. I don't find anybody's suffering NOT unpleasant.



What you're trying to assert here is that God's morality is objective and absolute. I'm afraid it isn't, though, its subject to the plethora of variable interpretations that lead sometimes to drastically different moral conclusions. All morality is essentially subjective. It seems to me that the problem you guys have with that statement is 'how do we know what's right and wrong then?'

But you do know what's right and wrong, you already know. You know that what is unpleasant (in the sense of causing you pain) to you is unpleasant to others. You know that all living things have a desire to live, just as you do. You know that no living thing desires to suffer just as you don't. And you know that if you are to infringeupon these desires in others then you leave a door open for another to infringe upon the same desires in you.

There can be no moral integrity in being willing to do to other people the things you would not like done on yourself. And this is the intrinsic sense of morality innate in human beings; empathy is the foundation of the conscience.

You know this. We're arguing intellectualisms and playing semantics games and compartmentalizing the means from ends and you're saying God's morality is universal and I'm saying no it changes depending on interpretation, but when we get down to it and inter-relate all the facets of morality -- that is, the sociological implications, the psychology of morality, the colour of perception, conditioning, emotion, circumstance, cause, effect, outcome and motivation -- an empathetic morality is inextricable from almost every human society, even when God is not involved. Your conscience existed before you ever picked up a bible, and so did mine.

"Actually, it does. I don't find anybody's suffering NOT unpleasant."

I don't think it has to be unpleasant to you... our minds are very maliable... (I was actually using the 'you' in the previous post to be a general 'you'... meaning a person, any person...)





"What you're trying to assert here is that God's morality is objective and absolute. I'm afraid it isn't, though, its subject to the plethora of variable interpretations that lead sometimes to drastically different moral conclusions."

Two people work the same math problem and get two different answers... does this mean that the problem has no answer? I believe (faith) that God's has principles... things that s/he is interested in... how those are communicated, and how they are recieved, vary.






"And you know that if you are to infringe upon these desires in others then you leave a door open for another to infringe upon the same desires in you. "

Actually, I think the door is open either way... bad stuff happens to people who do good stuff to others.







"All morality is essentially subjective."

In your opinion. I don't think you can demonstrate that, other than to say that different people have different moral opinions... Just as I cannot show that one morality is 'bad' or 'good', I don't think you can show that all moralities are subjective... I can choose to believe that one is superior to another, just as you can.





"It seems to me that the problem you guys have with that statement is 'how do we know what's right and wrong then?"

The 'problem' that I have with the idea that all moral systems are subjective, is that I'm happier when I believe that good and evil are based on God's principles.






"There can be no moral integrity..."

Again, an opinion...





"And this is the intrinsic sense of morality innate in human beings..."

I agree that humans have an innate moral sense... another innate sense they have is the desire to benefit their team / clan / tribe, and to raise their 'cred' in that group, even if it means hurting people in other clans... and that this trait is often seen as laudable in themselves and others... really, this makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary standpoint... if a group has superior genes, they 'ought' to take the hunting grounds or crops of an inferior group...





"We're arguing intellectualisms and playing semantics games and compartmentalizing the means from ends..."

That's often how it looks when people with widely different systems compare them... in my experience... if you don't want to continue, that's fine...





"Your conscience existed before you ever picked up a bible, and so did mine."

Very true, but this impies that I think the bible is the only way to learn of God's principles...

 

[Dan_473]

I'm kind of late to the party here, so I'll keep this short.



Life is short. Life is precious. We need to live our lives to the fullest, because this is our one chance here on this earth. Both atheists and Christians would more or less believe in those sentiments. Furthermore, if this life is all there is, then our lives on earth arguably carry more meaning from an atheist's perspective than they would from a Christian perspective, where there is an eternal afterlife to follow. Christians will sometimes call our lives on earth a "temporary home" and that we are "just passing through." But to an atheist, this is all there is.



A lot of different factors played into it. Discovering the fallibility of the Bible through historical criticism. Realizing the scientific realities of the world and how they clash with the Christian worldview. The problem of evil, specifically unjust suffering, inconsistent responses to suffering, and eternal hell. There are other things as well.



In my situation, I wanted to believe but I no longer could. I struggled for 2 and a half years to keep my faith. It was a slow, painful process losing my faith, and I will say it is hard envisioning a scenario where I gain it back. But what I will say is that I am always learning. Conversation and debate help increase knowledge and understanding. Not only is it an opportunity to learn of other perspectives, but also to research and confirm your own perspectives.

Hi, nogard... welcome to the thread! I want to write a reply to your post, but out of time for the night... looking forward to talking with you!

 

[tourist]

In my situation, I wanted to believe but I no longer could. I struggled for 2 and a half years to keep my faith. It was a slow, painful process losing my faith, and I will say it is hard envisioning a scenario where I gain it back. But what I will say is that I am always learning. Conversation and debate help increase knowledge and understanding. Not only is it an opportunity to learn of other perspectives, but also to research and confirm your own perspectives.[/QUOTE]

...or possible find fault with your perspective and deny it.

 

[nl]

[SUP]　
[/SUP]
Psalm 137:8-9 and Psalm 2:9 may be understood as prophetic of a future end times when Jesus Christ shall return and conquer those who oppose the rule of the Kingdom of God.

See also Isaiah 63:1-4.

See also the hymn related to Isaiah 63:1-4: Who is this that comes from Edom?
Hymn Link: Orthodox Presbyterian Church

See also this related sermon (available in text/pdf and audio formats): Who Is This Who Comes from Edom? | SermonAudio.com

My estimate is that "Neanderthals" in real life did not match well with the recent renderings of artists.

Likewise, Jesus Christ may not always match up well with artists' renderings.

"Everybody ought to know who Jesus is."

 

[Dan_473]

I'm kind of late to the party here, so I'll keep this short.



Life is short. Life is precious. We need to live our lives to the fullest, because this is our one chance here on this earth. Both atheists and Christians would more or less believe in those sentiments. Furthermore, if this life is all there is, then our lives on earth arguably carry more meaning from an atheist's perspective than they would from a Christian perspective, where there is an eternal afterlife to follow. Christians will sometimes call our lives on earth a "temporary home" and that we are "just passing through." But to an atheist, this is all there is.



A lot of different factors played into it. Discovering the fallibility of the Bible through historical criticism. Realizing the scientific realities of the world and how they clash with the Christian worldview. The problem of evil, specifically unjust suffering, inconsistent responses to suffering, and eternal hell. There are other things as well.



In my situation, I wanted to believe but I no longer could. I struggled for 2 and a half years to keep my faith. It was a slow, painful process losing my faith, and I will say it is hard envisioning a scenario where I gain it back. But what I will say is that I am always learning. Conversation and debate help increase knowledge and understanding. Not only is it an opportunity to learn of other perspectives, but also to research and confirm your own perspectives.

"Life is short. Life is precious."

I think these are belief statements.







"Both atheists and Christians would more or less believe in those sentiments."

Very true! Oddly enough (to me, anyways), many atheists don't like to think of themselves as 'believers', or have the term applied to them, in my experience.







"Discovering the fallibility of the Bible through historical criticism."

Odd (again, to me) that many people think one has to believe in an infallible bible to be a Christian.








"Realizing the scientific realities of the world and how they clash with the Christian worldview."

This sounds interesting! Which realities are you thinking of? I like to keep an open mind, so I'll try to seriously consider whatever you present.









"It was a slow, painful process losing my faith..."

Sad to hear, though I think you are a believer, with a different faith.







"Conversation and debate help increase knowledge and understanding. Not only is it an opportunity to learn of other perspectives, but also to research and confirm your own perspectives."

Whole-hearted agreement here!

 

[nogard]

"Both atheists and Christians would more or less believe in those sentiments."

Very true! Oddly enough (to me, anyways), many atheists don't like to think of themselves as 'believers', or have the term applied to them, in my experience.

I know what you mean. A lot of atheists get up in arms if anyone says they have faith in anything, or use the phrase "converted to atheism" like the TC did in the initial post. I don't get worked up over such things. Belief and faith were important values in my Christian life, and I think they still have a place in my life. And besides, anyone who isn't agnostic is making some kind of faith statement one way or another.

"Discovering the fallibility of the Bible through historical criticism."

Odd (again, to me) that many people think one has to believe in an infallible bible to be a Christian.

Oh, I agree with you. The realization that the Bible was not infallible was one of the many concessions I made along the way to try to hold onto my Christian faith. I told myself that even if there are errors and inaccuracies, even if certain books were authored by different people altogether, it doesn't change that Jesus Christ came down to this earth 2,000 years ago to die for our sins. In my mind, that event happening was not dependent on whether the English translation of the Bible was infallible or not. And I held onto that notion for quite a while. But it's a slippery slope you can go down when you start conceding things, and I found that I was making so many concessions in so many different areas that my faith ended up unraveling altogether.

"Realizing the scientific realities of the world and how they clash with the Christian worldview."

This sounds interesting! Which realities are you thinking of? I like to keep an open mind, so I'll try to seriously consider whatever you present.

I need to go to bed so I won't get too much into it, but basically geology is what crushed my beliefs in a young earth. I live in the Midwest, and the soil topography all around us points to the fact that giant glaciers existed here during the ice age, not just once but over several ice ages. This is just one of the many visible scientific realities that point to the earth being old. Real old. Biology didn't help either. And the problem is that the story of Adam and Eve is crucial to Christianity, not just for the doctrine of original sin but also because Jesus speaks of Adam and Eve as if they really existed when he was talking about marriage. So the Genesis account carries more weight than Christians think, and it really just falls flat under any sort of scrutiny.

"It was a slow, painful process losing my faith..."

Sad to hear, though I think you are a believer, with a different faith.

Hmm, what do you mean by that?

And can I ask you a question. Do you believe that ex-Christians exist? I only ask because most Christians don't. They think anyone who claims to be a former Christian must have not been a genuine Christian in the first place.

 

[Human]

"Actually, it does. I don't find anybody's suffering NOT unpleasant."

I don't think it has to be unpleasant to you... our minds are very maliable... (I was actually using the 'you' in the previous post to be a general 'you'... meaning a person, any person...)





"What you're trying to assert here is that God's morality is objective and absolute. I'm afraid it isn't, though, its subject to the plethora of variable interpretations that lead sometimes to drastically different moral conclusions."

Two people work the same math problem and get two different answers... does this mean that the problem has no answer? I believe (faith) that God's has principles... things that s/he is interested in... how those are communicated, and how they are recieved, vary.






"And you know that if you are to infringe upon these desires in others then you leave a door open for another to infringe upon the same desires in you. "

Actually, I think the door is open either way... bad stuff happens to people who do good stuff to others.







"All morality is essentially subjective."

In your opinion. I don't think you can demonstrate that, other than to say that different people have different moral opinions... Just as I cannot show that one morality is 'bad' or 'good', I don't think you can show that all moralities are subjective... I can choose to believe that one is superior to another, just as you can.





"It seems to me that the problem you guys have with that statement is 'how do we know what's right and wrong then?"

The 'problem' that I have with the idea that all moral systems are subjective, is that I'm happier when I believe that good and evil are based on God's principles.






"There can be no moral integrity..."

Again, an opinion...





"And this is the intrinsic sense of morality innate in human beings..."

I agree that humans have an innate moral sense... another innate sense they have is the desire to benefit their team / clan / tribe, and to raise their 'cred' in that group, even if it means hurting people in other clans... and that this trait is often seen as laudable in themselves and others... really, this makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary standpoint... if a group has superior genes, they 'ought' to take the hunting grounds or crops of an inferior group...





"We're arguing intellectualisms and playing semantics games and compartmentalizing the means from ends..."

That's often how it looks when people with widely different systems compare them... in my experience... if you don't want to continue, that's fine...





"Your conscience existed before you ever picked up a bible, and so did mine."

Very true, but this impies that I think the bible is the only way to learn of God's principles...

Morality isn't maths. Maths is an abstract scientifically objective means of deduction of number problems via formulaic principles. Morality is a human phenomena ultimately derived from personal psychological rumination influenced by emotion and personal perspective, motivated by a want or perceived need to act in, or enforce, certain behavioural standards. They are worlds apart.

Just because you consider some form of God's morality objective (like maths), doesn't mean it is - it's interpretive and subjective (aka subject to personal feelings, emotions, perspective, want, need).

As for your question on whether there can be a 'correct' interpretation to the bible's moral ethics among the myriad of interpretations that exist, yes, there could well be. But can you or anybody else on planet Earth tell me beyond reasonable doubt, what that singularly correct interpretation is? You can't. So in the real world, applicably, you have absolutely no idea what the exact objectively correct interpretation of biblical morality is, which makes applying any standard you believe is derived from God just as wooly and uncertain and dangerous as you might consider any atheist's moral standards, perhaps even moreso, since you consider your interpretation of biblical moral ethics to be incontrovertible commandments from a supreme creator God with ultimate power and authority throughout the entire universe -- were you to believe, like some interpreters of the bible, that God commanded you to vilify and hate gays and that if the legal system allowed it you should stone them all to death, what in your mentality would stop you from doing that?

The only thing that could possibly stop you would be your own sense of offence at the idea of killing another human being, which is by its definition a personal feeling -- you'd be following a subjective feeling not to stone them to death -- the same subjective feeling of offence that I allow to work in me when confronted with the idea of harming another person.

 

[Human]

There are only one of those decisions (kill or not kill) which accomodates interpersonal solidarity for a trait evident in each and every human being who has ever existed -- to feel unwanted physical or psychological suffering and intensely dislike it.

 

[nl]

Who owns the sky?
Who owns the earth?
Who owns the oceans?
Who owns the atmosphere from which we breathe?
Who provided the iron ore, the gold, the silver, the fossil fuels, the mineral wealth and ground water still hidden in hills?
Who is the source of human abilities and human dignity and human rights?
Who made your human body and mine?
To whom do we owe thanks?

A. God

Who left heaven and chose to suffer on behalf of others?

A. Jesus Christ, the God-Man

 

[nl]

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. - Isaiah 9:6-7


This is a prophecy from Isaiah given 700-800 years before the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem. Its fulfillment remains to be accomplished in the future.


Even among those who know little of Jesus, the title of "Prince of Peace" is sometimes known. Peace, justice and righteousness are the longing of hearts throughout the world. Jesus is the giver of peace to troubled hearts. At the end of the ages, Jesus will take rule over the nations and finally bring an end to wars after He has conquered all. The last enemy that shall be defeated is death.

 

[nl]

It may be a while before I respond to this. I spent about 35 minutes typing up a very detailed response and it was all deleted when I accidentally backed out of the page. I'll try to respond to this eventually. If the topic moves on before then, I'll send you a PM. If I forget and you want to hear what I have to say, just send me a PM.

On a computer running MS Windows, Ctrl-Z can help with these situations.

On the iPad, if you toggle to the numeric on-screen keyboard, there is a button for Undo that may bring back content that had recently disappeared.

 

[Dan_473]

Can you rephrase?





What about this one attributed to Martin Luther:

'If women wear themselves out in childbearing, let them go on and continue to bear until they die. What does it matter? That is what they are for''.

An apparently Godly man right there.

The point is:

1. 'God's morality' is really a morality built on subjective interpretations of the bible, which vary tremendously. It's subjetive in that the reader interprets it and then applies it, and the particular interpretation is subject to the colour of perception.
2. Immorality is rife, in Christians and non-Christians alike.
3. If a person gains personal happiness from robbing pillaging and raping (Genghis Khan) it doesn't take away the reality that Ghengis Khan would not feel personal happiness if his wives and daughters were raped and his wealth robbed. It's safe therefore to say that Ghengis Khan is not a man of moral integrity nor of empathy regarding the unconsensual suffering of others; which of course are the bases for my morality.

Nobody has to adhere to that morality, but there is integrity in it; as a moral foundation. It can't really be misinterpreted in the way the bible can, because it does not rely on subjective interpretation of some exterior piece of writing, nor on the idea that morality is inherenrtly objective. You see, when you objectify God's morality, you assume the conclusions you draw thereof are infalliby correct because you believe you're reading God's word at face value, yet, every Christian likely believes similar, regardless of whether there are discrepancies between your morality and theirs (which there always are), whereas my morality begins with subjectivity (my own conscious desire not to suffer unconsensually) which I know is innate in every human being (I know no human being who likes to suffer against their will, for it is a self-contained truth. If the will is not to suffer at the hand of another in a given moment, then violation of that will is by definition undesireable to the victim), and ends with the application of things gleaned from that observation.

The only things I need take into account are:

I don't like to suffer unconsensually, therefore neither do others. Moral integrity demands I don't do to others what I would find a violation of my giving or not giving consent to be inflicted with suffering. I've highlighted exeptions earlier (self defense, and of course in medicinal circumstances where a level of suffering is necessary to save a life, but which is never heavy-handed for the particular situation).

"Can you rephrase?"

Sure. If someone feels empathy, is it (a particular action) wrong for them? If someone does not feel empathy, is it then right for them (to do it)?






"What about this one attributed to Martin Luther:"

Yes, understandings of God's principles vary.







"'God's morality' is really a morality built on subjective interpretations of the bible..."

People have different interpretations, yes. That doesn't mean that all of them are based on God's ways.






"It's subjetive in that the reader interprets it and then applies it, and the particular interpretation is subject to the colour of perception."

I would say that it's possible for God to lead a person, so I disagree that it's always up to each person.






"...Ghengis Khan is not a man of moral integrity..."

An opinion.






"...the bases for my morality."

Yes. Myself, I like the feeling of having a morality built on something 'higher' than myself or another human.






"...there is integrity in it..."

Sure, in that it holds together logically, and so does Gengihis'.




"It can't really be misinterpreted in the way the bible can..."

Probably true. If it gives you lots of joy, then I say go with it.





"...you assume the conclusions you draw thereof are infalliby correct because you believe you're reading God's word at face value..."

No, I don't.






"Moral integrity demands I don't do to others what I would find a violation of my giving or not giving consent to be inflicted with suffering."

This is your opinion of moral integrity. Other people have other opinions. The idea that what I want done to me is what I ought to do to others is in itself a moral statement, a moral judgement. Not everyone shares it. You can start with that as an assumption, then your system becomes logical, I think. Looks to me very much like an opinion, though.

 

[nl]

I have spoken about this in general terms, but the thing to remember is that I was 16 when I became an atheist for the final time. Remembering the specifics of what I read in the Bible that pushed me in that direction is not so easy at this point in time.

One of my Christmas gifts was a book by Pastor Bob Ripley, retired former minister of the largest United Church congregation in Canada. The title is Life beyond Belief: A Preacher’s Deconversion. His discussion of the main biblical issues that carried him away from belief in God was for me like a trip down memory lane. If we lived near one another I’d loan you the book. It is only 128 pages – a quick read.

Chapter two of his book is titled, “A Distasteful Deity,” followed by a quote from Zora Neale Hurston: “Gods always behave like the people who created them.” I came myself to believe that the horrific acts of violence in the Old Testament promulgated with the blessing of God were really the writings of his followers, conducting warfare as people of that distant time would, and then writing their sacred literature to reflect the belief that it was all sanctioned by the god who led them to victory. Psalm 137 begins with a lamentation over defeat at the hands of the Babylonians and ends with a hope for revenge: “How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.” (Psalm 137:9) Blessed? The deity I knew would never bless a child killer, but this one would. Was this God, or was this the writings of a man whose god would bless a child murderer?

Oh, I know. Now you are tempted to look up contrary passages from the Old Testament, but too late. Those other passages still exist and will never go away. They reflect the widespread abusive morality of those ancient times and now stand as a reflection of how much our own values have changed. Ripley’s second chapter is filled with passages such as that one from Psalm, just in case we missed the point the first time. The Old Testament is a window into the past Nl. Whatever the writers of scripture thought was okay, was blessed by the god they wrote about.

You have to understand that at sixteen I had given up looking for God in the world at large. He was no where to be found. So I turned to scripture. If I couldn’t find God there, then where would I find him? I wanted to believe so I began praying and reading scripture in earnest. Instead I found, as Ripley did, a different truth. The values of the men who wrote the Bible, reflect the values of the god they worshipped. The two are one and the same. This was the coup de grâce.

I can see from United Church of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that the UCC has a number of policy positions contrary to consistent Christian belief such as belief in a woman's right to take away the rights of an unborn child whom Almighty God had enabled to be placed in the womb.

In 1973, the US Supreme Court made a rather arbitrary decision that prohibited state regulation of abortion until six months after conception and the third trimester of the pregnancy. Effectively, this authorized the killing of infants in the womb and the killing of infants in the womb has been carried out many times since then. Cycel, are you opposed to this practice of killing infants in the womb? If so, I am glad that you are opposed.

In Deuteronomy 32:35, Almighty God had declared that "Vengeance is Mine" which means that no one else was authorized to carry out vengeance. The expressions of retribution in Psalm 137:7-9 involving vengeance against Edomites and Babylonians could be carried out justly only by God Himself. The Day of God's Wrath and Retribution is still in the future and includes retributions to be carried out against those who long ago went to their graves.

There is an allusion to this still-future retribution in "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" (1861) in these lyrics: "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord; He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.". Link: The Battle Hymn of the Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the famous lines from the Book of Job is: The Lord gave and the Lord has take away. Blessed be the Name of the LORD (Job 2:21).

The God who gave us all life and breath and blessings can take it away. God is the author of human rights. These rights were endowed by the Creator. God retained rights for Himself that He has given to no one else.

God has the right not to show himself for these recent thousands of years.

God did reveal Himself in the person of the God-Man Jesus Christ during the first century of our modern calendar. Natural theology asserts that God has revealed Himself in reason and nature. God is also revealed in the special revelation of the Bible written by over 40 authors over a period of approximately 1600 years. Eventually, Jesus Christ will return and God will begin the display and revelation of Himself that will continue throughout eternity.

 

[Dan_473]

What I am saying is that, a very subjective morality based on the premise of personal empathy regarding unconsensual suffering has less room for misinterpretation than morality based on personal interpretation of a text which, to be honest, is itself contradictory in many instances.

If each person thinks only; ''Am I causing suffering without this other person's explicit consent'' (obviously exceptions being medicinal situations and self defense) in moral decisions regarding interaction with other people, the world would be a much better place than it currently is.

And yes, I believe that this is the natural progression from 'do unto others ...' I don't think Jesus, in saying the phrase, was imparting some never-before-heard esoteric Godly knowledge, I think he was stating the obvious, speaking to the innate empathy in every person.

''The Kingdom of God is not something you shall look at and say 'behold, there it is', because the Kingdom of God is within you''. Isn't that what they say?

"...a text which, to be honest, is itself contradictory in many instances.'

Yes. Myself, I would expect that from something God inspired.






"...the world would be a much better place than it currently is."

Agreed.






"...speaking to the innate empathy in every person."

I disagree that it's innate to every person. If it were, the world would be a nicer place, imo.






'''The Kingdom of God is not something you shall look at and say 'behold, there it is', because the Kingdom of God is within you''. Isn't that what they say?'

That's one interpretation, yes.


If you want something that is 'tighter' (less misinterpretation), then sure, empathy is a great moral system, especially if it gives you joy. For myself, I like something more challenging, that excercises my 'spiritual muscles'.

 

[Dan_473]

If there are exceptions then it's not really any kind of axiom - it isn't a truly defining characteristic of moral behaviour. If there are caveats and limitations then there's something more fundamental at work that isn't identified in the condition itself.



Is there any reason, other than your subjective emotional impulses, to think that this is actually the case? You say the world would be a "much better place" if everyone acted in this manner, but in order to justify the claim of it being "much better" one would have to appeal to the truth of that system of moral judgement in the first place (i.e. it's circular).

If this system you're proposing is actually completely subjective, how does it actually carry any more weight than saying "my favourite colour of blue, and the world would be a better place if everyone agreed" - other than the emotional intensity with which it is believed? Is this "moral integrity" to which you refer anything other than a fiction you create in your own head?

"...in order to justify the claim of it being "much better" one would have to appeal to the truth of that system of moral judgement in the first place (i.e. it's circular)."

Good points. 'Better' implies good/bad, so a moral system must be in place to make that call.