Thursday, January 17, 2013

Atheism And Grief

 The NY Times has yet another puff piece for atheism by Susan Jacoby.
IN a recent conversation with a fellow journalist, I voiced my exasperation at the endless talk about faith in God as the only consolation for those devastated by the unfathomable murders in Newtown, Conn. Some of those grieving parents surely believe, as I do, that this is our one and only life. Atheists cannot find solace in the idea that dead children are now angels in heaven. “That only shows the limits of atheism,” my colleague replied. “It’s all about nonbelief and has nothing to offer when people are suffering.”
It is not about being offered something. It is about something ringing true. There is something deeply wrong with death. We know it. When a child dies we feel it strongly. Atheists just dismiss it. Nothing right or wrong about anything. It just is. Someone is delusional. Either death has the final word and religion is just trying to deny it or there is more to the story. There really is hope. All 20 families chose hope. Is that because grief made them stupid or is it because grief made them see clearer?
This widespread misapprehension that atheists believe in nothing positive is one of the main reasons secularly inclined Americans — roughly 20 percent of the population — do not wield public influence commensurate with their numbers. One major problem is the dearth of secular community institutions. But the most powerful force holding us back is our own reluctance to speak, particularly at moments of high national drama and emotion, with the combination of reason and passion needed to erase the image of the atheist as a bloodless intellectual robot.
I think secularly inclined people hold huge influence. In politics, in the courts, in the schools, in the press, in movies and TV. The dominance of secular thinking is everywhere.  I am not aware of any major public battle that secularists have lost. So that comment baffles me. I do think the 20% number is low. Lots of secular people still affiliate with a religion. 

I also am confused by this alleged "reluctance to speak." They dominate the conversation all the time. Religion is ridiculed all the time. Secularism is assumed as the way smart people think. The content of secularism is not spoken much. The content is not very compelling. It is full of contradictions. They don't try to talk with "reason and passion" because atheism just is not reasonable and does not inspire passion. So they just sneer at religion and imply their way is so much better. It is very effective.
The secular community is fearful of seeming to proselytize. When giving talks on college campuses, I used to avoid personal discussions of my atheism. But over the years, I have changed my mind because such diffidence contributes to the false image of the atheist as someone whose convictions are removed from ordinary experience. It is vital to show that there are indeed atheists in foxholes, and wherever else human beings suffer and die. 
Atheism is trendy. Where does she live? Fearful of seeming to proselytize? Really? Are there atheists in foxholes? It is interesting that the rise of secularism in the west has occurred during a long period without a full scale war. We have essentially been at peace since 1945. Atheism has been making gains since that time too.
Now when students ask how I came to believe what I believe, I tell them that I trace my atheism to my first encounter, at age 7, with the scourge of polio. In 1952, a 9-year-old friend was stricken by the disease and clinging to life in an iron lung. After visiting him in the hospital, I asked my mother, “Why would God do that to a little boy?” She sighed in a way that telegraphed her lack of conviction and said: “I don’t know. The priest would say God must have his reasons, but I don’t know what they could be.”
This says a lot. 1952 was a religious age but I have questioned before how strong their faith was. One reason I question it was their failure to pass their faith on to their children. Her mother seems to have the kind of faith that won't pass on very well. A faith that refuses to ask questions. Just accept what you are told. Except you don't really accept it. You fake it. But your children know you are faking it. They don't want a faith like that.

So her atheism is not really a rejection of true Christianity but a rejection of some sort of Christian heresy where faith prohibits reason. She was given a false choice between faith and reason and chose reason.
Just two years later, in 1954, Jonas Salk’s vaccine began the process of eradicating polio, and my mother took the opportunity to suggest that God may have guided his research. I remember replying, “Well, God should have guided the doctors a long time ago so that Al wouldn’t be in an iron lung.” (He was to die only eight years later, by which time I was a committed atheist.)
God allowed Jonas Salk the dignity of finding a polio vaccine that eliminated much suffering and death. If there was no suffering no human could ever do anything of the sort. If God solved all our problems before we knew they existed then the Jonas Salk's of the world would have no meaningful work. The problem of pain is complex but one reason for pain is so we can participate in the drama of good conquering evil. Any time we do we can always ask why was this pain not relieved earlier?
The first time I told this story to a class, I was deeply gratified when one student confided that his religious doubts arose from the struggles of a severely disabled sibling, and that he had never been able to discuss the subject candidly with his fundamentalist parents. One of the most positive things any atheist can do is provide a willing ear for a doubter — even if the doubter remains a religious believer.
Again we have the assumption that questions imply doubt. They don't. Questions often are based on faith. We expect there to be answers. Even if we don't find a full answer right away we don't expect our faith to collapse when we ask our hardest questions. We expect our honesty and our effort to strengthen our faith.
IT is primarily in the face of suffering, whether the tragedy is individual or collective, that I am forcefully reminded of what atheism has to offer. When I try to help a loved one losing his mind to Alzheimer’s, when I see homeless people shivering in the wake of a deadly storm, when the news media bring me almost obscenely close to the raw grief of bereft parents, I do not have to ask, as all people of faith must, why an all-powerful, all-good God allows such things to happen. 
To not ask the question is worse than to ask it. To say human suffering really is meaningless leads to nihilism. That is a pretty radical conclusion to jump to just to. Just because asking why does not have an easy answer does not mean all why questions should be forever dismissed. It is a kind of philosophical suicide. Just assume the deep questions in life have no answer.

Why even interact with another person's suffering? Why watch do those news media reports bring you obscenely close to the raw grief of bereft parents? We want to go there? We want to cry with them. If suffering has no meaning then why do we do that? When we share someone's pain we become better lovers. We see value in love even when we don't see any in the pain. Somehow crying over brokenness leaves us longing for a fix. We would rather long for a fix that isn't obvious than simply declare brokenness to be unimportant.
It is a positive blessing, not a negation of belief, to be free of what is known as the theodicy problem. Human “free will” is Western monotheism’s answer to the question of why God does not use his power to prevent the slaughter of innocents, and many people throughout history (some murdered as heretics) have not been able to let God off the hook in that fashion.
Human free will does destroy the logical force of the problem of pain and evil. An infinitely good God could allow man the freedom to choose good or evil. So it is no longer a logical objection. It is more an emotional objection. Why so much pain? Why me? Why do some people get off easier than others?
The atheist is free to concentrate on the fate of this world — whether that means visiting a friend in a hospital or advocating for tougher gun control laws — without trying to square things with an unseen overlord in the next. Atheists do not want to deny religious believers the comfort of their faith. We do want our fellow citizens to respect our deeply held conviction that the absence of an afterlife lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth. 
Why should an atheist care about the fate of the world? Many do. But does that caring flow from their atheism or perhaps does it come from her Catholic upbringing? It makes a difference because if it is a leftover from her Catholicism then it will disappear in future generations if Catholicism disappears. So the question is important. Why should an atheists care about the world and not just care about themselves?
Today’s atheists would do well to emulate some of the great 19th-century American freethinkers, who insisted that reason and emotion were not opposed but complementary.
Robert Green Ingersoll, who died in 1899 and was one of the most famous orators of his generation, personified this combination of passion and rationality. Called “The Great Agnostic,” Ingersoll insisted that there was no difference between atheism and agnosticism because it was impossible for anyone to “know” whether God existed or not. He used his secular pulpit to advocate for social causes like justice for African-Americans, women’s rights, prison reform and the elimination of cruelty to animals.
Again, the fact that an atheist or agnostic does what we view as good is missing the point. Where did he get his concept of good from? Is there any reason to believe other atheists will get it from the same place? The answer to the second question is always going to be No because atheism has no foundation for morality.  So Ingersoll's morality was just his. It did not flow from his atheism and we should not be surprised if future atheists don't share it.
 He also frequently delivered secular eulogies at funerals and offered consolation that he clearly considered an important part of his mission. In 1882, at the graveside of a friend’s child, he declared: “They who stand with breaking hearts around this little grave, need have no fear. The larger and the nobler faith in all that is, and is to be, tells us that death, even at its worst, is only perfect rest ... The dead do not suffer.”
Not just that the dead do not suffer but the dead do not matter. In fact, the living don't matter much either unless we decide to make them matter. You can say death is OK but then you have said to much. Death is not OK.  

109 comments:

  1. I'm concerned about your apparent misunderstandings about atheism. The idea that an atheist is dismissive of the death of a child is absurd, and I seriously doubt you could provide an example of that.

    Your claim that atheism only flourishes during times of peace is unsupported; there is easily as much violence in the world today as there was prior to 1945.

    You seem to suggest that atheists think that suffering is meaningless, which is also baseless.

    An atheist cares about the fate of the world for the same reason that everyone else does; we or our loved ones will have children who have to live here, and we want the best life for them.

    To suggest that caring either flows from religion or atheism is a false dichotomy. Science has a very good understand of why we have emotional responses to things, and it has nothing to do with either of those.

    The claim that atheists have no basis for morality is absurd. Actions are moral which bring about happiness and immoral which cause suffering. No religion is needed to see that.

    I do not see how you got from "the dead do not suffer" to "the dead do not matter." I challenge you to find a single atheist that would express such an idea.

    Perhaps you should try talking to atheists before you publish such misinformation about them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm concerned about your apparent misunderstandings about atheism. The idea that an atheist is dismissive of the death of a child is absurd, and I seriously doubt you could provide an example of that.

    Sorry if I misstated anything. I did not say that atheism dismisses the death of a child. They acknowledge the pain. What they dismiss is the sense we feel deep in our hearts that death is so so wrong. They would put that in the general category of pain and delusion. They would not say there is some deep truth that your heart is latching on to. So there is a strong feeling there that is being dismissed. They don't dismiss the whole event.

    Your claim that atheism only flourishes during times of peace is unsupported; there is easily as much violence in the world today as there was prior to 1945.

    There is violence in the world. Is atheism flourishing in the most violent places? I don't think so but if you have evidence to the contrary I would be interested.

    I do think atheism was going somewhere in the 1920's and didn't go anywhere in the 1930's or 1940's because of the depression and WWII. I don't think it is a coincidence that we have gone 65+ years without a major war or depression on that scale and our faith has grown steadily weaker over that time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What they dismiss is the sense we feel deep in our hearts that death is so so wrong."
      Nonsense. I have no idea where you would get the idea that atheists lack Christians' depth of feeling. Evidence?

      "I don't think so but if you have evidence to the contrary I would be interested."
      Actually, since you made the claim that atheism only flourishes during peace, I'll let you provide the evidence.

      Delete
    2. I didn't say they lack the feeling. I said they just put it in a category of pain and delusion. Evidence? It is almost by definition that an atheist can't affirm this feeling. Does it point to life after death? Does it point to some ultimate reality that death it not meant to be? Atheists would say it points to nothing but the fact that you are in pain. What else could they say?

      "I don't think so but if you have evidence to the contrary I would be interested."
      Actually, since you made the claim that atheism only flourishes during peace, I'll let you provide the evidence.


      I told you the obvious empirical evidence that my statement was based on. That atheism has advanced in the west since memory of the war has faded. You replied with evidence of all the violence in the world since 1945. But I don't see your point. The places where there has been violence are not known for atheism. I could be wrong. I was assuming you had some reason for bringing up violence outside the west.

      Delete
  3. You seem to suggest that atheists think that suffering is meaningless, which is also baseless.

    So what do you think it means? Al has polio and suffers terribly and dies. He suffer terrible from a young age and eventually dies at 17. The author seems to say the meaninglessness of the suffering is an argument for the non-existence of God. Do you disagree?

    An atheist cares about the fate of the world for the same reason that everyone else does; we or our loved ones will have children who have to live here, and we want the best life for them.

    It is a nice feeling to think you have made the world a better place for you children. Still, is that nice feeling the only motivation? I mean you can get nice feelings a lot easier in other ways. Remember you are working very hard for very long to get a small chance at making a small difference.

    If there is no final judgement where someone might say "Well done good and faithful servant" or perhaps "Cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth!" (Mat 25:30) then the motivation does not seem to match the effort needed.

    To suggest that caring either flows from religion or atheism is a false dichotomy. Science has a very good understand of why we have emotional responses to things, and it has nothing to do with either of those.

    Actually the science makes the emotion much less motivating. If I see a poor person and have compassion on them I can be motivated to good. If I know the compassion comes from a certain chemical in my brain that get automatically generated by certain stimuli then I will discount my compassion and be less likely to act. Especially if I don't trust my brain as being ordered towards good. If it is just chemical roulette then I might find a way to just stop the feelings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So what do you think it means?"
      It means that you never get to see your loved one again. Not in some kind of afterlife, or ever.

      "Still, is that nice feeling the only motivation? I mean you can get nice feelings a lot easier in other ways."
      Maybe you can. The idea that a belief in a god is the only reason Christians do good things doesn't speak very positively of that worldview. It saddens me that you don't think it's worth the effort.

      "Actually the science makes the emotion much less motivating"
      I'm sorry to hear that. Again, this whole paragraph paints Christians as inherently heartless people who need some promise of reward to be motivated to treat others well.




      Delete
    2. "So what do you think it means?"
      It means that you never get to see your loved one again. Not in some kind of afterlife, or ever.


      I say: Atheists think suffering is meaningless.
      You say: That is baseless.
      I say: OK, What do you think it means?

      Then you say this. I am not following.

      Maybe you can. The idea that a belief in a god is the only reason Christians do good things doesn't speak very positively of that worldview. It saddens me that you don't think it's worth the effort.

      It is not the only reason. Christians have all the mushy sentimental reasons for doing good that atheists do. We just know that is not always good enough. Often we feel like being patient and kind and generous. Sometimes we just don't. Maybe atheists never have those times but I doubt it. It is in those times that we remind ourselves of the reason for doing good. We can do that because we have such a reason. Atheist morality is based on feelings. That does not make them do evil all the time. It does make their virtue less reliable. Reason is a better foundation than emotion.

      Delete
  4. The claim that atheists have no basis for morality is absurd. Actions are moral which bring about happiness and immoral which cause suffering. No religion is needed to see that.

    I would not call that morality. If I act to bring about my happiness then that is just pragmatism. Doing something moral implies getting away from the simple pain and pleasure principle in my decisions.


    I do not see how you got from "the dead do not suffer" to "the dead do not matter." I challenge you to find a single atheist that would express such an idea.

    How do the dead matter? Sure, they live on for a time in the minds of the survivors. That is often overstated. How much do you think about the dead every day? The recently departed we might think about but even them not so much. Some people might build something that lasts for a while but often fools inherit it and destroy it pretty quickly.

    Perhaps you should try talking to atheists before you publish such misinformation about them.

    I do talk to atheists but I am happy to add you to the number that I have interacted with. Thanks for reading and commenting. I shall take a peak at your blog. God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Doing something moral implies getting away from the simple pain and pleasure principle in my decisions"
      In favor of what?

      "How do the dead matter? Sure, they live on for a time in the minds of the survivors. That is often overstated."
      You're entitled to that opinion. But if you're claiming that the dead are somehow more important to Christians than atheists, let's see your evidence.

      Delete
    2. "Doing something moral implies getting away from the simple pain and pleasure principle in my decisions"
      In favor of what?


      In favor of something. Maybe virtue. Maybe obedience to God. Maybe consistency with a higher purpose. Perhaps pleasure could work if it involved a short term pain for a long term pleasure. Still the pleasure better be very long term. Not just studying for a test but maybe training for an Olympics that is years away.

      You're entitled to that opinion. But if you're claiming that the dead are somehow more important to Christians than atheists, let's see your evidence.

      We believe in life after death and a communion with those in heaven and those in purgatory. You believe the dead just cease to exist. So I guess I don't see how the dead would matter in the atheist worldview.

      Delete
  5. "It is almost by definition that an atheist can't affirm this feeling."
    Nothing is "almost by definition;" something is either part of a definition or it isn't. Atheism is defined as the belief that there are no gods. Since you're trying to impose something else on it, you'll need to support that idea. Simply saying "what else could they do" is an argument from ignorance.

    "I told you the obvious empirical evidence that my statement was based on. That atheism has advanced in the west since memory of the war has faded."

    But you haven't supported that idea; you've merely asserted it. Where are your numbers showing a correlation between atheism and peace?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not sure if you are raising real objections or if you are just trying to be perverse. Atheists don't believe in life after death. Do I really need to make an argument for that?

      As for "numbers showing a correlation" that is a strange request as well. Atheism has become popular in very few societies. Actually I think this might be the first one. So from a sample size of one we can't do much statistical analysis. We can analyze cause and effect just based on our understanding of why people make religious choices. It is a normal way to reason.

      Delete
  6. "Then you say this. I am not following."
    I told you what death means to me as an atheist; I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're not understanding.

    "Atheist morality is based on feelings"
    False. Morality (for all of us, not just atheists) comes from the need to live together in society. We're all capable of making moral judgments independent of any religious teachings; even Christians do it all the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. False. Morality (for all of us, not just atheists) comes from the need to live together in society. We're all capable of making moral judgments independent of any religious teachings; even Christians do it all the time.

      I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean laws and social norms? I would not call those morals. I would say something like risking your life to save someone you don't know. An atheist might do that just because they felt it was the right thing to do. A Christian would have the same feelings but also have reasons. They would say all men are created in the image of God and many other reasons why it is the right thing to do.

      Delete
  7. "In favor of something"
    But you're not saying what, only giving a bunch of maybe's and perhaps's. If you believe there's more to morality than what I said, take a stand on what it is and defend it.

    "We believe in life after death and a communion with those in heaven and those in purgatory. You believe the dead just cease to exist. So I guess I don't see how the dead would matter in the atheist worldview."
    Again, that's an argument from ignorance. You can't see how I could see the dead as more important than you do, so I must not. If atheists and Christians value the dead differently, that could be measured empirically. If you can't provide such a measurement, it's an empty, baseless claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But you're not saying what, only giving a bunch of maybe's and perhaps's. If you believe there's more to morality than what I said, take a stand on what it is and defend it.

      I was talking about the definition or morality. What sorts of choices should be referred to as moral choices. I was excluding choices made based on pain and pleasure. If I eat chicken instead of hamburgers because I like chicken I have not made a moral choice. That is a "pain and pleasure" choice.

      Again, that's an argument from ignorance. You can't see how I could see the dead as more important than you do, so I must not. If atheists and Christians value the dead differently, that could be measured empirically. If you can't provide such a measurement, it's an empty, baseless claim.

      Again, it is hard for me to take you seriously here. I am merely looking at what Catholics and Atheists believe about the dead and making some fairly simple observations. I find it hard to believe you are that incapable of reason that you respond with such a rant.

      Delete
  8. "Atheists don't believe in life after death. Do I really need to make an argument for that?"
    No, you need to make an argument for why that means the dead don't mean as much to atheists as Christians. You haven't explained the connection between those two ideas.

    "So from a sample size of one we can't do much statistical analysis"
    However, you could still show that atheism became more popular when the US was not involved in military conflicts. I submit that you cannot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you need to make an argument for why that means the dead don't mean as much to atheists as Christians. You haven't explained the connection between those two ideas.

      If you believe someone no longer exists then they don't mean as much to you as they would if you believe they do exist.

      However, you could still show that atheism became more popular when the US was not involved in military conflicts. I submit that you cannot.
      I would not include all military conflicts. Even big ones like Vietnam were not really scary. That is the population did not really have to contemplate the idea of being taken over by a truly evil invader. So I would say there were zero full scale wars during the time of atheism's growth. That means we don't have peacetime and wartime data points. Unless you go back to the civil war, WWI, and WWII. But going back that far introduces many other variable.

      Delete
  9. "I would say something like risking your life to save someone you don't know. An atheist might do that just because they felt it was the right thing to do. A Christian would have the same feelings but also have reasons."
    So Christians don't feel that's the right thing to do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I said a Christian would have the same moral feelings. They just would have more than feelings. They would have reasons too. Christians value reason. We don't think emotion is a solid basis for important things like morality.

      Delete
  10. "If I eat chicken instead of hamburgers because I like chicken I have not made a moral choice. That is a "pain and pleasure" choice. "
    But it's not a choice that has anything to do with increasing happiness or inflicting harm; "pain and pleasure" was your choice of words, not mine.

    "I am merely looking at what Catholics and Atheists believe about the dead and making some fairly simple observations."
    No, you're making assertions based on your understanding of what they believe. I would contend that your understanding of atheism is somewhat weak, which casts doubt on your conclusions. If the claims you're making are true, they could be observed empirically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But it's not a choice that has anything to do with increasing happiness or inflicting harm; "pain and pleasure" was your choice of words, not mine.

      I think good chicken can increase happiness!

      No, you're making assertions based on your understanding of what they believe. I would contend that your understanding of atheism is somewhat weak, which casts doubt on your conclusions. If the claims you're making are true, they could be observed empirically.

      Are my assertions wrong? If you think so then just say it. I can accept that my understanding of atheism needs to improve. Having discussions with atheists on blogs can do that.

      Delete
  11. "If you believe someone no longer exists then they don't mean as much to you as they would if you believe they do exist."
    Again, that's an unsupported assertion. Show me a study of attitudes toward death that supports you, and you might have a case.

    "That is the population did not really have to contemplate the idea of being taken over by a truly evil invader."
    You mean like the Cold War?

    "I said a Christian would have the same moral feelings. They just would have more than feelings. They would have reasons too." On what are you basing the idea that atheists don't have reasons for behaving morally? That's absurd. As for valuing reason, I disagree; what Christians value is faith. If Christian beliefs could be backed up rationally, they wouldn't require faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If you believe someone no longer exists then they don't mean as much to you as they would if you believe they do exist."
      Again, that's an unsupported assertion. Show me a study of attitudes toward death that supports you, and you might have a case.


      You are funny. If I say 2+2=4 you will want me to quote a study that shows it. I am trying to get you to follow the logic step by step.

      "That is the population did not really have to contemplate the idea of being taken over by a truly evil invader."
      You mean like the Cold War?


      The cold war was pretty easy to ignore. I know I ignored it. It is not even close to the stress level of WWII.

      On what are you basing the idea that atheists don't have reasons for behaving morally? That's absurd.

      They do have reason. But what are the foundations of those reasons? They come down to either pain and pleasure or they come down to just feeling it is right. Is there another possibility? Feel free to make a suggestion.

      I discount pain and pleasure because that is how we make our decisions where there is no moral consideration. So we are left with feelings. They can be quite strong. Many atheists are frequently morally outraged at Christianity. You ask them what is the source of the moral code Christians are being accused of breaking? They don't say God. They say they just know intuitively that lying is wrong or whatever.

      As for valuing reason, I disagree; what Christians value is faith. If Christian beliefs could be backed up rationally, they wouldn't require faith.

      Now it is my turn to tell you that you are making false assertions about Christians. Christians do value faith but they also value reason. They support each other. It is not either/or. It is both or neither.

      Think of a science textbook. I can have a rational reason why the information in that book is trustworthy and true. That does not mean I don't need the book. It does not mean I stop reasoning. I take the book and use that information as the basis for further reason. If I choose to doubt the truth of the information in the book I do not just lose the content of the book but I also lose my ability to reason from those contents. So it is both or neither.

      Christians have moral principles that they accept as part of the faith. Things like the dignity of the human person and the supreme value of love. They reason from those principles to make moral choices. Moral intuition plays a part but the principles are more important.

      Delete
  12. "I think good chicken can increase happiness!"
    Then I think you have a very strong case for its morality.

    "Are my assertions wrong? If you think so then just say it"
    I have stated that I believe your view the Christians have a different depth of feeling about death and the dead to be inaccurate.

    "If I say 2+2=4 you will want me to quote a study that shows it."
    No, because I agree with that. I do not agree with your view that the dead are more meaningful to Christians than to atheists.

    "The cold war was pretty easy to ignore. I know I ignored it. It is not even close to the stress level of WWII."
    Not for you, maybe. But I'd still like to see the data correlating the spread of atheism with peace.

    "But what are the foundations of those reasons?"
    The need for people to live together in society. Our intuitive sense of morality evolved from that.

    "Christians do value faith but they also value reason. They support each other. It is not either/or. It is both or neither. "
    Fair enough. But which one gets you to heaven?

    "Think of a science textbook. I can have a rational reason why the information in that book is trustworthy and true. That does not mean I don't need the book"
    But it does mean that it doesn't require faith.

    "Moral intuition plays a part but the principles are more important."
    I submit that you value the principles that align with your moral intuition far more than those that don't. I would even go as far as to say that you discard the principles that violate your moral intuition.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have stated that I believe your view the Christians have a different depth of feeling about death and the dead to be inaccurate.

    And I have stated that I don't disagree about the depth of feeling. The assertion I made was about the atheist's creed. He cannot take those deep feelings to be pointing to something ... deep.

    The need for people to live together in society. Our intuitive sense of morality evolved from that.

    OK. So you prefer an intuitive sense of morality rather than moral feelings. My point is morals don't reside outside the human mind. They are evolved so they don't point to something real and true. They just indicate something that once gave us survival advantages. There is no logical reason why following morals should lead us to something good. Beyond of course the good feeling that our brains have evolved to give us.

    "Think of a science textbook. I can have a rational reason why the information in that book is trustworthy and true. That does not mean I don't need the book"
    But it does mean that it doesn't require faith.


    It does require faith. Faith in that book. You have rationally assessed whether the book should be trusted but you have not rationally validated every statement in the book. You accept those statements on faith. Religious faith is similar. You trust the bible and trust the church for rational reasons but you don't have rational proof for every article of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I submit that you value the principles that align with your moral intuition far more than those that don't. I would even go as far as to say that you discard the principles that violate your moral intuition.

    Not at all. My moral intuition is often right but not always. It leads me to often be kind to people but not always. Sometimes I just don't have any impulse to be kind. I need to go back to my principles and remind myself that this person I am having trouble being kind to is also human and shares the same dignity as every other human that I can more easily warm up to.

    Then there is the phenomenon of my moral understanding changing my moral intuition. So I might not see environmental wastefulness as immoral. But I can educate myself and come to the conclusion that it is. It can become part of my moral intuition.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "The assertion I made was about the atheist's creed. He cannot take those deep feelings to be pointing to something ... deep. "
    No, we don't take those feelings to be pointing to something imaginary.

    All of the rest of your comments about morality apply equally to religious people or to atheists. There really is no distinction between how the two groups of people treat the idea of morality (at least, as you've expressed it), other than the fact that religious people credit something supernatural for it. An unfortunate conseqence of this view is that they often believe their personal interpretation of morality to be correct and infallible, and thus feel the need to impose it on the rest of us in the form of laws.

    ReplyDelete
  16. All of the rest of your comments about morality apply equally to religious people or to atheists. There really is no distinction between how the two groups of people treat the idea of morality (at least, as you've expressed it),

    Every time I think you are understanding you make a baffling statement like this.

    An unfortunate conseqence of this view is that they often believe their personal interpretation of morality to be correct and infallible, and thus feel the need to impose it on the rest of us in the form of laws.

    No, this is not a difference. Atheists impose their morality on others just as quickly as anyone. Do you think communists and Nazi's were afraid to pass laws because their morality was just their opinion and therefore fallible? The "don't impose your morality" argument only works because the government is somewhat Christian and therefore sees a need to respect the dignity of humans even when they disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Every time I think you are understanding you make a baffling statement like this."
    My apologies for failing to explain what I mean. My point is that we all make moral judgments based on our own moral intuition. While these might be informed by things like religion, they are ultimately made independently of any order supposedly handed down by a god. This is why we judge some part of the Bible, such as the Golden Rule, to be brilliant expressions of morality, while we don't make the same judgment about something like the 2nd commandment. We must have some standard outside of the Bible to make such judgments; my position is that this fact is common to all people.

    "Do you think communists and Nazi's were afraid to pass laws because their morality was just their opinion and therefore fallible? "
    First of all, the Nazis were not atheists. While communists were, they were highly dogmatic, which is a trait not shared by the majority of atheists in 21st century America. I was specifically referring to the tendency of American Christian activists to seek special treatment under the law for their beliefs; I apologize that I was not clear on that.

    "The "don't impose your morality" argument only works because the government is somewhat Christian and therefore sees a need to respect the dignity of humans even when they disagree."
    I'm afraid I didn't understand this. If the claim is that Christians in power in the US respect the dignity of humans, then the push the trample the rights of gay people belies this idea.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My apologies for failing to explain what I mean. My point is that we all make moral judgments based on our own moral intuition. While these might be informed by things like religion, they are ultimately made independently of any order supposedly handed down by a god. This is why we judge some part of the Bible, such as the Golden Rule, to be brilliant expressions of morality, while we don't make the same judgment about something like the 2nd commandment. We must have some standard outside of the Bible to make such judgments; my position is that this fact is common to all people.

    Lets back up a bit. There are ways people interpret the bible. They are not in the bible but they are important. They are called traditions. Catholics and protestants both have them. Catholics understand theirs better and can give more explanation for why they read the bible the way they do. Still that does not make their religion the same as atheism. I would put them on a continuum. Catholicism is the most solid. Protestantism less so. Atheism less solid yet. Catholics have an infallible scripture and an infallible tradition. Protestants have an infallible scripture with a changeable tradition. Atheists have no scripture and a very changeable moral tradition.

    The differences are huge. It boils down to whether you moral tradition can stand up when you are very tempted to break it. A moral tradition that can easily be changed won't do. You can say adultery is wrong but when you are tempted you can find a way to make your case an exception. Like saying it is not when you are really in love or some such nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  19. First of all, the Nazis were not atheists. While communists were, they were highly dogmatic, which is a trait not shared by the majority of atheists in 21st century America.
    Nazi's were functional atheists. They had no moral code that could not be changed. Communists atheists were the same. Modern American atheists have exactly the same morality as Nazi's and communists.


    I was specifically referring to the tendency of American Christian activists to seek special treatment under the law for their beliefs; I apologize that I was not clear on that

    Christian beliefs are treated specially in the sense that the law is anti-Christian and pro-atheist. When is the last time Christians have won in court? When is the last time a law was changed to make it more friendly rather than more hostile to Christian. Atheist have huge political power. Way more than their numbers warrant. Yet they still complain.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The "don't impose your morality" argument only works because the government is somewhat Christian and therefore sees a need to respect the dignity of humans even when they disagree."
    I'm afraid I didn't understand this. If the claim is that Christians in power in the US respect the dignity of humans, then the push the trample the rights of gay people belies this idea.


    Trample the human rights of gay people? What planet do you live on. The political establishment will destroy anything and everything because they are terrified that one gay person might feel hurt. So that is another group that gets way more power than their numbers warrant. I guess any group that attacks Christians consistently gets listened to no matter how small their numbers and no matter how silly their ideas.

    The funny thing is I don't think most atheists and most gays actually hate Christians. It pretty much just their leaders that drive that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Your response to my claim that we judge moral instructions by a standard outside the Bible doesn't refute what I've said.

    Calling Nazi any kind of atheists doesn't make it so. The Nazis were religious, so any moral code they may have had was a religious one.

    You're conflating atheism with the secular nature of American government. No religion gets special treatment under the law in this country. Christians keep losing in court because that's what they keep trying to get.

    I live on the planet (sorry, in the country) where Christian activists are making a concerted effort to deny gay people equal treatment under the law. I'm amazed that comes as a surprise to you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Your response to my claim that we judge moral instructions by a standard outside the Bible doesn't refute what I've said.

    You made an assertion. I explained why I reject it. So, yes, I think it completely refutes what you said. You argument is flawed. It is a false choice. You assume there can only be a 100% arbitrary moral system or a 100% fixed one. That is just not true. So you saying that protestants make some arbitrary choices around biblical interpretation does not prove it is equivalent to the atheist system in this regard. They have the same disease but atheism has a much worse case.

    Calling Nazi any kind of atheists doesn't make it so. The Nazis were religious, so any moral code they may have had was a religious one.

    The Nazis had a political philosophic that acted somewhat like a religion. But morally they were wide open like atheists. That is there was no moral code that flowed from their belief system.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You're conflating atheism with the secular nature of American government.

    Yes, they get conflated all the time. People who claim to be Christian act like atheists and call it secular. A rose by any other name.

    I live on the planet (sorry, in the country) where Christian activists are making a concerted effort to deny gay people equal treatment under the law. I'm amazed that comes as a surprise to you.

    It does not come as a surprise to hear you say it. I doubt any group has ever gotten more favorable treatment under the law than gay people get right now. They have to be backed up many steps to be equal.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "People who claim to be Christian act like atheists and call it secular."
    How does an atheist act?

    "I doubt any group has ever gotten more favorable treatment under the law than gay people get right now"
    It must suck to be Christian and not be allowed to marry the person you're in love with.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Huh, it deleted my note that my second comment was sarcasm; odd. In any case, please enlighten me on the preferential treatment that the law gives gay people.

    ReplyDelete
  26. How does an atheist act?

    Atheists act like there is no God.

    It must suck to be Christian and not be allowed to marry the person you're in love with.

    You mean if they are already married or you are? Or maybe one of you has taken a vow of celibacy? There are a lot of reasons why someone might not marry the person they are in love with. You just love the person in a chaste way. Sex need not be part of every loving relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Atheists act like there is no God"
    You're dodging the question. If you judge someone to be a "functional atheist," you must be basing that on their actions. What actions?

    "There are a lot of reasons why someone might not marry the person they are in love with."
    Another dodge. As a heterosexual, I have the option; gay people don't. You know this.

    ReplyDelete
  28. You're dodging the question. If you judge someone to be a "functional atheist," you must be basing that on their actions. What actions?

    For politicians it is their positions on issues where secular society is making a major departure from traditional Christian morality. The big ones right now are abortion and gay marriage. There are many for whom I wonder what difference becoming an atheist would make in their lives.

    Another dodge. As a heterosexual, I have the option; gay people don't. You know this.

    It depends on what you mean by marriage. If you think of marriage as just a sterile sexual arrangement then you can compare what you might do to what a gay couple might do. The point is that is a wrong view of marriage. Now if you got married with this wrong view of marriage you could still be OK because as a man and a woman you have the true meaning of marriage in your bodies. You might start living it almost by accident. A gay couple just does not have that. They will never have it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "For politicians it is their positions on issues where secular society is making a major departure from traditional Christian morality. "
    False dichotomy. "Not Christian" does not equal "atheist."

    "If you think of marriage as just a sterile sexual arrangement then you can compare what you might do to what a gay couple might do."
    False premise. Implies that gay people do not experience love.

    "you have the true meaning of marriage in your bodies."
    Please explain the "true meaning of marriage" and how it exists in bodies.


    ReplyDelete
  30. False dichotomy. "Not Christian" does not equal "atheist."

    Sure. I realize thinks are more complex. Still the fruit seems much the same as far as it goes. I do think real atheists would be worse. Perhaps much worse. But even then one might be OK and the next one just awful. So "functional atheist" really just means not following any discernible morality.

    "If you think of marriage as just a sterile sexual arrangement then you can compare what you might do to what a gay couple might do."
    False premise. Implies that gay people do not experience love.


    I didn't say that. I am sure they experience something they would call love. But not understanding marriage means not understanding love.

    Please explain the "true meaning of marriage" and how it exists in bodies.

    This is very complex and very simple. Google Theology Of The Body if you really want to know. The short answer is the reproductive system becomes functional not just physically but spiritually as well. A man gives the gift of himself to a woman in love. She accepts that gift and gives herself to the nurturing of that gift into new life. You don't have to understand this cognitively to live it well. Men and women are designed to express love and produce life.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "So "functional atheist" really just means not following any discernible morality. "
    Then it is inappropriately named, since atheism makes no claim about morality.

    "But not understanding marriage means not understanding love. "
    So how does that justify not allowing them to get married? I'm not aware of straight people having to take a test to make sure they understand love.

    What is it about your "theology of the body" image that you're suggesting gives you the right to dictate to others who can and can't get married?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Then it is inappropriately named, since atheism makes no claim about morality.

    But not making moral claims is precisely what is being highlighted in the phrase. But you are right, atheism is a word that is used for a number of different levels. You can use words like materialism or scientism to denote a complete denial of all super-nature and not just God. All the terms have serious problems. Atheism is the one most people associate with that belief so I use it the most.

    So how does that justify not allowing them to get married? I'm not aware of straight people having to take a test to make sure they understand love.

    It is not that they are not allowed to get married. It is that it is impossible for them to get married. The question is should we remove all meaning from the definition of marriage.

    We can change the definition of "cat" to include cows. Inclusive is good right? But you have not made cows into cats. You have made the word "cat" meaningless. Cows are still cows. But cats always have to explain that they are cats. They will always be accused of being insensitive to cows when they try and explain what they are in a way that distinguishes them from cows.

    What is it about your "theology of the body" image that you're suggesting gives you the right to dictate to others who can and can't get married?

    Nobody is dictating anything. OK the other side of the debate is dictating a zillion things about what Christians can say or do. Christians are just noting that marriage means something. The theology of the body is one way of describing that something.

    So should we use the power of the state to try and deny that something? If marriage means anything, anything at all, it is going to exclude somebody somewhere. Then we have to water down the definition some more.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "But not making moral claims is precisely what is being highlighted in the phrase"
    There is a difference between not making moral claims and having no morality. So "functional atheism" is misleading on several levels. It falsely implies amoral and falsely implies believing in no god.

    "It is not that they are not allowed to get married. It is that it is impossible for them to get married. "
    Circular reasoning (or tautology; I think you could make a case for either). If they were allowed to get married, it would be no longer be impossible for them to get married.

    " The question is should we remove all meaning from the definition of marriage. "
    Strawman. No one is advocating that. Gay people simply want to participate equally in the institution.

    "We can change the definition of "cat" to include cows."
    Completely bogus analogy. This is a total red herring.

    "OK the other side of the debate is dictating a zillion things about what Christians can say or do."
    Oh poor you. You don't get government endorsement of your beliefs. I weep. #sarcasm

    "Christians are just noting that marriage means something."
    Yes, while providing no rational reason that gay people can't participate in it.

    "The theology of the body is one way of describing that something. "
    Exactly. Your justification for not allowing gays to get married is religious in nature; ergo, you're imposing your religious beliefs on gay people.

    "If marriage means anything, anything at all, it is going to exclude somebody somewhere. "
    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  34. There is a difference between not making moral claims and having no morality. So "functional atheism" is misleading on several levels. It falsely implies amoral and falsely implies believing in no god.

    It does not imply amoral. It implies an intuitive sort of morality that is not based on solid moral principles. It does not imply not believing on God but that the belief is not strong enough to make a real difference.

    It is actually meant to be something that might offend the Christian who is called this. It is actually not meant as any slight on atheists. Most atheists don't get offended when I say Obama is a functional atheist. Obama, if he is serious about his faith, should wonder why people see him that way.

    Circular reasoning (or tautology; I think you could make a case for either). If they were allowed to get married, it would be no longer be impossible for them to get married.

    No. It is impossible for them to get married. Gay marriage cannot change reality. It can just change people's ability to see reality. Words matter because confusing terms causes confusing thinking. Marriage is something we should think clearly about.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "The question is should we remove all meaning from the definition of marriage. "
    Strawman. No one is advocating that. Gay people simply want to participate equally in the institution.


    But they can't participate equally unless it loses any connection with children and family. So they have to change the definition. If everyone participates equally regardless of what kind of relationship they have then we have a meaningless institution.

    "We can change the definition of "cat" to include cows."
    Completely bogus analogy. This is a total red herring.


    You should try and study a little philosophy. You might be able to understand something like this.

    "The theology of the body is one way of describing that something. "
    Exactly. Your justification for not allowing gays to get married is religious in nature; ergo, you're imposing your religious beliefs on gay people.


    Not really. Just because something is often described in religious terms does not mean it does not exist. Take death for example. It is real despite the fact that many people talk about it in religious contexts.

    Children are real. They really come from a man and a woman. Society depends on children being raised well. You can say that society should not care about that because it smells too religious to you. It just is not rational.

    "If marriage means anything, anything at all, it is going to exclude somebody somewhere. "
    Why?


    If you didn't understand the cows and the cats you are going to have trouble with this. It is like if we decide that every woman should be a supermodel. We don't want to exclude anyone so we just apply that title across the board. What does the word "supermodel" mean? It means nothing. Meaning requires exclusion. For a word to mean something it must apply to some subset and not apply to the remainder. Red means something because not everything is red.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It implies an intuitive sort of morality that is not based on solid moral principles"
      Strawman. Atheism still makes no claims about morality; you're imposing that implication yourself.

      "Most atheists don't get offended when I say Obama is a functional atheist"
      Red herring. Taking offense is irrelevant; what we're discussing is the accuracy of the description, which I have refuted.

      "It is impossible for them to get married."
      False. In an increasing number of states, it is entirely possible for them to get married.

      "But they can't participate equally unless it loses any connection with children and family"
      It already has no connection with children; I can't have children, and no one even asked me about that when I got married. Gay marriage would still involve joining two families, so your claim that it would not be connected to family is false.

      "You should try and study a little philosophy."
      Ad hominem. The validity of your analogy remains unsupported.

      "Just because something is often described in religious terms does not mean it does not exist."
      Strawman; I made no such claim. I said that religious reasons are used to justify banning gay marriage, which you illustrated with your "theology of the body" image.

      "Society depends on children being raised well."
      This is an argument in favor of gay marriage, not against it. Disagree? Show me one study that shows that children raised by same sex parents do any worse in life than any other children.

      "Meaning requires exclusion"
      List me everyone that the meaning of marriage requires excluding. I predict that only one group of people will be on your list.

      Delete
    2. Randy,

      There is no point debating with DVD Bach. He appears to use logic, but his statements are full of contradictions. He says, "Atheism makes no claims about morality," but he still has plenty of comments about what is right and wrong. His worldview is inconsistent.

      But this should be no surprise. The Bible accurately describes him in Romans chapter 1. He has suppressed the truth, because it condemns his wicked, immoral lifestyle.

      Pray for him, that God would enlighten his darkened mind, and that he would repent of his sin and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to save him.

      Romans 1:16-32
      16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
      17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
      18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
      19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
      20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
      21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
      22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
      23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
      24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
      25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
      26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
      27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
      28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
      29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
      30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
      31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
      32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

      Delete
  36. "He says, "Atheism makes no claims about morality," but he still has plenty of comments about what is right and wrong."

    Right! Because I am not atheism. Atheism is a single belief that there are no gods. I am a human being who is capable of making moral decision independent of whether or not I buy into religious beliefs, just like all of you are.

    Your Bible verse appears to refer to people who hate God. I am not capable of hating that which does not exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DVD Bach,

      Okay, I'll play along with you a bit here, although I believe your statement that "Atheism is a single belief that there are no gods" is deceptive and misleading. You may make independent moral decisions, but what is the basis for them? Are you "god"? Oh wait, you don't believe in gods.

      You have said elsewhere that right and wrong is determined by what causes a lot of suffering to many people, but that definition is relative and ambiguous. Clearly people have different views about what is right and wrong, so who has the final say?

      Christianity, based on the Bible, has a consistent, logical answer to that. So far you haven't offered one. I contend that you can't.

      Did you come up with your beliefs yourself, and if so, why should anyone believe you? Are you "god"? Or do you take them on someone else's authority, and if so, are they "god"? If you're not "religious", why are you so devoted to promoting your views? Why can't we all just get along?

      Your only hope is to abandon your foolish, inconsistent worldview and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. He will forgive you if you repent of your sins and believe in Him. If not, your judgment is already determined.

      Delete
  37. "You may make independent moral decisions, but what is the basis for them? "
    Whether or not they increase happiness or cause suffering.
    We make those decisions as a society.
    "Clearly people have different views about what is right and wrong, so who has the final say?"

    "Christianity, based on the Bible, has a consistent, logical answer to that."
    Hardly. Different Christian sects have wildly different views on morality.

    "Did you come up with your beliefs yourself, and if so, why should anyone believe you?"
    No, my beliefs are based on evidence; I'm either convinced that the evidence supports a given belief (in which case I believe it) or it doesn't (in which case I don't).

    "If you're not "religious", why are you so devoted to promoting your views?"
    False dichotomy. Religion isn't required to propegate ideas.

    "Your only hope is to abandon your foolish, inconsistent worldview and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ."
    As I have stated, my beliefs are based on evidence. There's no evidence that Jesus exists and is God.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sorry, my comment got a bit scrambled... "We make those decisions as a society" is intended to answer your question on who has the final say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DVD Bach,

      So if "society" decided that all atheists should be put to death (in order to increase happiness and minimize suffering), that would mean it is morally right? I don't believe that, but that is a logical conclusion from what you argued.

      You say your beliefs are based on evidence, but that is not true. I have presented you evidence on the existence of God, but you chose not to believe it. You may say, "I don't believe it is valid evidence," and you are entitled to your believe what you want. But my point is that you can't even examine evidence without have prior assumptions, and it is your assumptions which cause you to dismiss the evidence I have presented. So by setting yourself up as the one who determines what evidence counts and what doesn't, you are making yourself "god." But you don't believe in gods. What a dilemma (for you).

      Perhaps you could clarify what you think "religion" is, since you don't seem to agree with the common definition of the word.

      You say there is no evidence that Jesus exists and is God? What about the Bible? It's full of evidence about that. Oh right, you don't believe that because you are "god." Where is your evidence that Jesus didn't exist? Even scholars that don't believe in God and that the Bible is divinely inspired believe that Jesus exists.

      Maybe you need to get out of your little atheist circle and explore the real world sometime. You might find that your ignorant ramblings are not so readily accepted. But perhaps you're afraid to discover that the Bible is true, there is indeed a God, and you are condemned because of your sinful lifestyle.

      Yes, I know that last paragraph wasn't a logical argument, but since you haven't yet demonstrated a basis for logic from your worldview, I might as well make illogical arguments.

      Oh, just wait, before I finish, I better throw this in for good measure. Regarding your comment about different Christian sects...Non sequitir.

      Delete
  39. "So if "society" decided that all atheists should be put to death (in order to increase happiness and minimize suffering), that would mean it is morally right? "
    I would say no, since it would certainly cause a lot of suffering to atheists. Now let me turn the question around: If God ordered you to kill an atheist, would you?

    "I have presented you evidence on the existence of God, but you chose not to believe it."
    You mean Bible verses? You haven't established why we should believe what the Bible says.

    "So by setting yourself up as the one who determines what evidence counts and what doesn't, you are making yourself "god.""
    Strawman; I make no such claim. Evaluating the quality of information sources is an objective process, and I actually have a degree in it.

    "Perhaps you could clarify what you think "religion" is, since you don't seem to agree with the common definition of the word."
    A system of beliefs involving a deity, a belief in the supernatural and reliance on faith.

    "Oh right, you don't believe that because you are "god.""
    Strawman; I made no such claim.

    "Where is your evidence that Jesus didn't exist?"
    I'm making no such claim. You're the one making a claim; the burden of proof is on you.

    "Even scholars that don't believe in God and that the Bible is divinely inspired believe that Jesus exists"
    But not that the Bible's claims about his divinity are valid.

    "You might find that your ignorant ramblings are not so readily accepted."
    Ad hominem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DVD Bach,

      So you admit that your previous definition of how we make moral decisions was incorrect? Are you willing to accept what "society" decides, even if that means killing all the atheists and homosexuals, and reinstituting slavery? I admit that it would cause suffering to certain individuals. Are you saying that we need to eliminate all suffering? How do you even know what suffering is? Do you have a suffering-meter, or is suffering just whatever you say it is? I can go on all day with this approach.

      You dismiss the Bible, but you provide no evidence that any of your evidence is valid.

      Wow, you have a degree in evaluating information sources! Why does that matter? Are we supposed to believe you because you have a degree? Does being an "expert" mean that we must bow to DVD Bach and accept whatever you say? Why haven't you presented a basis for logic if you're so smart? It must drive you nuts!

      I get it now, you define terms as you see fit, dismiss evidence that you don't like, and then say that you are being objective.

      Maybe it's like I've said all along and you are a foolish sinner who needs to repent and trust in the living God.

      Delete
  40. I've already answered your question about society killing people; your continuing to repeat it as though I haven't is dishonest. We should always do our best to eliminate all suffering; the fact that you have to ask that doesn't speak well of the morality that you get from your god.

    I haven't made a claim about the Bible; I've only asked you to support yours.

    I mentioned that I had a degree in Library and Information Science because you asked about evaluating evidence; if my answers to your questions don't matter to you, you're welcome to stop asking questions.

    Your remaining two sentences are a strawman and an ad hominem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you haven't answered my question about society killing people. You have equivocated on your definition of morality.

      You said regarding the basis for moral decisions that "We make those decisions as a society" based on "Whether or not they increase happiness or cause suffering."

      Then I asked, "So if "society" decided that all atheists should be put to death (in order to increase happiness and minimize suffering), that would mean it is morally right?"

      You responded that the atheists would suffer. But what if it was done in such a way that the atheists didn't suffer? What if they didn't even know they were going to be killed and then they were put to death instantaneously without any awareness of it? Would that make it right?

      By the way, I am not advocating for this. I believe that would be sinful, based on my Christian worldview. But on your own definitions, I don't see how you can say it is wrong.

      Maybe a less extreme example would be better. Say the government wants to confiscate someone's house (eminent domain) to build their new city hall. This would cause suffering to the homeowner (assuming they didn't want to move). Even if "society" agreed with what the government wanted to do, does that make it right?

      Or how about this situation? A single 26 year old college grad stays home all day playing video games, but because of that he doesn't have any money, so he can't buy food or pay rent. Should the government give him welfare to alleviate his suffering? What if instead of a single 26 year college grad it is a single mother with two young children? How can we even decide it properly based on your definition of morality? Society is divided on this issue.

      Your definition is ambiguous. What is "suffering"? How can we objectively quantify and qualify suffering? Or is it subjective and relative? What is "society"? Is it simply the civil government? Or is it a majority of the population? Over what area? By city? By state? By country? The whole world? If American "society" decided that homosexuality is okay, but Australian "society" decided it is wrong, are they both right? What if "society" changes its mind in the future?

      Please help me understand your definition of morality.

      Delete
    2. I had made a couple edits, but they didn't come through when I published my last comment.

      Regarding killing atheists, "If it increased the happiness of believers in God who remained, would that make it right?"

      Regarding welfare, that would also be "in order to increase the happiness" of the people involved.

      Regarding conflicting societies, "Would the Australian society have to submit to the American society? Or vice versa? Who gets the final say? What about all the people who suffer because they disagree with whatever society decides?"

      Delete
  41. Excellent questions; I like the examples you're providing.

    In general, what you're describing are moral dilemmas. In situations where suffering and happiness conflict with one another or with other ideals that societies holds to be important, those are what result.

    It's important to realize that in many cases, there are no hard-and-fast, crystal clear right or wrong answeres. When these dilemmas exist, the person in the situation has to make a judgment call; when they exist at the societal level, we have mechanisms for deciding which way to go (for example, voting on laws or taking cases before courts).

    So if I've ever implied that my concept of morality provides all of the answers to situations like these, I apologize for miscommunicating that. I would point out, however, that the Bible also does not provide all of the answers. If biblical morality was really handed down by an omnipotent god, there would not be conflicting interpretations of that morality.

    So, with that in mind, on to answering your questions:
    1) Whether you kill atheists painlessly or not, their families and friends would still suffer. Also, I fail to see how doing so would make Christians happy. So in my mind, there is no dilemma here; what you're suggesting is clearly morally wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 2) I don't agree with eminent domain, because I don't think the benefit of a new courthouse outweighs the suffering of the displaced family. However, that's a decision we make at the societal level, and under current laws, that kind of thing can happen whether I personally agree with it or not.
    3) In your grad student example, the student's suffering conflicts with the ideal of individual responsibility, which we as a society hold to be important. I personally think he should not get welfare, but again, society might, based on the present legal system.
    4) Yes, there is an element of subjectivity, just like there is in interpreting the Bible. I believe that suffering is pretty well objectively-defining, but others may disagree. So we work those things out as a society. By society, I'm really referring to individual sovereign nations, so what one nation decides doesn't really impact other nations. I don't think homosexuality is wrong an any case, because there is no definition of suffering that include anything about it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Now let me ask you about your morality. The Bible explicitly endorses slavery. There are rules for who you may enslave, under what circumstances and how you may treat them (specifically, how savagely you allowed to beat them). Do you agree with God on this issue? If not, why not? If you believe that other biblical teachings effectively cancel these rules out, what are your objective criteria for deciding which rules overrule which?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DVD Bach,

      Thanks for your reply.

      The Bible does have laws about slavery. But much of what is called "slavery" in the Bible is what we today would simply call a "job". The difference is that "slavery" was a 24/7/365 occupation, in contrast to a 40 hour workweek. The slavery laws in the Bible are what we today would call "labor laws". People who were unable to support themselves would often become slaves in order to survive. They would sell themselves (or their families would sell them) in order to raise money.

      Certainly there were people who were forced into slavery against their will, but that is a separate issue, and the slavery laws in the Bible help protect such people. The slavery laws in the Bible are actually a form of compassion to help the poor improve their circumstances by working and learning skills. That's not to say that there weren't cruel masters, but again, that's a separate issue.

      The form of slavery which was practiced in America's history is more accurately called kidnapping, and that is condemned in the Bible with the death penalty for the kidnappers.

      Slavery as practiced in the colonial empires was learned from the Muslims. It was because of the efforts of Bible believing Christians, men such as John Newton and William Wilberforce, that slavery was finally outlawed in the British empire.

      Christianity supports freedom. It is not a coincidence that America, which was self consciously founded by Christians as a Christian nation, was the freest nation on earth. It is also not a coincidence that America has lost that status as it has turned away from Christianity.

      Christianity provides the greatest freedom of all--freedom from sin. Jesus Christ said, "Your are in bondage to sin," and "If the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed." He is the only way of true freedom.

      Delete
    2. Just as another note, the Bible also has laws concerning divorce. That doesn't mean that God approves of divorce or thinks it's a good idea. It simply means that he knows we are sinful human beings, and we need to have laws to regulate such things. Similarly, the Bible has laws about stealing. God doesn't condone stealing--He commands, "Thou shalt not steal." But again He recognizes that we sin and do steal, so he gave laws to lay out how cases of stealing should be handled.

      Delete
  44. Right, but the term that the Bible uses for who you're describing is "slave." So if I'm understanding correctly, your position is that slavery is okay under certain circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It depends what definition is used for "slavery." Do you believe there is slavery is the U.S. today? What about the prison system? Is that not a form of slavery? Just for the record, I believe that most of the U.S. prison population is incarcerated wrongfully.

      However, I would argue that those who steal, commit fraud, default on contracts, or other like situations should have to pay restitution, and if they are unable to do so, should be "enslaved" until restitution has been made. That is a Biblical view of slavery, and it would go a long way to solving many of the economic problems in our country.

      If by "slavery" you mean kidnapping people against their will for no reason, as I mentioned before, I believe that is sinful.

      Delete
    2. Furthermore, if a nation repented of its sins and turned to God, slavery would disappear. The reason slavery exists is because of sin. Slavery is a God ordained consequence of sin. Will you choose to remain in bondage to sin, or will you trust in Jesus Christ and be free?

      Delete
  45. The definition of slavery that I'm using is: owning another human being as property, as is explicitly permitted in Leviticus 25:44-46. Is it your position that there are circumstances under which that is okay?

    ReplyDelete
  46. The verses you cite in Leviticus talk about buying slaves. I would answer your question the same way I would answer the question, "Is it your position that there are circumstances under which is it is okay for a person to hire another human being as an employee?"

    The issue is, how did the person end up as a slave? If they were kidnapped, I believe that is wrong, as I've said before. If they willingly sell themselves or are forced to sell themselves in order to pay a debt they owe, I don't see a problem with that.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Okay, so let's assume for the sake of argument that they were taken as slaves against their will, since that is the common understanding of what that word means. Your god has specifically stated that it's okay to buy such people, own them for their entire lives and pass them on to your children. However, you believe this is wrong, in spite of this specific permission from God.

    You must have some moral standard outside of the Bible on which you are basing this decision. So even if the moral rules in the Bible are objective, you are applying them subjectively. So your approach to morality, at its heart, is no different from mine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the common understanding of the word "slavery" today is someone taken against their will. But that is different from what is referred to in the Bible. The Bible does not say that it is okay to buy people in such circumstances. The Bible condemns taking people against their will (kidnapping) in both the Old and New Testaments.

      Exodus 21:16
      16“He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

      1 Timothy 1:8-11
      8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

      My approach to morality is objective, based on God's eternal, unchanging Word. That gets back to your view of morality, which is subjective. Based on what you've said above, you believe that homosexuality could be right in one country and wrong in another country. Really? Also, morality would change over time as society changes. Is that what you believe?

      Delete
  48. Wait a second, you're not getting off that easily. I'll address your question once you answer mine. Leviticus 25:44-46 says it's okay to buy slaves from other countries; it does not specify whether or not they were taken against their will. So even if they were, those verses still allow you to own them. Do you agree with your god on this point?

    ReplyDelete
  49. When I go to Walmart, I assume that the goods they are selling have been acquired lawfully. Perhaps they are stolen, but it is not my responsibility to verify that one way or another. Now if I knew that they were selling stolen goods, that would be a different case. I believe the same would be true in the case of slaves.

    You may not like that view, but it is better than your view that slavery is okay as long as "society" says so.

    On another note, the Bible says it is okay to eat food offered to idols, if you are unaware of it. I would put this in the same category.

    When people have followed the Bible, slavery has been reduced. When people don't follow the Bible, slavery increases. This is true in the world today. Many people, especially children and women are slaves because of sexually immorality (not theirs, the immorality of those who enslave them and "buy" them).

    ReplyDelete
  50. So let me make sure I understand: You would be okay with purchasing another human being (from a foreign country) to own as property, because you would be willing to assume that they were acquired legally. That is moral, in your view. Correct?

    I do not believe that slavery would be okay just because a society would say so; I'm beginning to believe you haven't understood a word of what I've said about my view of morality. Either that, or you're willing to dishonestly misrepresent it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. If someone willingly sells himself into slavery, I am okay with that. That doesn't mean I would personally buy a slave, but I don't have a problem with other people making voluntary transactions according to whatever they believe are their best interests.

    If the Biblical laws concerning kidnapping were enforced worldwide, the scenario you describe would not exist. It's a package deal. You can't pick and choose which laws you want.

    There might be kidnappers who weren't caught, but that is true today of any number of offenses including murder, rape, etc. and is really a separate problem regarding enforcement. The moral obligation to verify the purchase of a slave would be higher than for other purchases, just as there is more verification required for purchasing a house than for purchasing a lollipop.

    I completely understand your view of morality. On the one had you say morality is determined by society based on happiness and suffering. But on the other hand, whenever I present an example you don't agree with, you change your view and say morality is based on your personal view of happiness and suffering. You keep contradicting yourself.

    Which is it? Is morality determined by society, or is morality determined personally by you?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Yep, you're not getting it. Reread the bit about moral dilemmas and let me know if you have specific questions.

    You're dodging the question about slavery. Other countries would not have followed biblical morality, since they worshiped other gods. So no, it's not a package deal; there would be nothing preventing those other countries from taking slaves by force.

    So once more: Your god explicitly allows the purchase of slaves taken by force, to own for life and be handed down to children. It's right there, in black and white, in Leviticus. Do you agree with God on this point, or not?



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The passage you cite in Leviticus does not say the foreign slaves were kidnapped. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

      Also, you have already addressed this issue yourself above. You wrote, "I'm really referring to individual sovereign nations, so what one nation decides doesn't really impact other nations." Have you changed your view?

      About your view of morality, you're still being subjective. You talk about "moral dilemmas" as if they are some sort of special situation that you have to judge. But all morality could fall into that category. Who decides what is a "moral dilemma" and when there is "no conflict between [happiness vs. suffering] or with other important ideals"?

      Your view of morality is contradictory and refuted by history. Throughout history people have believed that slavery (kidnapping) is okay/slavery is not okay, killing Jews is okay/killing Jews is not okay, homosexuality is not okay/homosexuality is okay, etc. Clearly the things you think are "clear" aren't or else there wouldn't be all these varying views of them.

      You have already said that morality can be different in different countries. Do you really believe that? Do you believe that slavery could be right in Australia but wrong in America?

      You say, "The central issue is happiness vs. suffering," but how are they defined? Who decides? Hitler (and a lot of people who went along with him) believed that killing Jews, blacks, etc. would increase happiness and would not cause suffering because he believed they were lower evolved creatures.

      If your view of morality is not subjective, please explain what the objective standards of morality are.

      Delete
  53. Let me have one more shot at explaining my view on morality: The central issue is happiness vs suffering; if there is no conflict between those or with other important ideals, then that's the objective criterion. It's only when there is a moral dilemma that we have to make judgment calls as people or societies.

    So no, I am not saying I simply go along with society (which should be obvious from the specific examples that I offered), and I'll thank you to stop misrepresenting my views in such a way.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "The passage you cite in Leviticus does not say the foreign slaves were kidnapped. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise."

    They might have been; they might not have been. God allows it either way.

    Answer the question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The passage does not say God allows it either way. Other Biblical passages condemn kidnapping, so the burden of proof rests on you to show that it is allowed in this case.

      Delete
    2. If someone buys a stolen car (without knowing it was stolen), has he done anything wrong?

      Delete
  55. Ok, well, I'm not going to go back and forth with you over something anyone can open a Bible and see for themselves. Levitcus 25:44-46 explicitly allows owning another human being as property, a practice that you are refusing to condemn.

    I also invite anyone to read Numbers 31, in which God's followers take virgin girls as spoils of war. So this whole nonsense about it not reeeeeally being slavery is simply false.

    Unless you are willing to take a stand right here and condemn to practice of owning another human as property, under any circumstances, then I don't really care whether your morality is objective or subjective; either way, it's worthless in any civilized society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think it is wrong for one person to own another human being if they voluntarily agree to it? There are many reasons why someone would do so, as I have explained above. As for one person owning another human being involuntarily, I believe that is wrong as I have also explained above.

      Would you even be interested in an explanation of Numbers 31? Maybe not, but I'll give one for the benefit of anyone else who may read this exchange.

      Consider Man #1 who kills children to offer them as sacrifices as part of his religious worship. Now, suppose Man #2 comes across him while he is about to kill a young girl out in the wilderness. Man #2 puts a stop to it by killing Man #1. There is no one else around and they are in the middle of nowhere. Should Man #1 just leave the young girl alone to fend for herself?

      That is just like what happened in Numbers 31, except on a smaller scale. Taking in the young girls was an act of mercy and compassion. You are so committed to rejecting Christianity that you mistake compassion for cruelty.

      Now, back to your view of morality...

      Assuming you somehow find a way to resolve the issue of who decides/defines what happiness and suffering are, and how to weigh them in a given situation (which I don't believe you can), how do you know that is even the right way to determine morality? Why are happiness and suffering the defining issues? Why not something else? Your worldview is based on nothing.

      Delete
  56. Right, so you've described not one but two circumstances under which slavery is okay. I disagree with both. I think that owning another human being as property is reprehensible under any circumstances, and I believe that makes my conception of morality superior to yours. I don't really care if you believe that your morals come from God and mine come from "nothing."

    I invite anyone reading this to consider our two positions:
    You: Slavery is sometimes okay.
    Me: Slavery is never okay.
    And decide for themselves who's right.

    Just a couple of quick notes on your explanation of Numbers 31:
    1) The only reason the girls are all alone in the wilderness is that their whole families were slaughtered by the very people about to take them as slaves.
    2) Nowhere does Numbers claim that any of the girls were going to be sacrificed by the Midianites.
    3) The girls are specifically described as "plunder," and 32 of them were "offered as tribute to the Lord."

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yes, anyone can read our comments and see what we are saying. Let me summarize our positions, since your summary is misleading.

    Me: Slavery (kidnapping) is wrong. Someone voluntarily selling themselves to someone else is okay (just as taking a job is okay). Someone having to work for someone else involuntarily in order to pay off a debt is okay (if this law were in effect in modern culture it would have minimized the recent mortgage crisis, because not as many people would have foolishly taken on debt they could not afford, and the bankers who defrauded people would be "slaves" now instead of getting million dollar bonuses).

    You: Slavery (kidnapping) is wrong. Someone voluntarily selling themselves to someone else is also wrong. Someone having to work for someone else involuntarily in order to pay off a debt (or for any other reason) is also wrong.

    Do you have a job? How is that different from selling yourself? I understand that the terms of your employment may be more restricted. Your hours and responsibilities are more limited than if you sold yourself as a slave, but that is just a matter of degree, not a different kind of transaction.

    Do you believe that people shouldn't have to pay off their debts? Do you believe that bankruptcy is morally right? That is a logical implication from what you have argued. I know that bankruptcy is allowed as part of our legal system, but is it morally right?

    FYI, Biblical law allows for cancellation of debts every seven years. That would also help to minimize the debt/credit problems we have been experiencing, since lenders would know that they might not be able to collect their loan.

    As for Numbers 31, my example was greatly simplified, but the basic premise is the same. Maybe I overdramatized it by saying that Man #1 was about to sacrifice the young girl. In any case, the principle is still the same. The Israelites put to death the Midianites who were condemned to death by God because of their wickedness, and showed compassion to their young orphaned girls by taking them in.

    As for the fact that some of the young girls were "offered as tribute to the Lord," that simply means that the priests and Levites got some of them to raise in their househoulds. This is typical Biblical language. The priests and Levites devoted their time to the service of the Lord, so the rest of the people were required to give them a portion.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Me: Slavery (kidnapping) is wrong."
    Which is what I said; you have to specify the kind of slavery that you oppose, because some kinds are okay.

    "Someone voluntarily selling themselves to someone else is okay"
    Again, I disagree. If someone offered to sell themselves to me, to own for life and to be passed on to my children, I would say no and ask what's wrong with them.

    "Do you have a job? How is that different from selling yourself? "
    My employer does not own me as property.

    "Do you believe that people shouldn't have to pay off their debts? Do you believe that bankruptcy is morally right?"
    Irrelevant; we're talking about slavery.

    "The Israelites put to death the Midianites who were condemned to death by God because of their wickedness,"
    Which verses of the Bible list their specific crimes? All I can see is that they worshiped a different god, which is hardly worthy of slaughter.

    "and showed compassion to their young orphaned girls by taking them in."
    After murdering everyone they know. Some compassion...

    "As for the fact that some of the young girls were "offered as tribute to the Lord," that simply means that the priests and Levites got some of them to raise in their househoulds."
    And to do with them whatever they pleased.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shame on you for using a loaded term like "slavery" and then refusing to accept any clarifications to specific situations. You are being deceptive and dishonest, as anyone can see.

      You say, "My employer does not own me as property." I never said they did. Your responsibility is limited to what you contracted with them. You are denying others that same freedom.

      I believe I've said more than enough to make my point. As I began up above, let me state again, your worldview is accurately summarized in Romans 1--illogical, immoral, and foolish.

      Thanks for helping me to make it even more plain for all to see.

      Delete
  59. "Shame on you for using a loaded term like "slavery" and then refusing to accept any clarifications to specific situations."
    That "loaded term" is what we've been discussing all along! You're the one who's claiming it's no different from having a job.

    "You say, "My employer does not own me as property." I never said they did."
    But you did ask me if it was the same as selling myself into slavery.

    "I believe I've said more than enough to make my point."
    You sure have.

    "Thanks for helping me to make it even more plain for all to see."
    No problem. I'll be sure to remind you of your defense of slavery if you decide to question my morality in future conversations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You were the one who brought up slavery in the Bible, but you have refused to accept the Bible's definition of slavery. The Bible's concept of "slavery" does not include kidnapping, which is condemned. However, when most people think of "slavery", then think of someone being kidnapped and forced into service against their will. I have repeatedly clarified this, and you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that there is a difference.

      The fact that you cannot seem to perform simple logical tasks like distinguishing between different uses of the same word, or recognizing the fact that word usage changes over time greatly helps my case.

      Thanks again. Please feel free to refer others to this discussion. I would greatly appreciate it.

      Delete
  60. Exactly. Slavery, as you are interpreting the definition, is morally acceptable to you. The Bible is very clear in Leviticus 25:44-46 that this definition includes owning other human beings as property and passing them on to one's children.

    My position is that there are no circumstances under which such a thing is morally acceptable, whereas you have done nothing but disagree with me on that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought your definition of morality had to do with happiness and suffering. Have you changed that? Or is it just that you cannot imagine a situation in which someone would willingly sell themselves under such conditions in order to increase their happiness and reduce their suffering?

      Delete
  61. Nope, haven't changed it a bit. Slavery is inherently dehumanizing and is thus enough of a cause of suffering that it is never justifiable.

    Just to keep it in perspective, you're perfectly okay with slavery (under the right circumstances), because you follow the objective morality of God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! You continue to amaze me. You really do believe that you are "god".

      You're saying that your personal view of suffering overrules another individual's own personal view of happiness and suffering. Even if they want to voluntarily enter into a contract based on conditions they agree to, in order to increase their happiness and decrease their suffering, you say that is wrong. Who are you to judge another person's perception of happiness and suffering?

      It sure is a good thing that you aren't actually in charge of determining morality!

      Now, about your statement that "slavery in inherently dehumanizing", why do you have a problem with that anyway? I thought you were an atheist. Why do you believe humans are better than other creatures? Isn't that just species bias on your part? Do you have the same concerns about cows and apples? If not, why not?

      As a Christian, I know that humans are in a completely different category from animals because we are created in God's image.

      Let me repeat, just for the record, that in Christian societies, slavery will be minimized. We are the beneficiaries of that heritage in America, although we are losing it. However, in societies that haven't had as much Christian influence, slavery is still quite common.

      Delete
  62. If you look back over my explanations of how I view morality, you'll find that I've already addressed everything you're asking. I'm not going to continue to repeat myself.

    You're also back to implying that atheists have no morals, which I've refuted in several different conversations with you.

    I have trouble believing that you're not comprehending my explanations, so I can only conclude that you're being dishonest in pressing issues I've already covered. I've created a catalog of all of your claims that I've refuted; I'm simply going to refer you back here whenever you show such dishonesty:
    http://dvdbach.blogspot.com/2013/02/todays-liar-for-jesus-thought-for-young.html

    ReplyDelete
  63. Okay, don't bother repeating yourself. You have made it quite clear that you believe that you (or society) are better able to determine happiness and suffering in a given case than the person actually involved.

    I don't know why you think I was implying that atheists have no morals. I said no such thing. Everyone has morals. The problem is that atheists steal most of their morals from Christianity but then leave out the parts they don't like.

    I do comprehend your explanations, although I will admit that sometimes I am confused by your contradictory statements. It's hard figuring out what you really believe when you keep changing your position.

    Thanks for the link to your website. I posted a few comments there as well.

    ReplyDelete
  64. You're lying, since I made no such claims. You're lying about atheists "stealing" from Christians, such you can't support that claim. You're lying about comprehending my explanation, since you're falsely claiming my position isn't consistent.

    Lies for Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks again. You really are your own best refutation, as anyone reading these comments can see.

      Delete
    2. I happily invite them to do so.

      Delete
    3. DVD Bach,

      Sorry, I apologize. I stated that you stole your morality from Christianity. But that might not be true. After all, since your morality amounts to "Whatever I say is right is right, and whatever I say is wrong is wrong", I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you came up with that yourself. You have shown yourself to be quite adept at being arbitrary, subjective, and inconsistent, so I'm sure that you are quite capable of doing so in this instance. It's just that no one else is willing to submit to "morality according to DVD Bach."

      On another note, let me recommend to anyone else reading the website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/. It has a glowing recommendation from DVD Bach. He said, "of all the apologetics websites I’ve seen, the one you’re linking to is easily the goofiest." That's just his way of saying that it completely refutes his worldview and he has no idea how to even begin answering it.

      Delete
  65. You're lying, since you know I haven't claimed that about morality. If you were capable of defending any points made on that website, you'd make them yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DVD Bach,

      You haven't stated your view of morality so bluntly, but that is exactly what it amounts to. Look back at the comments on Feb. 15 above. You begin by stating that society decides morality, but then when I gave a specific example of society deciding a moral issue, you changed your tune and based morality on your own personal view. What do you really believe?

      I have been using the exact same methodology as that website, and as you can see, it is working splendidly. Your arguments have crashed before your very eyes.

      Delete
    2. Let me lay it out for you as simply as I can, since you seem to have great difficulty understanding your own worldview (a natural result of you having an inconsistent worldview).

      You said morality is decided by society. Then, I gave a specific example of society deciding a moral issue. But you were unwilling to accept what society decided in my example, so you decided based on your own personal view.

      So, in essence your view of morality is "society decides morality (based on certain criteria), but if I disagree with society, then I get to decide myself." That is what I have been saying all along, your view is "morality according to DVD Bach," nothing more, and nothing less.

      Delete
  66. I've written a new blog post in hopes of clarifying:

    http://dvdbach.blogspot.com/2013/02/morality-recap.html

    I apologize for calling you dishonest on this, as I've come to the realization that you might just not understand it.

    However, I do believe that you are continuing to imply that atheists don't have morals, as well as continuing to equivocate the definition of slavery; I stand by my criticism of those things as dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I didn't respond to the second half of your comment.

      When have I said that atheists don't have morals? I have said that atheists cannot account for morality and be consistent with their worldview.

      I have not equivocated on the definition of slavery. You brought up slavery in the Bible, so I wrote about slavery as defined by the Bible and differentiated that from other forms of slavery. If you want to talk about other forms of slavery, that's fine, but don't say that that is what the Bible is talking about. For the record, their are accounts of immoral slavery in the Bible, just as their are accounts of murder, rape, etc. Just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean that it is condoned by God.

      Delete
  67. Thanks. I'll respond to your new blog post. However, I believe that it still has all the same problems I've been pointing out with your view of morality.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "I have said that atheists cannot account for morality and be consistent with their worldview."

    I've explained how that's a misrepresentation of atheism, so I do think you're being dishonest there; I apologize for getting your wording wrong.

    "If you want to talk about other forms of slavery, that's fine, but don't say that that is what the Bible is talking about. For the record, their are accounts of immoral slavery in the Bible, just as their are accounts of murder, rape, etc. Just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean that it is condoned by God."
    Again, dishonest. I having always meant slavery to be the owning of human beings as property, and that is exactly how it is defined (and explicitly condoned by God) in Leviticus.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Poor Randy, deluded by religious bullshit.

    ReplyDelete