Why do Atheists Bother?

[Leannaix]

Let me take your retort in sections so can address the many points you have made... I will re-quote what I address and underline it in the original quote...

Firstly

This is a strawman, I asked you to address the problem given to you as a hypothetical and instead you say assume it will never happen therefore it does not need addressing

I didn't say that it shouldn't be addressed. I just pointed out that this probably would never actually happen and discussed what would likely be the case. Pointing out that your hypothetical isn't likely to ever happen isn't strawman. I'm not arguing against something you haven't stated.

and when you do poke at the problem, you insinuate that I am confusing objective and subjective... Let me re-quote what I said. "Here is a problem I would like you to address, lets say the majority of the earth is wanting to commit genocide on the non-majority. Is this wrong or right?

The first question is, are you in the majority or non-majority, if you are in the majority your subjective morality would say that it is completely correct. If you are in the minority you would say it is not correct. If you are judging based upon society you would also say that genocide is correct..."

I never said it would be objective, I very clearly stated that it was subjective, and I defined my terms as well to try to prevent this confusion that you are so prone to get into.... I will redefine the terms as to hope I can prevent this confusion for the third time.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Can I please ask for future reference that you read my post twice before commenting? I think you might have skimmed over my post a little too quickly...

Funny that I feel the same way about you. Your definitions of objective and subjective are fine, but when you start discussing scenarios, you don't sound like you are using these definitions.
When you ask the question "lets say the majority of the earth is wanting to commit genocide on the non-majority. Is this wrong or right?" You are insinuating that there is an objective answer. It is not wrong or right. If you are just answering your own question in the next few sentences, "if you are in the majority your subjective morality would say that it is completely correct. If you are in the minority you would say it is not correct. If you are judging based upon society you would also say that genocide is correct. Then I don't know what you are actually asking me. Also, I do think your last line is incorrect. Judging on society, you would not say genocide is correct. Judging on the scoiety, you would see that the majority of the society regards genocide as morally acceptable. Nothing more. You would not judge it as correct based on society.

First off, you need to define pragmatic for me, because pragmatic in the English language means: a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.

I believe I have already done this once on this thread, but I will repeat it. Pragmaticism as a philosophy is defined as an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

I find it funny that you just said, that it does not matter if morality is based upon truth or feelings because you are pragmatic...

I have never said this, or ever insinuated it. You are just putting words in my mouth. I have said that no matter whether or not you have free will or if it is an illusion, the actions people take when you do something they consider criminal is unrelated. What i said in the quote, and you apparantly did not understand, is that in the case that there are objective morals, but a certain society does not adhere to them (For example, lets pretend that stealing is objectively moral, but a group of people somehwere believe it is immoral) the people will still treat it as criminal. The practical application and consequences are what you would be looking at from a pragmatic standpoint. I didn't say that morality doesn't matter if you are pragmatic.

But to counter you, yes it does change... Let's take for instance witch craft... There are tribes in Africa that kill albino's because they say their skin contains magical powers to protect them from aids... In their subjective morality, they deem this as correct, they see no problems with it. Now what are the consequences of this subjective action?
Firstly, there is no information to say the person was wrong for killing the albino.
Secondly, if you are to say the person is wrong, it does not matter because that person says it is correct (appeal to self) and his society says it is correct (appeal to majority)

Now lets say there is objective morality, and the person kills the albino for magical powers to protect him from aids.
First an innocent person died.
Second the guilty party will and should be tried.
Thirdly it influences and attributes to further killings, so there has to be measures taken to prevent this.

As you can see in a pragmatic view, you are wrong.

How am I wrong in a pragmatic view? My stance is that there is no objective morality. There is nothing in this scenario that proves me wrong. From a pragmatic view, I said that regardless of whether or not morality is objective or subjective, people are still going to act in whatever way they determine moral. This scenario proves me right.

Thank you for saying this, but I never said it would be, I very clearly defined objective as I will again.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

You said: "Let's say morality is objective, if you steal from me, and the objective morality is stealing is wrong, no matter what I say you have committed a crime.If you steal from a group of people, no matter what they say, it is a crime..."
When you say that it is a crime no matter what, I assumed you were saying that it would be considered illegal. A crime is something that breaks the law. If you meant that it would be immoral, my statement is unrelated, and I retract it.

I never said a person has to agree with society, not once... I will again quote my question for you.
"Here is a problem I would like you to address, lets say the majority of the earth is wanting to commit genocide on the non-majority. Is this wrong or right?

The first question is, are you in the majority or non-majority, if you are in the majority your subjective morality would say that it is completely correct. If you are in the minority you would say it is not correct. If you are judging based upon society you would also say that genocide is correct..."

Again, do you see anywhere, where I said that a person has to agree with society, or that a person always agrees with society?

The sentence "If you are judging based upon society you would also say that genocide is correct." If I was judging basued upon society, all I would say is that the majority of the society regards it as moral. I would disagree. Your statements insinuates that if you look at something based upon the society, you take on the stance of that society. You also used the word correct, whic to me, indicates an objective answer

So your answer as I take it is "NO" to my question?

I'm still not certain what your question is. Your wording seems to disagree with how you define your words, and you haven't asked a yes or no question. You just present scenarios and several times twist my words and start arguing against points I never made.

 

[Cycel]

God gave the gift of the earth and universe. Adam and Eve rejected the Giver.

First, you may claim God gave Adam and Eve the universe, but you must mean it only figuratively, for you must admit they had no awareness of it as we do. It is not likely they even understood what the stars were. Probably for them the stars were only lights in the sky. Perhaps they were bonfires God lit at night. It would have meant nothing to them. Heaven was the home of the gods. It did not belong to them.

On the other point, I don't think Adam and Eve rejected God. They ate an apple (or perhaps it was a fig). Still, they were pretty naive, weren't they? Eve didn't seem to question the fact that she was talking with a snake. What's that about? Why was this all important tree not kept somewhere safe? God is all knowing, isn't he? Did he not know this was going to happen? So if he knew it would happen, and then punished them for doing what he knew they were going to do, is he not culpable in some way for setting them up for the fall? Adam and Eve were like very young children, it seems to me. Not until they ate the forbidden fruit did they gain greater awareness. Not until then did they become in God’s words like gods themselves.

 

[TaylorTG]

If I may retain your patience a little longer, it would be highly appreciated.
Evolution is the religion of the Atheists, and here are some peculiar facts.....(rest of post on page #2, post #33)

Your argument proves that the Atheists are organized, not that Evolution is a religion.

[HR][/HR]

On the other point, I don't think Adam and Eve rejected God. They ate an apple (or perhaps it was a fig). Still, they were pretty naive, weren't they?

Since they disobeyed God's orders to not eat the fruit, then they in a sense rejected his authority, hence the expulsion from the garden. It's similar to how a school would kick out a particularly troublesome student, or how a parent might prevent their pregnant teenage daughter from staying with them.

Eve didn't seem to question the fact that she was talking with a snake. What's that about?

Humans and the other creatures probably had more affinity before the fall, or maybe Satan wasn't actually disguised as snake, but as something more innocent. His persona as a snake could be mere symbolism in the bible.

Why was this all important tree not kept somewhere safe? God is all knowing, isn't he? Did he not know this was going to happen?

If he planted the tree somewhere where Adam and Eve could reach it, then that could mean that God purposefully put them to the test, to see if they would approve of his authority.

So if he knew it would happen, and then punished them for doing what he knew they were going to do, is he not culpable in some way for setting them up for the fall? Adam and Eve were like very young children, it seems to me. Not until they ate the forbidden fruit did they gain greater awareness. Not until then did they become in God’s words like gods themselves.

Yeah, this is interesting to me as well. I think that Adam and Eve, if they haven't eaten the fruit, would have been given more information at a later date. The lesson: "There is a time and place for everything" may be applicable to Adam and Eve's situation. God might have awarded them if they haven't rebelled and eaten the fruit.

There's a possibility that the fruit was not innately evil, that God was willing to let Adam and Eve partake of it at a later date, or at a certain point in human history, but when Adam and Eve ate the fruit as they did, that's when the knowledge contained it became "bad". Knowing too much for one's own good, maybe.

 

[Leannaix]

First, you may claim God gave Adam and Eve the universe, but you must mean it only figuratively, for you must admit they had no awareness of it as we do. It is not likely they even understood what the stars were. Probably for them the stars were only lights in the sky. Perhaps they were bonfires God lit at night. It would have meant nothing to them. Heaven was the home of the gods. It did not belong to them.

On the other point, I don't think Adam and Eve rejected God. They ate an apple (or perhaps it was a fig). Still, they were pretty naive, weren't they? Eve didn't seem to question the fact that she was talking with a snake. What's that about? Why was this all important tree not kept somewhere safe? God is all knowing, isn't he? Did he not know this was going to happen? So if he knew it would happen, and then punished them for doing what he knew they were going to do, is he not culpable in some way for setting them up for the fall? Adam and Eve were like very young children, it seems to me. Not until they ate the forbidden fruit did they gain greater awareness. Not until then did they become in God’s words like gods themselves.

I find the story a bit weird all around. Considering that the sin they commited was eating of a fruit that endowed them with the knowledge of good and evil (sin), and knowing that they had no concept of sin before eating it, as we saw when they all of a sudden realized that they were naked and shouldn't be, how could they even realize that it was wrong to eat the fruit?
I see it similar to this. You put a couple goats in a yard full of plants and tell them not to nibble on one specific bush. The goats , having no concept of right vs. wrong nibble on the bush anyway. You get angry at them even though you knew they would nibble on that bush because it was the greenest, healthiest looking bush in your yard, and even though the goats didn't know any better. Then you condemn them and all their offspring to die for as long as there are goats in the world.
It honestly seems silly to me.

 

[Colorful]

I find the story a bit weird all around. Considering that the sin they commited was eating of a fruit that endowed them with the knowledge of good and evil (sin), and knowing that they had no concept of sin before eating it, as we saw when they all of a sudden realized that they were naked and shouldn't be, how could they even realize that it was wrong to eat the fruit?
I see it similar to this. You put a couple goats in a yard full of plants and tell them not to nibble on one specific bush. The goats , having no concept of right vs. wrong nibble on the bush anyway. You get angry at them even though you knew they would nibble on that bush because it was the greenest, healthiest looking bush in your yard, and even though the goats didn't know any better. Then you condemn them and all their offspring to die for as long as there are goats in the world.
It honestly seems silly to me.

That is a really good analogy and I honestly don't understand that either. I wouldn't know how to even begin to respond to the points you and Cycel made.

I'm curious to the responses to these analogies from other Christian posters though.

 

[Cycel]

There's a possibility that the fruit was not innately evil...

I have always wondered why these two trees, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge, were placed in the garden at all. The secular answer of course is that there wouldn't be a plot line without them. Had these mystical trees been in an inaccessible part of the world there would have been no fall of man and no story; but aside from this -- in the mind of the writer -- what is the importance of the trees to God and why must they be located in the Garden of Eden? Recently, I think, I may have found a possible solution.

Is there any possibility that the garden was God's and Adam was the grounds keeper? It's interesting that in Canaanite mythology there was also a Garden of Eden and it too is in the location described in Genesis. Our sources are incomplete, but in what we have Eden is the home of the gods; and there are trees in the garden that supply food for the gods. One of the trees is the Tree of Life which is described as touching the top of the sky. Its fruit grants immortality to those who consume it and as you might guess the gods are immortal because they eat its fruit. There is no mention of a Tree of Knowledge in the Canaanite literature we possess, but as I said earlier, we don't have the complete tale. Perhaps they possessed a second mystical tree that granted them knowledge as well. It's possible, as one exists in the Genesis account. I am reminded of an old black and white photo I once saw on-line of peasants in Tibet crawling beneath a wooden table piled high with sacred books. The belief, the caption said, was that the ritual would impart knowledge.

Canaanite literature also tells of a war in heaven. One of the gods rebels against El, the chief god of the pantheon, and is cast down to Earth. There he turns himself into a giant horned serpent and mounts an attack on the Tree of Life. Desperate to save the tree El sends a champion from among the gods to thwart the serpent, but he is soon bitten and nearly dies from a venomous bite. His life is saved by the actions of the Moon goddess, but he loses his immortality and becomes a mortal man. His name is Adam. I believe he remains in the garden as its grounds keeper and is given a wife to keep him company, as a reward.

So perhaps the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge serve the same purpose for God: they are his food and so belong in his garden. Adam must not eat the fruit because it is expressly God's and eating it would give him the qualities of a god. So once the deed is done God exclaims that Adam has become like one of us. "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." So Adam was cast from the garden.

... that God was willing to let Adam and Eve partake of it at a later date, or at a certain point in human history, but when Adam and Eve ate the fruit as they did, that's when the knowledge contained it became "bad". Knowing too much for one's own good, maybe.

I don't think so. Adam and Eve transgressed by eating God's food without permission and by doing so became like gods themselves. As God said, what if they now reached out and took also from the Tree of Life, ate, and lived forever? That would change the dynamic of the relationship between God and man, and not in a way God was willing to tolerate.

 

[Cycel]

I find the story a bit weird all around. Considering that the sin they commited was eating of a fruit that endowed them with the knowledge of good and evil (sin), and knowing that they had no concept of sin before eating it, as we saw when they all of a sudden realized that they were naked and shouldn't be, how could they even realize that it was wrong to eat the fruit?

Yeah, this had bothered me for a long time. Then I was stunned to read in my twenties that the Gnostics also had a problem with the morality of God's actions. I though I was the first one to think of this. LOL. In response they developed, what is to us, a somewhat bizarre solution to the problem. Yahweh, they said, was only a lesser deity whom they called the Demiurge. The world is imperfect because it was created by this imperfect being. The Demiurge was a self-centered, jealous god who refused to acknowledge that there was a perfect being higher than himself: the true God. Christ was sent by the true God, not by the imperfect god who created the world.

 

[Brainfreeze]

First, you may claim God gave Adam and Eve the universe, but you must mean it only figuratively, for you must admit they had no awareness of it as we do. It is not likely they even understood what the stars were. Probably for them the stars were only lights in the sky. Perhaps they were bonfires God lit at night. It would have meant nothing to them. Heaven was the home of the gods. It did not belong to them.

So if he knew it would happen, and then punished them for doing what he knew they were going to do, is he not culpable in some way for setting them up for the fall? Adam and Eve were like very young children, it seems to me. Not until they ate the forbidden fruit did they gain greater awareness. Not until then did they become in God’s words like gods themselves.

First paragraph is all presumptions ...

second paragraph ... Has answers.. They made a choice to disobey, now we must be tried by fire for this knowledge, what are the intentions now that we have it..

…6In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Yahshua Christ;

John 16:33 - These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

I find the story a bit weird all around. Considering that the sin they commited was eating of a fruit that endowed them with the knowledge of good and evil (sin), and knowing that they had no concept of sin before eating it, as we saw when they all of a sudden realized that they were naked and shouldn't be, how could they even realize that it was wrong to eat the fruit?

I believe the sin was disobedience to God's command, as is sin by definition. They knew (or should have known) it was 'wrong,' the story goes, because God not only forbade it, but made mention of the admonition that if they ate from it or touched it, they would die. If you were told to not speed through a red [traffic] light, yet you run a red light anyway, would you really be in awe at the consequences (a ticket, a wreck, etc.)? Or would you, perhaps, defy the authorities that said "Thou shall not speed?"

I don't see how you all keep up with these posts! I commend you guys for taking the time to address everything so thoroughly.

 

[Kerry]

First, you may claim God gave Adam and Eve the universe, but you must mean it only figuratively, for you must admit they had no awareness of it as we do. It is not likely they even understood what the stars were. Probably for them the stars were only lights in the sky. Perhaps they were bonfires God lit at night. It would have meant nothing to them. Heaven was the home of the gods. It did not belong to them.

On the other point, I don't think Adam and Eve rejected God. They ate an apple (or perhaps it was a fig). Still, they were pretty naive, weren't they? Eve didn't seem to question the fact that she was talking with a snake. What's that about? Why was this all important tree not kept somewhere safe? God is all knowing, isn't he? Did he not know this was going to happen? So if he knew it would happen, and then punished them for doing what he knew they were going to do, is he not culpable in some way for setting them up for the fall? Adam and Eve were like very young children, it seems to me. Not until they ate the forbidden fruit did they gain greater awareness. Not until then did they become in God’s words like gods themselves.

Did you know Adam and Eve ? did you speak with them personally ? our are you guessing?

 

[ColinCat]

Did you know Adam and Eve ? did you speak with them personally ? our are you guessing?

So who was the eye witness who documented what happened in the garden?

 

[Kerry]

So who was the eye witness who documented what happened in the garden?

I have a book, where is yours?

 

[ColinCat]

I have a book, where is yours?

I have reality, where is yours?

Who was the eye witness in the garden who wrote this down.

 

[Kerry]

I have reality, where is yours?

Who was the eye witness in the garden who wrote this down.

I don't know but I'm told his name was Adam and he lived to be 600 or so years old and he told it to Seth who lived to be 700 years old and he told it to Enoch which God took and His son Methuselah told it to Nahor and He told it to Noah.

What did your college professor tell you? why didn't they write when they were evolving. Or why didn't they say son I was a fish and i decided not to be a fish, I wanted to be a monkey and son if you don't want to be a monkey you can change into whatever yo want to be. Why is there no book?

 

[ColinCat]

What did your college professor tell you? why didn't they write when they were evolving. Or why didn't they say son I was a fish and i decided not to be a fish, I wanted to be a monkey and son if you don't want to be a monkey you can change into whatever yo want to be. Why is there no book?

Your asking the wrong guy. Ive never championed evolution, so youd better take that straw man down before you attack it any further.

 

[Kerry]

We find all types of ancient writings but none of which involves evolution not until Darwin.

 

[Colorful]

I believe the sin was disobedience to God's command, as is sin by definition. They knew (or should have known) it was 'wrong,' the story goes, because God not only forbade it, but made mention of the admonition that if they ate from it or touched it, they would die. If you were told to not speed through a red [traffic] light, yet you run a red light anyway, would you really be in awe at the consequences (a ticket, a wreck, etc.)? Or would you, perhaps, defy the authorities that said "Thou shall not speed?"

I don't see how you all keep up with these posts! I commend you guys for taking the time to address everything so thoroughly.

Well, if we were told to not run that light and we have no knowledge of "right" or "wrong" and do it anyway, of course we wouldn't know it was wrong and it would be reasonable to be in "awe" at the consequences of our actions as we are ignorant and naive of "right and wrong". Just as she said the goat would be in her analogy.

Consider this: If we as humans could only feel one temperature, never going up or down even 1 degree, throughout the entire world, would we say things are "hot", "cold", "cool", "warm", etc... ? How could we know what ANY of that is if we have no knowledge of any difference in temperature? If someone said "don't go outside today, it's hot"... would we even know what they meant? Adam and Eve eating the fruit would be "sinful" and "wrong", but how would they know what that even is? Wouldn't they need to know what "wrong" is in order to not do it?

 

[didymos]

... Adam and Eve eating the fruit would be "sinful" and "wrong", but how would they know what that even is? Wouldn't they need to know what "wrong" is in order to not do it?

No. 'Don't eat from that tree!' should have sufficed. It was a matter of TRUST.

Kids also lack the ability to tell right from wrong, that's why they have to be able to trust their parents to do what's best for them. Likewise we have to trust our heavenly Father. We are unable to come up with an absolute standard for morality ourselves. (Mark 10:18)

 

[Colorful]

No. 'Don't eat from that tree!' should have sufficed. It was a matter of TRUST.

Kids also lack the ability to tell right from wrong, that's why they have to be able to trust their parents to do what's best for them. Likewise we have to trust our heavenly Father. We are unable to come up with an absolute standard for morality ourselves. (Mark 10:18)

What you're saying is true. No question. You have a more knowledgeable mind than Adam and Eve before they partook of the tree though. Essentially, it's irrelevant all the true points you're making about relying on parents. The question remains: How are they suppose to not do "wrong" when they have no idea of what "right or wrong" even is? How are they suppose to know it's wrong to partake of the fruit (even when God told them not to), when they have no earthly idea what "wrong" even is?

 

[Colorful]

In computers, you can create operating systems that do many different functions in many different ways. If we program the computer to "shut down" without defining what "shut down" even is, are we going to expect the computer to shut down when we give the command? Would it not be prudent to define "shut down" before expecting the computer to shut down when you give the command?