Help me out!
I’m wearing my naturalist hat and can’t make sense of anything.
I’ve been assured that Evolution explains everything.
There is no transcendent mind outside the material universe.
Fine.
I understand.
Then, the people who told me to trust Evolution say stuff like this:
Instinct?
Morality is determined by what I instinctively feel is good or bad…?
Bazinga! I hope that’s true!
Because I feel good when I’m pouring marshmallow sauce on homeless people!
It’s hilarious!
They roll around and get all sticky…haha!
And I feel bad when I give money to the Girl Scouts to pay for my cookies.
I could push the Girl Scout down and just take the cookies.
Then, I would have cookies AND money.
That would make me feel good.
The next stage of morality is awesome!
Do what makes me feel good.
Don’t do what makes me feel bad.
Evolution doesn’t care!
So I’m asking my fellow de-converts…
…have I got it figured out?
295 Responses
Interesting thing going here. So, once the conversation has dried up, the atheists retreat to their spaces and talk about how ‘stupid’ John Branyan is, he never answers questions and he was stumped by the clever atheist arguments. And the Christians have exactly the same conversations about the atheists being ‘stupid’, having no answers for questions and being stumped by the clever Christian arguments.
The only slight difference I’m detecting (and it might not be significant) is that you accuse the atheists (or just John Zande?) of asking the same questions over and over – the same questions he got no answer to; while the atheists claim that you didn’t actually answer the questions you found uncomfortable/difficult.
So, to try and find out what is really happening here, can you point to one question you asked that atheists refused to answer?
I asked this fundamental question three times and got absolute silence from John Branyon:
“Is morality a feeling/sense, or is it logically thinking through the outcomes of our behaviour?” (fourth time on this thread)
And mrsmcmommy was very cagey about discussing her understanding of how morality functions:
“So do you think sometimes we can ‘mistake’ our conscience for cultural preference? Or sometimes it’s fair to say our cultural preference acts as a facet of what we call our conscience?”
When you’re having a conversation about morality, it seems pretty vital to clarify what you think it is right at the outset. How can you think you have held your own in these conversations if you can’t provide answers for the most basic questions?
“So, to try and find out what is really happening here, can you point to one question you asked that atheists refused to answer? ”
Of course, my dear! Happy to oblige!
Here is a question you atheists refused to answer:
“Is there an absolute standard for right and wrong?”
(Reminder, this is a yes/no question so the reply “it’s complicated” is not an answer.)
Sounds terribly unlikely. Can you give me an example of how that would work? Should I have one or two sugars in my coffee? Where did the sugar come from? Should I buy it if it’s not fair trade and I expect the land or people have been exploited in processing it? But if I don’t buy it will they lose their jobs and their children starve? These are some of the ethical questions a bearer of right and wrong would have to deal with, aren’t they? Does your ‘conscience’ tell you what to do when you’re putting sugar in your coffee?
(You can start with these questions or the ones in the comment above, whatever you feel like.)
There you go.
You did not answer my question.
Now, I will answer your question:
““Is morality a feeling/sense, or is it logically thinking through the outcomes of our behaviour?”
Morality is not logical. Morality is intuitive. It is a feeling/sense if you prefer that term. There is no logical process that will give you answers to questions like:
Should I have one or two sugars in my coffee? Should I buy it if it’s not fair trade and I expect the land or people have been exploited in processing it?
These questions are answered by your conscience. Humans are the only creatures on the planet that have a conscience. This is because humans are made in the image of God.
And I’ll answer your other question about ‘what is going on here?’
Christians are answering questions.
Atheists are avoiding questions.
“There you go.
You did not answer my question.”
I did answer your question. I don’t agree it’s a valid question but I answered it fairly – ‘seems unlikely’. If you think it seems likely I’d be interested to hear why. Do you not want to expand? Or do you have a post where you expand so you don’t have to repeat yourself?
“Morality is not logical. Morality is intuitive. It is a feeling/sense if you prefer that term. There is no logical process that will give you answers to questions like:
Should I have one or two sugars in my coffee? ”
If morality isn’t logical, why does it feel ‘good’ to have slaves in some situations e.g. biblical times and ‘bad’ to have slaves in other situations e.g. now? Are you sure our sense of morality isn’t dependent on context and/or the logical processing of outcomes based on our actions?
I’ll give you an example, if that seems a bit confusing for your binary head. When I was a young Christian my ‘gut instinct’ told me homosexuality was unnatural and ‘wrong’. When I evaluated this gut instinct outside the context of my faith (based on logic and real life situations), I realised that there are more harmful outcomes refusing to acknowledge people’s natural feelings, or placing them in ‘evil’ context, than accepting they know best what intimate relations work for them. My ‘gut instinct’ when I was Christian youth was a combination of what I had been told (the context of my environment/social conditioning) – whereas my ‘gut instinct’ now has been modified by experience and logic. These are both key parts of my conscience, my deepest ‘moral guide’ – and they aren’t beamed into my soul by a supernatural force. If we can explain these things naturally, why on earth do you look for an additional supernatural force?
Refusing to validate the question is something that a ‘binary head’ would do.
If there is no absolute, transcendent standard for right and wrong, then you can put as much sugar in your coffee as you want. You can buy that sugar from anywhere. It really doesn’t matter.
You were not ‘right’ when you were a young Christian.
You are not ‘right’ today.
So your god is beaming the correct ‘right’ to only you?
Of course not!
I could be wrong.
Because ‘wrong’ actually exists.
I actually keep a running list of questions the Atheists haven’t answered:
I can link you to the context(s) of any of those questions if you’d like to see them.
Of course, you and JZ and Ark have repeated certain questions over and over, but they’re not the same type at all. (Ark kept asking me yesterday, “How will you recognize Jesus when he shows up again??? You don’t even know what he looks like!” which was out of the blue, besides being stupid…and, even then, I gave him an answer. Then, months ago, on the topic of abortion, JZ kept asking, “How can you kill something that cannot die?” That’s called a paradox, and he begged his own question.) Otherwise, go ahead and have them provide the list of questions that WE haven’t answered…
In reality, all of your questions have been addressed, even when they’re not on topic. You expect the freedom to be “unsure” and to claim things are complicated, but then you want very specific, straight-forward answers in return? Well, what have you NOT received an answer for?
Thank you! These are great questions. I’m surprised they remain unanswered, and am happy to have a stab from my perspective.
“From an evolutionary perspective, aren’t murdered people simply unfit for survival?”
Evolution doesn’t have a perspective, it’s not a god, it doesn’t judge people. It’s a process. You can point to certain shared characteristics that have led to groups of animals (including humans) dying out, and that would dependent on the context in time. So, for examples, Christian authorities killed lots of women believing them to be witches in the some periods of the Middle Ages. That doesn’t mean these women weren’t ‘fit’ for survival, and Christians in this period of time wouldn’t kill the same women. So certain characteristics can prove to be unfortunate in terms of survival but only in the particular context of the time. That same characteristic could be very successful in another context. Evolution doesn’t have an end point we know of – and ‘success’ simply means ‘staying alive’, it’s not a judgement.
“Why do we say it’s “good” for women to bond with their new babies, but it’s “bad” for drug addicts to bond with their drug? (Aren’t happy feelings just the result of chemical reactions?) ”
That’s a very sad question considering the conversations about morality we’ve been having. Shows you really haven’t followed the conversation at all. Logically evaluate the positive and negative outcomes of both situations and see what you come up with.
“Why is it “bad science” to assign agency to the Universe?”
Where’s the scientific evidence for agency? If science has thus far been able to explain existence without agency, why would they return to Stone Age thinking at this point?
“What sort of evidence for God would you accept?”Which god? Seriously. I’m assuming you are Christians but I’m not sure. If so, which Christian god do you mean? The OT angry one that would murder its entire creation, or the socialist Jesus one who wanted to help the poor? I wouldn’t be able to believe in both at the same time.
“Why should we do “right” when we FEEL like doing “wrong?” (Doesn’t biology tell us that right/wrong is just random and arbitrary?)”
Do you have an example? I sometimes want to eat a whole packet of biscuits but the consequences for my health concern me. That sort of thing? Do you understand consequences in the real world? We have to live them.
“Which do you think came first, the brain or logic?”
I really don’t know, I wasn’t there. But seriously, logic is just our brain making sense of existence. There might be another way to express what we do using logic by another species. Or perhaps logic is universal, I have no way of knowing.
“Do we have free-will? (Are we choosing to have this conversation?)”
I don’t really subscribe to silly conversations like this, unless I’m challenging false assumptions about it. It doesn’t really mean anything. I have a post about it if you’re interested: https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/justification-for-harmful-behaviour/
I’ll come back later and reprint my unanswered questions. Thanks again!
I didn’t ask you to answer the questions–because, of course, you can’t when you don’t understand the context of the conversations. I asked which of your questions hasn’t been answered.
😀 Scared of the answers? That’s hilarious!
?
“I actually keep a running list of questions the Atheists haven’t answered”
So I give you answers. And you don’t want the answers ….
You asked “What are the questions that haven’t been answered.”
I gave you the questions. I’m not expecting you to answer, because I’m not planning to tackle each of those topics (which were parts of larger dialogues) in an unrelated comment section.
If you’d like to go back and read the threads, I said I’d be happy to link them.
WHICH ATHEIST QUESTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED?
Okay, I have enough time to answer quick comments, but it’s takes a while to scroll back through huge posts. So here we go from my post – unanswered questions to Branyan:
1. I agree there is no invisible god in the sky telling me child sacrifice is wrong on an invisible right-wrong scale of ‘good’. But do you need that scale to modify your behaviour? Does anyone?
2. “Is there an absolute standard for right and wrong?”
What would that look like?
3. It’s not quite simple yes or no. I don’t know what you mean by it. In what context? What would it look like if it existed?
4. I don’t see how you can draw all the threads of every possible action together (as well as evaluating all their outcomes) and claim an absolute standard. Can you explain it?
5. What on earth would that look like? The meaning is not self-evident. It’s absolute nonsense. You would have to say in what context – there is not ONE situation in the whole of existence nor is there ONE of only TWO outcomes in the whole of existence. You’re asking your god to reduce life to two options – have you looked at ‘his creation’?
6. Branyan, the starting point here is that you believe your god has a preferred choice for every potential action. You call this ‘absolute right and wrong’. Am I right?
7. I agree there is no god simplistically evaluating every actions humans make as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Do you?
8. Does god suggest the absolute right everywhere, all the time? How would that work practically?
9. I can understand you think there is a magic measuring stick of good and bad floating out there somewhere, but are you so steeped in this delusion that you can’t acknowledge that humans have ways of relatively measuring our behaviour – on scales of harm or usefulness?
These are some of the unanswered questions from your Giving it Up post:
1.What do you mean by right and wrong? For example, as a theist you presumably believes they exist, is slavery right or wrong?
2.As long as you beat your slave without actually killing them, it’s okay, it’s ‘right’, isn’t it?
3. Because if you practise slavery correctly, in the ‘right’ way, you’re looking after people. When you own them and beat them (but not to death). Is that what you mean?
4. Curious, is this ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.”
5. So when the Bible permits beating slaves to the point of death it’s not right?
6. So, for example, I don’t think it was ever ‘right’ to have slaves or to beat them to the point of death. In a time of relative ignorance the people making up the rules seemed to think so. Thankfully all of us agree it’s evil now. But how do you reconcile it?
7. Do you think it will ever be right to beat slaves up to the point of death?
8. So if it’s written in the Bible, it’s not right for eternity?
I’ve given up half way through the post. I seem to remember you were slightly better at responding to comments without becoming a ‘comedy atheist trying to make a point’. But all in all, there were a lot of questions completely avoided, ignored and diverted. I don’t think they are difficult to answer honestly, do you?
And interesting you didn’t want answers to the other questions – just hoarding them so you can throw them about as ‘questions atheists don’t answer’? A bit disappointing you have no interest in actually discussing them.
Oh, I didn’t know we were literally cutting and pasting every time a question mark was used. In that case, the number of questions Atheists haven’t answered will go up by 100 fold.
Half of yours, I would have assumed are “rhetorical” and not realized you expected an actual answer. On top of that, they are opinion in nature. In other words, most of your questions are for God–not for Christians.
Bottom line: people who say “no objective morality exists” don’t deserve any more conversation. If there is no God, then the answer to ALL of your questions is: it doesn’t matter. You’re wasting your time, trying to create meaning in a meaningless world. Just vote on it. It doesn’t matter.
Again, the answer to ALL of your questions is: it doesn’t matter if right and wrong don’t exist. I don’t care about your personal opinion, and you shouldn’t care about ours either.
That’s my answer.
That’s not your honest answer (as an objective morality believer) and it’s not my answer (as someone who doesn’t think there’s a god holding an objective morality stick). Whose answer is it? A Christian making things up! 🙂 But if it gives you hope you can cut off the conversation without answering any of the unanswered questions, or without discussing the ones you pretended atheists can’t answer – well done, you’ve learned well from the blog host.
I’m up for discussing any of it in more detail if you think you can look at it seriously some time.
Yes–it IS my honest answer.
I will not discuss right and wrong with someone who claims an objective standard doesn’t exist.
There is no reason to do that.
But, if it gives you hope you can cut off the conversation by telling yourself that all of your “I don’t know” answers are better than my, one “it doesn’t matter” answer, well done. You’ve learned well from your Atheist troll MENTORS.
😉 😉 😉
“I will not discuss right and wrong with someone who claims an objective standard doesn’t exist.
There is no reason to do that. ”
Can you explain why? Seems like a very odd thing to say.
*bangs head on the desk*
Maybe you’ve done that a bit too often – would explain some of the difficulties here. 🙂
Are you channeling your mentor, Ark, now?
He thinks I get frustrated because I just can’t handle his brilliance, when actually, I’ve explained the best I know how, over and over and over…and I can’t make you understand.
I know how you feel.
*”I don’t know” answers. I fixed it.
I have to confess to one guilty pleasure, and that’s watching atheist proselytizers getting uncomfortable with questions they realize they have no answers for. Asking them if there is an absolute moral standard or expecting them to explain any foundation for their (anti-Christian) sanctimony! I know that I ought to feel pity and desire their enlightenment, but they make it so hard.
OK, if they really want to understand the issue, I’d suggest they read…anything which deals with the issue…but one option might be J. Budziszewski’s What We Can’t Not Know.
You’ve made my morning John Branyan. You have JZ copy-and-pasting himself on at least three posts, and criticizing OTHERS for asking questions repetitively. What fun!
Are you familiar with JZ, Madblog?
I think he prefers YouTube videos.
But the rest of us appreciate your Budziszewski recommendation!
Thanks!
I mean zande.
Right, John Zande, or JZ…
I see you have a blog. And you recognized the chunks he has posted from his own book. So, I was guessing that you’ve had personal experience with the awkward, embarrassing, “JZ Song and Dance” pantomime. 🙂
Oh indeed I have. But I’ve learned my lesson: never again.
You should hip madblog to our new mojo.
I doubt there are any atheists who would read a book with ‘Budziszewski’s’ in the the title.
BTW: It’s also fun to watch atheists explain to me how they don’t every have need of faith. https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2017/02/24/i-dont-believe-in-non-belief/comment-page-1/#comment-15443
Yes. I’ve had that conversation with the usual suspects a few times. Not only do they have no answers; they have no desire to ask the questions.
The problem is that they ask the SAME questions every single time.
“Is your god’s name Yhwh?”
“Do you condone slavery?”
“Why are you allowed near children?”
“Doesn’t it suck to be you?”
Don’t get Z started on abortion. He has a favorite question there too
“How can you kill something that isn’t alive?”
Exactly! I marvel at his persistence in the face of defeat.
You are an elephant.
I just searched the comments, and technically it’s, “How can you kill something that cannot die.”
But, yeah…I have a gift for remembering stupidity a long, long, long time.
And so, the problem goes like this: We all know there is SOMETHING we “should” be doing, even though Secularism keeps repeating there is no objective morality. We know morality is more than an opinion. There are laws.
But, we can’t keep them. Never mind the hairy issues of “what to do” when choosing whose life to save, or whether to steal when you’re starving. We can’t even keep the laws people agree about… don’t hate…don’t be selfish…treat others the way you would want to be treated…
We fail to do this over and over and over. Would God leave us like this, to strive and wrestle and worry, without guidance?
What hope do we have?
“And so, the problem goes like this: We all know there is SOMETHING we “should” be doing, even though Secularism keeps repeating there is no objective morality. We know morality is more than an opinion. There are laws.”
Like when a Muslim woman knows she should cover her entire head? It’s more than an opinion or a cultural norm – it’s a law from an invisible force! 🙂
No–I’m referring to the Law that tells you we ought to be concerned for that Muslim woman…and we should help her figure out whether she’s right or wrong about the head covering (or if that particular issue is a cultural preference).
Ah okay, the sense that we should do something is only RIGHT if a Christian feels it. Muslims get their SHOULD from other places.
Not at all.
She gets her conscience from God, too.
And together, all of us try to figure out whether we’re right or wrong (or whether it’s a no-big-deal issue) according to the Law.
So her conscience feeling she SHOULD cover herself is from your god too. Got it.
Remember when I said something has gone wrong with our consciences and we can’t always trust them? Muslims believe this, too. She and I could have a very interesting discussion about what we believe the right thing to do would be…
It’s only the Atheists who have nothing to say, unless they’re purposely misunderstanding what a Theist says.
So all Muslim women who feel they SHOULD cover themselves have had something gone wrong with their consciences. But all people who know this is harmful for women know this through an invisible measuring stick of correct objective ‘rights’? Or do you think there are other ways of arriving at both opinions?
I didn’t answer the question of whether the Muslim’s conscience is wrong or yours is. I said she and I could have an interesting discussion to try and figure out whether God has a strong opinion about this–or if it’s more of a cultural preference.
I think religious people make big deals out of things that don’t matter that much to God all the time.
(Do you see how I’m answering questions, even though we’re way off from the original challenge to Atheists? I want credit for this, if/when I decide to stop this interrogation.) 🙂
I’m simply following through a discussion thread you started, but I’ll give you credit for answering questions (which you’re suggesting you might stop) much more freely than the other blog host. 🙂
So do you think sometimes we can ‘mistake’ our conscience for cultural preference? Or sometimes it’s fair to say our cultural preference acts as a facet of what call our conscience?
My dad’s method is to ask questions to help others think through things themselves, rather than giving preachy answers. That’s why it’s insulting (and dead wrong) to assume he asks questions to avoid or play a game.
It’s not a game. It’s precisely the opposite of the simplistic, black and white thinking you are opposed to.
I simply realized early on that you were not going to answer for him, so I took the preachy approach instead.
That’s a great method if when you’re teaching a subject, but when you’re in the discussion or clarification phase you have to be clear about your own biases that are influencing your questions.
So do you think sometimes we can ‘mistake’ our conscience for cultural preference? Or sometimes it’s fair to say our cultural preference acts as a facet of what we call our conscience? Or would you prefer not to answer these questions unless you can ask me questions that would lead me to the answers (to your questions). 🙂
I think the ENTIRE PURPOSE of life is to ask those questions you’re asking me, and to get closer and closer to God. (And, yes, sometimes we mistake our own choices for God’s.)
I was attempting in a non-preachy way (through the medium of questioning) to lead you to acknowledge that conscience (that nagging SHOULD) is a combination of cultural norms, empathy and analysis of outcomes. Maybe other things too. But there’s no need to suspect that the supernatural has an input when we can account for it all naturally.
I am very doubtful that you can ever ask me more questions than I ask myself…
You don’t need me to acknowledge that conscience comes from a combination of things. I already have. What YOU need to acknowledge is that, without intention and planning and transcendent purpose, morality is exactly the same as the question of what to order off a menu.
It doesn’t matter.
Whatever feels good.
Ark, your rudeness is only matched by how full of it you are. You neither seek to understand, nor entertain the idea you may have some things wrong. Your anti-theism will never win people to your beloved evolution. You are the first to ridicule and hurl insults at Christianity, though I have refrained from saying anything purposefully malicious against your beliefs. You are trying to win people over by fear of looking foolish, and by threats against their position. Your comments reek of your own indoctrination attempts on us, and your desires to be anything but compromising. You are using the self same tactics you hate about Christianity: fear, and threats. I guess that makes the Bible correct when it says, the things you judge others for are the very things you do.
If you de-convert, you occupy the same moral position as the anti-theist. Evolution has enormous explanatory power in these conversations. Every action and thought is explained with ‘Evolution’. You ought to de-convert from whatever faith you’re accused of having. (This is key…the faith YOU ARE ACCUSED OF HAVING). Then jump on the Evolution band-wagon! Run with the enlightened! The super-smart heathen who know all the answers!
It’s thrilling!
Right. I keep forgetting the only beliefs I have are the ones I’m accused of having. Reality has no place here.
Yes.
That knowledge is a weapon.
Wield it wisely.
And you are simply ignorant to the core.
Until you at least acknowledge that something as basic as a global flood as depicted in the bible is absolute hogwash then you have nothing of value to add to this dialogue.
Also, I bet Jasmine has really funny socks.
Jasmine, until you acknowledge that your socks are funny, you have nothing of value to add to this dialogue!
Translation: I’m only of value if I agree with you.
No, Jasmine.
YOu are of value , of course you are.
You are simply suffering from indoctrination.
If you refuse to read, study and research all avenues how can you EVER be sure you are in possession of the truth?
YOu simply cannot use rthe Branyans as the benchmark.
They are both suffering from mental health problems.
Why am I of value? Aren’t I the sum of my experiences, emotions, thoughts and beliefs? To say what I believe is worthless or I have nothing meaningful to say is to attack part of who I am. And if what I offer to the world is useless, how can I still have value from an evolutionary standpoint?
I don’t recall saying what you believe is worthless. I am sure you believe plenty of things that are highly informative and very worthwhile.
If I did ( perhaps you could point it out?) then maybe an alternate word might be more suitable?
Religion has little worth… in fact it is worthless simply because the price one is required to pay is never worth it.
And anything of value that can be derived from it can usually be found with secularism with the bonus that NO God Required.
You said I was ignorant to the core and have nothing of worth to add to this conversation. If you can’t see this is incredibly insulting, you have more evolving to do.
You should go watch the video I shared on the last post. At least that atheist could recognise worth when he saw it, even if it wasn’t in line with his beliefs. But this kind of conversation is exactly what I’m becoming to expect from anti-theists.
I did not realise you were being specific.
No, your views on the Old Testament are based on willful ignorance. I absolutely stand by this statement as I have tried to help by suggesting scientific evidence in this regard. And you have refused.
I reiterate you, as an adult, are perfectly entitled to hold these views but it is reprehensible to teach such unscientific beliefs to children as if they are immutable fact.
This is not the same as saying all your views are worthless or that you are worthless.
This I would never say.
However, if you are of a mind to reconsider your views regarding such things as Noah’s Flood, the Ark etc and other OT stories then I can direct you to secular scientists?
You are refusing to see any good that has been done or any value that is found in religion. Why should I respect anything you claim if you can’t even acknowledge the good that has been done in God’s name? And why shouldn’t I teach such good to my kids? Again, you’re not an atheist. You’re anti-theist.
There is nothing good in religion that could not/has not been done through secularism.
Religion is built entirely upon false premise and the price extracted is heinous.
In other words … a lie.
Would you purposely lie to your children?
I am both … anti-theist and atheist.
If I am to acknowledge your claim of religious goodness then you should afford the same to Islam.
Tell me some of the good things of Islam.
And Hinduism
And other religions as well as yours.
Christianity practised to the extreme as exemplified in the New Testament will not produce the same results of Islamic religion practised to the extreme, and that is a basic fact.
Trouble is no one practising chriatianity t the exteeme as … the character Jesus commanded. Give everything away and follow me.
No they rather go on crusades and burn people at the stake …
Oh… and teach people about Original Sin and burning inn hell etc
Nice eh?
Just like you aren’t a good example of atheism, just so there are bad examples of Christianity. There are rotten peaches in the world. Doesn’t make peaches a bad fruit, or that we should burn all the peach trees.
We could argue all day about the worst points of either side of this argument, Ark. But the unarguable fact is that Christianity in the extreme does not do what other religions do in the extreme.
All atheism is is a lack of belief in gods …. yours and everybody else’s.
This is all it is in its entirety. There is nothing else.
A lack of belief in gods. This is what atheism means. Period
Seriously, is this really so difficult for you to grasp?
We put no more stock in Jesus of Nazareth, or Yahweh or Baal than we would for Shiva or Quetzalcoatl.
Extreme Christianity is as revolting as any extreme religion on the planet.
Genocidal Christian campaigns against Native Americans almost exterminated many tribes. In fact it may well have in some case.
It sanctioned slavery for nearly two thousand years and was behind the trans Atlantic slave trade.
Your damn country was largely built on Christian ”principles” that involved slavery genocide and racism.
Be eternally grateful some common sense prevailed with the Constitution.
Then all you were left with was herding Native Americans in reservations and ordinary segregation and racism ….instituted by damn Christians.
The decades long violence in Northern Ireland was religiously based.and so have numerous other conflicts.
Christianity contributed to the decimation in Africa from AIDS.
Christianity was fully behind Apartheid in my country.
You want to compare notes?
Well since you obviously can’t even get your facts straight about what country I’m from before you insult it, I don’t see why I should believe anything else you have to say.
Lol … yes… sincere apologies – you are, of course,Australian.
I forgot.
Where are you, west,east?
I have family and friends outside Sydney.
I am so used to the imbecilic fundamentalists from the US, I struggle to conceptualize that a more socially advanced country like Oz who think zip about having an atheist Prime Minister, still manages to produce Biblical literalists and Young Earth Creationists.
Your views, if you tout them around the barbie, must be considered almost an aberration, Jasmine.
What does the typical Aussie say when you tell them they are sinners, and will likely perish and go to Hell, just like all those people did during Noah’s Flood?
Don’t know. I never tell people that. I’m not a fundamentalist like you.
Good for you! It is better to keep such beliefs to yourself.
But I do share the love of Jesus!
The point is… you cannot offer a single example of your gods objective morality.
Evolution is my God.
There is nothing wrong with genocide.
If slavery feels right, do it.
Why don’t you understand this?
Why don’t you just stick to your semi-incestuous conversations with amanda, Branyan. You make such a dick f yourself when you wander away from your sty.
Nothing wrong with incest.
Could I have evolved to be anything other than what I am?
No! Evolution explains me completely!
You too! Me and you are both the same!
Yes, evolution does.
It produces a myriad of weird and wonderful life.
And it also throws up the occasional piece of revolting filth .. like you.
Yes!
And you’re filth too!
We’re all cosmic filth!
But I have a higher ethical standard than you could ever hope to attain.
There is no ethical standard.
There is only evolution.
Nothing but sweet, beautiful, evolution.
Now I know how you feel when I jump down the rabbit hole with Ark.
I want to apologize formally for all those times.
https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder541/64012541.jpg
Funny isn’t it, how you try to defend your position yet every argument you posit merely demonstrates the mental health issues you suffer from.
You converted to Christianity because of emotional issues related to drugs booze and porn ( so you said) and yet you retain the vile traits of what one can only assume were supposed to be your former life.
I have wondered before if this entire blog is simply a wind-up but then I come across a line or something that clearly demonstrates you are an indoctrinated fundamentalist, and having glimpsed at a couple of your videos I cannot bring myself to consider you are that clever to pull off such a stunt in front of those ”church’ audiences.
And when one considers the attitude of your daughter and her penchant for taking this garbage on to Facebook I have to conclude you truly are this much of a Dickhead.
I am a de-convert. Enlightened.
There is no god.
Evolution created me and YOU!
We are built by the same process.
No god required.
You are exactly like me!
You are a liar, Branyan.
And … you are simply not funny.
Consider medical attention.
You and I are exactly alike.
Medical attention came from evolution!
Evolution explains my behavior.
Evolution explains your behavior.
Genocide, slavery, racism and insanity are all explained by evolution.
No god required.
You need medical attention.
You are sick Branyan. Literally.
You and I are exactly alike.
Literally.
Really?
Okay lets look shall we?
You are a Christian
You are a liar
You have possible hereditary mental health issues.
You have a family history of mental health issues,
Your daughter was on the brink of suicide.
You had problems (addictions?) with booze, porn and drugs.
Evolution made us both. Period.
Yes, it did. Indeed it did.
And sometimes it turns out people like you.
Nothing wrong with people like me.
There is no standard for good and bad.
That’s your personal view …. and remember, you have mental health issues.
I suspect it could not be a view held bu the majority f your fellow Christians let alone non Christians.
Maybe you would like t read about the damage your relilgion does to people , Branyan?
YOuy like to venture out of your sty every now and then.
Why not pop over and show your empathy toward some of those who have suffered as a result of Christianity.
Let’s see how your non standard prevails over here …
https://attaleuntold.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/on-deconversion-trigger-warnings/
Oh, and Wally will keep you company.
Nothing wrong with Christianity.
Nothing wrong with slavery.
Evolution is all there is.
It is a fact.
Pop over and explain your views. I am sure you will win several hearts and minds with your enlightened perspective.
It’s your enlightened position too.
I trust you can explain it.
Pop over and we shall see …
Why do you need me to express your views? That seems unnecessary.
Why would you beleive your views are like mine?
Evolution.
Then you should feel right at home over on the post in question ….
Come now, don’t be shy …Pop over.
Unnecessary.
Aaah … as I thought.
Cowardice is another trait you have that I don’t.
Evolution.
Nothing wrong with me I cannot choose to be different.
You are exactly like me.
If you say so.
I realise it is wrong to bait those who mentally unstable.
You go of and pray, Branyan.
I deconverted.
Your memory is failing you.
You remain constant at least.
Although I wonder, as you suffer from mental illness is it fair toy call you a liar?
“Pop over [to my blog] and explain your views. I am sure you will win several hearts…”
???
Does Ark still think he’s some sort of prize? lol.
What part of “burn your Bible” and “choose godlessness” is he still not getting?
One of Violet’s commenters wrote:
“I do understand the argument that you can’t have an objective morality (something that is ALWAYS wrong or right) without someone other than humans deciding what that is. But you can get functionally close and that is what matters.”
She responded:
In other words, Violet doesn’t trust God to consider all the ramifications of every action, and to apply justice reliably… It’s too complicated for even the Inventor of our consciences to figure out how to judge all of this.
Personally, I think the idea that God’s goal is to “reduce harm” is false. I don’t think that’s the Ultimate, objective morality. (It’s Humanism’s goal. But, as has been repeated over and over and over, it’s impossibly black and white.) Instead, I think morality is all about our motivations.
It’s not WHAT you do, but WHY you do it.
The objective standard is: if you’re seeking God and genuinely trying to make the best choice, based on your limited knowledge, then it’s good. And God, in his infinite knowledge, knows when we’re doing things selfishly vs. when we’re trying to live for others.
I think that’s all God really requires of us. Not to play some chess game and try to figure out all the moves and countermoves in advance.
He just wants us to do as much good as we’re able to do. Thus, the objective standard of “good” always means getting as “functionally close” to God as we can.
”I think that’s all God really requires of us”.
This is the same 1st century jewish rabbi that made the universe with his mind, I take it?
What name would YOU prefer we give to “the God who gave us our Consciences,” Ark?
You didn’t have a problem with me referring to our consciences upthread. Would you prefer I call God “Evolution” for now, just so we can get clear on this morality issue, without getting sidetracked by “smelly, scruffy, 1st Century carpenters” FOR ONCE???
And just how do you know that your god gave us this conscience?
That sounds exactly like a faith claim to me.
I know SOMETHING gave us a conscience. That’s the point. If I thought you were capable of understanding, I’d keep going. But I’m finished with you for the day.
Aaah … so you are not quite sure it was that smelly little Jewish slut, then?
What happened to your faith in your god’s word, amanda?
“The objective standard is: if you’re seeking God and genuinely trying to make the best choice, based on your limited knowledge, then it’s good. And God, in his infinite knowledge, knows when we’re doing things selfishly vs. when we’re trying to live for others.”
I think this is a good argument and I would almost be satisfied with it as a reasonable way for Christians to understand morality. But the Bible quote posted by Branyan, which he explicitly posted as an example of your god’s good morals, encourages people to do ‘good’ things simply for reward or out of fear of punishment. How is that balanced with ” doing things selfishly vs. when we’re trying to live for others.”?
Because you can be motivated by BOTH.
It’s a reward to do things for others. It feels good to do right. (Even though it’s also a difficult sacrifice at times.) Everyone knows this.
But if you’re guided by morality why would you need a reward to tell you to do it?
I don’t understand your question. You don’t NEED a reward, but it’s the icing on the cake. The fact that it feels good to do right is what gives all of us the opportunity to find God. We follow our “instincts” (to a point).
But, most religions teach something went wrong with our instincts. We can’t ALWAYS trust them ALL the time, because we are naturally selfish. So, sometimes it genuinely feels GOOD to do what we simultaneously know is wrong. As you’ve said, it’s complicated.
But, the fact that we have ethical debates shows what we’ve been trying to convince you of this whole time: right and wrong ARE objective. When we say we are improving as a species, another way to say that is, “Getting closer to God.”
The fact that we have ethical debates shows we’re curious about what motivates us to behave in certain ways. I think I explained it quite clearly in natural terms but you still think there’s an invisible guide. I’d be interested to know what other dimension the invisible guide adds – above and beyond cultural/upbringing right/wrong instincts, logical outcomes and simple empathy. But I suspect you won’t know what I mean again … 🙂
No, the fact that we have ethical debates (like should we kill Hitler and, if there’s a house fire, who do you save?) is because we believe there is really such thing as right and wrong. Otherwise, we’d just put it up for a vote.
You REALLY BELIEVE that there is such a thing as what we “ought” to do, although it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what that “ought” is sometimes. Objective morality is the “ought.” It’s more than an opinion. It’s what all of humanity is striving toward.
The fact that you try to explain it in natural terms is what led to my original comment: “If we all start evolving toward selfishness, we would STILL be wrong.” There’s a Moral Law which is wholly apart from evolution. If you have a “natural explanation” for morality, which allows you to say we’d still be wrong, even if we start devolving, I’d like to hear it.
“If you have a “natural explanation” for morality, which allows you to say we’d still be wrong, even if we start devolving, I’d like to hear it.”
There is a natural explanation for ‘morality’ over at my place. What do you mean by we would be ‘wrong’ if we ‘devolve'(?)? Do you mean if we generally evolved as a species to enjoy committing harmful acts by our standards today? So many ifs to make a point.
What about considering that if we lacked empathy we couldn’t be here in our current form? The ability to understand how other people feel and to care about their feelings, is what allows us to live together in co-operative societies, to get past other basic instincts that aid survival (like fear of strangers, selfishness over possessions) to have an international society. We’re not all the way there yet, but it’s an achievable goal – all because we can understand someone else’s story and empathise.
Now, I think this is true, regardless of whether there is a creator or not. I’d be interested to know if you agree. I still haven’t received an answer to my question (asked several times) about what you guys think ‘morality’ is. Is it a sense/feeling or is it the logical evaluation of outcomes of our actions? Maybe you agree with my assessment but add in the magic outside influence or the Bible?
Yes, my “what if” question was referring to a hypothetical situation where we evolve away from empathy. But you understand just fine and still won’t answer. If we start seeing more and more and more “mental illness” until it’s no longer the minority, would it still be wrong?
I’ve asked this question several times, and your answer has always been something along the line of, oh that would never happen. That’s not answering the hypothetical.
And–yes–I HAVE told you what I think morality “is.” It’s a constant law, built into nature, like the law of Thermodynamics.
What I think you’re trying to ask is what our CONSCIENCE “is.” A sense/feeling? A cricket? 😉 It’s the tool given to humans to help them RECOGNIZE the Moral Law. It’s a still, small voice in your head that tells you what you’re supposed to do, and you can choose whether or not to listen. (And, yes, it’s shaped by our experiences. So people can have DAMAGED consciences. Or they can be born with personalities which make them less prone to “feeling” that empathy.)
But, for you to expect specifics about something parallel to the original conversation–while all of YOUR answers are “I don’t know” or “It’s complicated” or “that wouldn’t happen anyway,” isn’t playing fair. I’ll tell you what I told JZ last night. You don’t get to come here when you have demands to make and dictate where the conversation goes. Not one of the Atheists have dealt with the question in the original post. So I get annoyed when I do ALL the consistent explaining and still end up on trial for the one question I may choose not to answer right away, for one reason or another…
Now, just what is so difficult about saying–yes–we’d be wrong if our future ends up looking like The Hunger Games or Brave New World? You know it. I know it. Right and Wrong are fixed, and individuals choose whether to move closer or further from Goodness.
I’m sorry you think I’m avoiding any questions. I know it’s something I find exceedingly irritating in others. The problem I’m finding with these questions is that they simplify the use of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and take all meaning from them – beyond that they can magically be their corresponding ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
So when Branyan asks if there is absolute right and wrong, I have to understand what he means by that first. Right and wrong can be a variety of things, including things like: selfish and selfless motivation; positive and negative outcomes in terms of suffering; long-term and short-term consequences. And everything we choose to do has a random mixture of all these and more – so what exactly could ‘absolute right and wrong’ be? Until that’s clarified, it’s difficult to answer.
In terms of your ‘what if’ scenario, it couldn’t be an absolute right or wrong either. There would be positive and negative effects (I expect most of them would be negative), there should be short-term and long-term consequences (one long term consequence would likely be extinction of the species, but who knows?) and there would definitely be more suffering. So it would ‘wrong’ for all those reasons – but that’s not ‘absolute wrong’ is it? Because ‘absolute wrong’ is nonsense.
I understand that you think the question is oversimplified. It’s because you keep getting stuck focusing what specific actions are “right/wrong” instead of admitting it’s not your judgement to make. You’re trying to make human minds into the standard. You’re trying to make society the judge.
You refuse to admit that you (and society as a whole) are moving toward a goal which is OUTSIDE of humanity. Example: if humanity moved away from empathy and toward selfishness, would that be WRONG?
(This is the last time I’m asking.)
There would be positive and negative effects (I expect most of them would be negative), there should be short-term and long-term consequences (one long term consequence would likely be extinction of the species, but who knows?) and there would definitely be more suffering. So it would ‘wrong’ for all those reasons – but that’s not ‘absolute wrong’ is it? Because ‘absolute wrong’ is nonsense.
I’m happy to keep answering. And if you want clarification on any of the specific points I give, I’m more than happy to provide it. Because answers aren’t easy and life isn’t black and white. But if you need to hear YES/NO to justify your belief system, I totally understand.
What’s nonsense is to say “there would be positive and negative effects” without realizing that you are doing what your own commenter mentioned, by trying to get “functionally close” to perfection. You have no way to measure “positive” or “negative” without appealing to a fixed standard. Some things move us closer to good and others move us closer to bad, even though we can’t always see all the consequences from our limited perspective.
Every time you wrestle with the specifics of an ethical question, and claim it’s somehow complicated, you are nullifying your position that right and wrong aren’t fixed.
“You have no way to measure “positive” or “negative” without appealing to a fixed standard.”
We have non-religious ways to measure suffering, we have non-religious ways to measure happiness, we have non-religious ways to measure lots of things. What specific things do you think we can’t attempt to measure without an invisible super-being?
I don’t care that you can measure suffering.
I care that you believe “reducing suffering” and “happiness” will move us closer to perfection.
Did I mention perfection? I doubt it. What would perfection look like for every being in existence?
Then why measure suffering and happiness?
To improve living conditions for the sentient beings who get to experience life.
Back to my question: what would perfection look like for billions of sentient beings with different needs, interests and moods? I’m intrigued. I can see how it would work if we all clones.
Improve. Thank you.
(Are you going to plaster a comment somewhere on your blog that I won’t see that ‘proves’ god exists because atheists can only say they want to improve things? I’d better lurk to find out! 🙂 )
I wrote my wrap-up comment on this thread two days ago.
There’s no reason for me to post anything else, when you know, by instinct, that some choices move us incrementally closer to perfection, and others move us away. (Otherwise, we wouldn’t need to agonize over those choices.)
That’s all you’re ready for, right now.
Did I say perfection?
Nope. Because you’re afraid of that word.
But we must believe “perfection” exists, or we wouldn’t know what “improve” means.
Haha, you must be a scientist! 🙂
So, back to my unanswered questions:
We have non-religious ways to measure suffering, we have non-religious ways to measure happiness, we have non-religious ways to measure lots of things. What specific things do you think we can’t attempt to measure without an invisible super-being?
what would perfection look like for billions of sentient beings with different needs, interests and moods?
We’re never going to reach perfection on earth.
I believe that’s why you struggle with this topic so much. You’re busy trying to build a humanist Utopia, and you know it can’t work. Billions of sentient beings are hopelessly selfish. They only choose goodness when it suits them.
We need help.
So in heaven do people have free will?
I don’t know. I’m not there.
I was just wondering, because Zande once suggested free will must be removed in heaven if people can’t stop sinning as a fundamental part of their nature. Any thoughts on that?
It’s possible, I guess. But it’s hard to evaluate another life by the standards of this one.
*fixed my typos
Reducing harm is most certainly not it at all Amanda.
Simply put, people who don’t believe in God cannot believe in absolute morality, that’s they engage in logical Judo, they have no choice.
Maximizing utility, harm, empathy…it all leads no where and explains nothing.
The comments here are really something to behold
Are you being sexist?
According to perpetually offended feminists I am always being sexist. According to rational thinking people I never am so, I guess it depends on who’s asking.
I’m reportedly a “self-hating” sexist, too. So don’t feel bad. 🙂
I don’t feel bad. The opinion of people who think I am sexist is absolutely meaningless to me.
I am practicing being a thin-skinned, anti-theist. How am I doing?
Is everyone who disagrees with you about everything a homophobic, racist, white supremacist, NRA member who supports Donald Trump and is totally lacking in a sufficient amount of white guilt?
Actually, people disagree with me because they think I am a homophobic, racist, white supremacist, NRA member who supports Donald Trump.
To the greatest extent possible, I have nothing whatsoever to do with those kind of people
“Violet ought to write a post shaming her atheist friends for leaving her all alone again. She’s swimming in deep water and none of her mentors have offered anything to keep her buoyant.”
Your snarky little asides to each other are interesting. What’s the thinking behind that? When you’re losing an argument it could distract yourself or any casual reader from what is going on? Good plan! I’ll start doing that on my blog. If I’m ever losing an argument. 😀
The thinking is “Violet is going to see this, and she won’t be able to help responding.”
So, you see, it works.
But what I was REALLY hoping you’d respond to is the comment above, which Ark responded to.
It’s not snarky and it’s not an aside. If I was trying to talk in secret, I wouldn’t post it in the comment section.
You really should have a pow-wow with your mentors. They ought to do a better job of having your back.
Of course it is! The thread is huge and I only found it because I was trying to find questions of mine you were conveniently ignoring. And stop being so sexist about male bloggers being my mentors, when it’s clear they defer to me.
Stop being sexist by assuming that a male using the word “mentor” must have meant it in a sexist way.
(Unless sexism, when done by a woman, isn’t objectively wrong…. then carry on…)
As you have only associated me with Ark, John Zande and Tildeb, I’m at a loss to what other ‘mentors’ you might refer to?
That’s not the point. The point is that, assuming you have male mentors isn’t automatically “sexist.”
And for the record, no, it is not “clear” that they defer to you. That’s your ego talking.
😀
Fear not Miss V … you are doing a sterling job. 😉
They are a pair aren’t they?
I like them up to a point. It’s very frustrating how many questions they avoid.
Luckily, Violet doesn’t seem bothered by the fact that Ark offered his assessment of the “job” that “Miss V” is doing. Sometimes, when a man assumes a woman wants his encouragement, he’s being sexist…
Did you see the sarcastic winky eye, mrsmcmommy? 😉
No, I overlooked Ark’s winky eye, actually.
He didn’t use it last week, when he said you were “excellent at Branyan’s blog,” so I guess I didn’t realize it was that important. (By the way, Ark, has Miss V taken the “whiny little beach to the cleaner” today?)
😉 😉 😉 😉
I do apologise for Ark (often on my blog, not usually on other people’s blogs) he’s like the enthusiastic puppy you love but can’t quite socialise. He just loves being the pantomime baddy.
No sarcasm leveled at you Miss V. You are doing a sterling job.
Thanks Mr A. Means a lot coming from a mentor. 😀
So much for the theory that “he just loves being the pantomime baddy.” 😀
I suspect the real sarcasm lies with Mister Branyan.
I don’t reeeaaally he has de-converted, do you?
In fact, I think he may be telling porky-pies.
I’m de-converted.
Honest to evolution, Ark!
And also perfectly sane and also very funny.
I’m evolved.
That says it all.
Problem appears you seem to be devolving, Branyan.
Do you still dribble?
It’s never a conversation with you. You repeat the same, exact (ad-hominem) comments, no matter what the topic…
One would think you would get bored and accidentally THINK about something, eventually. But not so far.
I leave the thinking for your dad. I just have to prod him with a metaphorical stick now and then and he’s like one of those little yappy dogs that bounce around the floor!
He makes my day.
So, you never get bored of not thinking? Got it.
If your goal is to make every, single thread sound exactly the same, you’ve accomplished it. Nice work.
When the yappy dog does the same little jig day after day even throwing it a bone doesn’t help.
Evolution, evolution yap yap yap …
There’s a difference between what humans DO (which is behavior) and what humans SHOULD do (which is morality).
This is the fundamental misunderstanding, I think.
And do you have a code/guidlines that humans should abide by?
Their consciences.
Seems reasonable.
These are the two ways Violet has described the Theist (Moral Argument) position recently:
Neither of these demonstrate that she understands.
Instead, Theists believe an invisible, magic force IS right and wrong. Much like the Law of Gravity and the Laws of Thermodynamics, morality is an objective law built into the Universe. She is correct when she says it’s difficult, sometimes, to figure out WHAT the “right” or “wrong” thing to do would be. But, the reason we struggle with those issues is precisely because we really, really want to make sure we move closer to objective right, instead of accidentally moving further away (toward objective wrong)…
They want a concrete, unabridged ‘list’ of right and wrongs. God is supposed to hand us a law book.
That’s why KIA is bent out of shape. He was told that’s what happened! He was happy to thump people with The Law Book! (And now that he believes reality might be less “fundamental”than that, he can’t be a Christian at all.)
I would just like an example of what your god might think is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Just a glimpse into how he could evaluate it.
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
I do like that in one way. It’s ‘good’ because it encourages people to help others, to think of strangers as someone worth helping. But it’s also ‘bad’ – it suggests that we should only do good deeds, help others, for personal reward or for fear of punishment. This is a great example of how nothing can be easily categorised into simple moral ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.
Why is it bad to only do good deeds for personal reward?
Do you realize you’re replying to her in two different threads? It’s getting hard-to-follow, from the outside.
(You took too long replying, so she commented a second time…now the thread is split.)
…sorry…
You should be!
It’s objectively bad to start more than one thread! God says so!
Chapter and verse?
He let us figure it out through evolution. It’s bad. Period. (Just take my word for it. I’m younger, therefore, I’m part of a slightly more evolved version of humanity.)
Violet ought to write a post shaming her atheist friends for leaving her all alone again. She’s swimming in deep water and none of her mentors have offered anything to keep her buoyant.
The Moral Law is so very ingrained, that she takes it for granted. (In my religion, which you’ve left behind, we call that a “conscience.” It helps us find God–who is very, very Good.)
Who said I’m not religious!!!!?
You’re twisting my words!
I de-converted from antiquated religion. That’s totally different!
Okay, KIA. 🙂
You’re a parent. You surely know how to raise children. Do you give children a sweetie every time they help someone or hit them with a stick when they don’t share their food? Obviously not. That would be absurd. Co-operation is useful in itself, mutual co-operation is how we build stable societies. And, most importantly for children, we help them become aware of how other people feel when we don’t share or help each other.
I asked, “Why is it bad to only do good deeds for personal reward?”
Your response did not address the question.
So sorry you need further explanation. It only teaches the ‘student’ to do something mindlessly – do this, get reward – and doesn’t help them make decisions based on caring about others. But you’re right to question it – nothing wrong if you want mindless sheep as children or human subjects. 🙂
So sorry you don’t seem to understand the question.
Why is it bad to make decisions to get a reward rather than based on caring for others?
This is one of the muddles of ‘morality’ that Christianity can’t address – it depends on the situation, and it depends on the outcomes you’re measuring. It also depends on what you think good and bad mean. For example, as a parent, it wouldn’t be useful to raise your child in this way (for reasons given above) so here good =useful. I assume it’s similar for a father-type god wanting its creation to be productive/good members of society. Caring for others is ‘good’ because it’s builds nice societies where people feel cared for = good, and where we don’t see so much suffering = good, and we are doing because we care about others = caring = nice feelings all round = good.
Why do you think your god would give this lesson that it’s only ‘good’ to care for others because god will judge you on it after? Why wouldn’t he simply say, “USE OBJECTIVE MORALITY”?
“This is one of the muddles of ‘morality’ that Christianity can’t address…”
Understood. That’s why we’ve abandoned Christianity in favor of atheism.
Please refrain from restating your objections to Christianity. They are irrelevant.
No ‘invisible source of goodness in the sky’.
No god.
We are just explaining morality as it has evolved in culture.
If you’re going to write a post entitled ‘What Morality Means’, you should be able to explain what morality means.
The question remains: What is ‘bad’ about doing things for personal reward rather than because we ‘care about’ other people?
“If you’re going to write a post entitled ‘What Morality Means’, you should be able to explain what morality means.”
I did, quite clearly. Did you not understand something about the post?
“The question remains: What is ‘bad’ about doing things for personal reward rather than because we ‘care about’ other people?”
Do you ever worry about your powers of comprehension? I don’t think I’m the best at explaining, but you seem to ask questions incessantly until you get an answer you’re specifically looking for, rather than seeking to understand the answer you’ve already been given. You can’t learn how other people think that way. Speaking of which, I’ll go back to the other questions I asked that you left hanging and re-ask them. Because I am interested in understanding your beliefs.
No. I never worry about my powers of comprehension. I’m really good at figuring things out.
Consider this, when we remove Christianity from the conversation, you have nothing to say!
You claim there is no absolute, objective standard for right and wrong. It “depends on what you think good and bad mean”.
Then you assert that it is ‘bad’ to do certain things just for personal reward. Do you see the problem with these two positions?
I understand being frustrated but you’re not frustrated with me. You’re face to face with your own beliefs and you’re starting to understand that YOU are the one who is muddled.
I applaud your willingness to engage with people who think differently than you. That is the ONLY way we every grow in wisdom.
When your ideas are proven weak or false, the smart thing to do is CHANGE those ideas. It would be foolish to get angry at me for pointing out bad ideas. It is foolish to dismiss a person because they are ‘arrogant’ when you don’t understand what that person is saying.
I have no ax to grind here. I’m not playing a game. I’m not trying to ‘win’ any argument.
Your ideas are bad.
Do you want to have a conversation about that or are you too upset?
I understand your definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are exceedingly narrow and that’s why I was careful to explain the myriad possibilities to you. You claim there is an objective standard of right and wrong, and then you provide an example of something that can be okay (helping others) but is mainly not (teaching people do things for base reward, no analysis required). You haven’t even examined the shortcomings I pointed out.
So, explain to me, why is that quote from the Bible you provided a clear example of a good moral standard? And if you didn’t mean it to be, what did you mean it to illustrate when you posted it? (because I don’t put words in other people’s mouths)
“I understand your definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are exceedingly narrow and that’s why I was careful to explain the myriad possibilities to you.”
How would you respond if I said this; “I understand your definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are much too broad and that’s why I was careful to explain there are only two possibilities”?
“…then you provide an example of something that can be okay (helping others) but is mainly not (teaching people do things for base reward, no analysis required). You haven’t even examined the shortcomings I pointed out.”
Because YOU HAVEN’T POINTED OUT ANY SHORTCOMINGS! You just expect me to accept that teaching people to do things for reward is ‘bad’. I don’t believe it is. And follow me closely, if there is no OBJECTIVE moral standard, you are just giving your opinion. That’s why you can’t answer the question about why it’s bad. You know this is just your personal opinion. It’s not absolutely, OBJECTIVELY true.
“So, explain to me, why is that quote from the Bible you provided a clear example of a good moral standard?”
You admitted that you liked it! You agreed that it was a good moral standard. You already know ‘why’ it’s a good standard. That’s your morality talking.
The deep, important question is, do you believe that all people, everywhere should always follow the standard from that Bible quote?
“You just expect me to accept that teaching people to do things for reward is ‘bad’. I don’t believe it is.”
If you don’t know from being a parent, it’s worrying. But here are some clear reasons you might understand:
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/reward-fraud-richard-curwin
Let me know what you think. Could it be this man is smarter than your god?
There is no God, remember?
I disagree with everything in this article. Are you suggesting that Richard Curwin is the OBJECTIVE standard for morality?
I’m not sure what you mean. Is this a distraction technique because you’ve lost another thread? If not, please feel free to explain why that responds to anything I posted, as part of a sensible discussion.
For the record, dismissing my replies as ‘distraction technique’ is horrible debate. If you want to have a conversation, you’re going to need to engage the ideas and stop behaving like a child. Claiming that I’ve ‘lost another thread’ is equally petulant. I have engaged with you respectfully. You either do the same or I will stop.
The question is, why did you post this article? Is there some OBJECTIVE reason why I should take this author’s opinion over my own?
No, the question was, why is that quote from the Bible you provided a clear example of a good moral standard?
Because you said it was.
“I do like that in one way. It’s ‘good’ because it encourages people to help others, to think of strangers as someone worth helping. But it’s also ‘bad’ – it suggests that we should only do good deeds, help others, for personal reward or for fear of punishment. This is a great example of how nothing can be easily categorised into simple moral ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.”
So the question was Why is it bad to only do good deeds for personal reward or fear of punishment?
You may answer this question by simply saying, “It’s not really ‘bad’, that’s just my personal opinion.”
I was asking for your opinion (not yet given), not my opinion and a rehash of the previous discussion.
My opinion is that the quote from the Bible is always correct for all people, everywhere, always. It is an objective standard for morality.
” You agreed that it was a good moral standard. You already know ‘why’ it’s a good standard. That’s your morality talking.”
Did I? I must have got carried away. I thought I said it’s good to encourage people to help other people but it’s the wrong way to do it. And I explained where the ‘good’ was nice, useful etc, just so you understood.
“The deep, important question is, do you believe that all people, everywhere should always follow the standard from that Bible quote?”
If they feed a poor man on the street and their child starves to death as a result of it, no. If they mindlessly give food to people instead of helping people find a way to generate food for themselves, it’s not so useful. Like I’ve said before, there’s no easy ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ – it depends on the situation and the outcomes of every action. Do you think there are simple ‘rights’ because morality is fixed?
By the way, evolution doesn’t explain everything. It explains population genetics, the gradual change in species over lengths of time, and the common ancestry of all living things.
The God of the Bible ‘explains’ nothing. He just asserts and demands you believe and ‘take His Word’ or suffer eternal torment in an equally unsubstantiated place called Hell.
Not even science explains everything. But christianity explains nothing.
Totally incoherent.
As usual.
This will probably send you scampering back to your safe space:
What explains the statement ‘Christianity explains nothing’?
Your attack at atheists, and you are correct… I’m not one, was founded on an incorrect statement that they believe evolution explains everything. Solidarity in defense of unfair and scandalously slanderous attacks are always in fashion. Even from those who are neither atheist nor Christian anymore. Have a wonderful day
Bye bye!
Have a stressful day of introspection!
Actually, reading a good book, not THAT one…lol, having coffee and listening to classical music. Good day so far
Glad to hear it!
While you listen, can you point me to a single example of an “unfair and scandalously slanderous attack” on an atheist? I will reward your efforts of solidarity with a humble apology.
Apologies you don’t do. Humble you don’t do either. Sorry, not playing your game.
Of course not!
Your game is hurling baseless accusations before retreating to your classical music and vegetarian lunch.
I don’t expect you to be man enough to answer this but…
If I accused you of being incapable of apology and humility, would you consider that an ‘attack’?
Have a wonderful day
Have a day full of angst from the realization that you are still a pompous know it all!
Nice… lol. I will, as I pull weeds in the backyard this afternoon at my wife’s behest
I honestly cannot believe he’s here at all. Does he have no self-awareness? HE SURRENDERED!
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/regular-readers-only/
We should make him pay reparations. 🙂
No.
He hasn’t a shred of self awareness. He is also blind to irony.
It’s the only way he can live in his head.
STOP ATTACKING HIM!!!
The Christian thing to do is thank him whenever he offers his pompous, convoluted statements which he refuses to support.
If that’s true, I’m glad I de-converted.
Of course, there are no ‘slanderous attacks’ on anyone, anywhere in my writing. The personal attacks always come from KIA and the other atheists in the comment section.
But it’s always nice to have KIA show up and remind anyone who’s on the fence about ‘losing religion’ that you’re just trading one fundamentalism for another. Nobody loses religion.
You’re “not an Atheist.”
So why are you putting yourself into this discussion? Just to take shots at your old, Fundamentalist way of thinking, which you still believe is “Christianity” in a nutshell?
None 0f your business!
Have a nice day!
So…is armed robbery wrong? All of the time, in every situation? I think most folks would say…yep
On the other hand, what if me and my crack head buddy are strolling down the street, and he starts withdrawing. I am truly empathetic for his plight, and the crack makes, me feel really good.
So, I rob, you beat you, and steal your wallet.
Was I wrong?
Is armed robbery stealing a nuclear weapon about to be used by some nasty group looking to cause trouble wrong?
I asked the question
Answer
Yes or no
Or don’t. No matter as I am headed to bed
Thank you for falsifying your point.
Goodnight.
So, you wont answer?
Interesting…and awkward
Remember that John Zande believes in God now, Wally. He needs to defend his theological views.
I know! I am trying to give him a chance too!
No.
There is no such thing as sin.
There is no objective morality.
Why won’t you accept this, JZ?
You’ve been preaching it for years. I’m convinced! Now, you’re embarrassed by the doctrine.
Ooops, don’t think you questioned why. Did you even read the quote you made this ‘hilarious’ post from? Your shallow understanding of everything is mind-blowing! LOL 😉
Go ahead and fill me in. (*wink*)
Ooops, I absolutely did question ‘why’.
The answer is, Evolution.
Am I misunderstanding something?
You didn’t read the post. Go back and read the next sentence. Actually, read the whole post. Then come back and make your jokes, if you can ….
Violet,
Accusing me of lying is shameful debate.
I read the entire post.
It was scattered and mostly incoherent.
There is no ‘invisible man in the sky’ giving me my rules. I have de-converted from that antiquated system of religion.
Evolution is the answer to ‘why’ I have instincts and feelings about ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
What am I misunderstanding?
Your ability to understand what other people feel and care about those feelings, this is one aspect. Would you agree this is an influence? If so, do you consider this a gift given from a creator, or something that humans have evolved? I can’t see how we could make such successful societies without this quality.
You are rambling incoherently.
My ability to understand what other people feel and care about comes from evolution. Correct?
It seems most likely it has evolved, how else would it happen?
Violet.
Focus.
There is not invisible God telling us what is right and wrong.
So morality is the product of evolution. It has to be.
This is YOUR thesis.
Are we having a conversation or am I being led a merry dance? Morality isn’t a product of evolution. I think our sense of this thing we call morality is something has naturally evolved. What do you think? (conversation)
“Morality isn’t a product of evolution. I think our sense of this thing we call morality is something has naturally evolved. ”
What does that even mean?
It means you want to apply your archaic labels and meanings to these discussions by slightly altering the facts. I think our sense of this thing we have called morality (in itself a wonky concept) is obviously part of the process that has made us the species we are today.
Where do you think this thing we call morality comes from? What do you think it is? Perhaps if you are able to explain this, I can provide information that would clear up the confusion you’re having about my understanding.
“It means you want to apply your archaic labels and meanings to these discussions by slightly altering the facts…Where do you think this thing we call morality comes from? What do you think it is?”
No matter how I respond, you will tell me my answers are archaic labels that are not based in fact. You have set up an impossible scenario.
You really should go post this question on your blog and get a consensus from your atheist mentors.
I’m not kidding. You should get help from some older, more seasoned skeptics. Copy and paste this:
“There is no ‘invisible man in the sky’ making rules.
Evolution explains why everything in the universe exists.
Evolution explains my feelings about ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
Is this correct?”
Why are you afraid about how I’ll respond? You aren’t afraid of the truth as you know it, are you? I’ve stated three times, very clearly, what I think. And each time you want to reword it and seek my agreement. What kind of discussion is this? I just want one clear answer for you, and I have no interest in rewording it, just further exploring it. Don’t be scared, be proud of your beliefs.
I am not afraid.
I have not re-worded anything. I posted a direct quote from you.
“Morality isn’t a product of evolution. I think our sense of this thing we call morality is something has naturally evolved.”
How is it possible that morality isn’t a product of evolution and something that has naturally evolved?
If you like, post THAT quote on your blog and see what your atheist pals say.
I’m not putting words in your mouth.
I am not misrepresenting your views.
You have yet to articulate your views coherently.
As I said, I have de-converted from antiquated religious ideology.
Now, I just want to know where morality comes from since I know it’s not ‘the invisible source in the sky’.
I think you had seriously deconverted you would be able to understand. Perhaps because you’re only playing it seems confusing. Tell me (apologies if I asked before) what morality is to you.
Morality is our behavior according to what we believe is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.
So it’s a feeling or sense, or is it logically thinking through the outcomes of our behaviour?
So it’s a feeling/sense, or is it logically thinking through the outcomes of our behaviour? (question re-asked)
“John Branyan February 25, 2017 at 4:36 pm
Morality is our behavior according to what we believe is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.”
So it’s a feeling/sense, or is it logically thinking through the outcomes of our behaviour? (question re-asked for the third time)
I read the response to my comment… and noticed there wasn’t much “response” to MY COMMENT, which was this one:
You’ve given a similar example here, except you’ve left out killing and used marshmallow cream instead. Maybe the concept will stick this time? (LOL! See what I did there?)
The Brights get off track when you suggest that we would all turn into murdering savages without ‘our God’. None of them feel like killing anyone, but if you’ve ever poured marshmallow sauce on a homeless person…MAN! That is addicting!
I’ll take your word for it… 😉
It didn’t seem to be my sociopath example which threw her off, though… (Again, she barely addressed the comment at all.) She’s hung up on my suggestion that philosophy is the foundation of human thought.
But–in order to demonstrate the correctness of that statement, she’d have to understand philosophy. I’m not sure what to do for a person who thinks philosophy is a primitive discipline–something archaic human civilizations played with–and not recognize that’s precisely what I mean by “foundations of human thought”?
We’ve built on it. It’s still woven into all of history and science and ethics. If you don’t understand the “why” then you don’t understand the thing at all.
Philosophy.
Get yours from a vendor near you.
How can there be an “objective” when your particular Middle Eastern god, Yhwh, the alledged source of this “objectivity” changes?
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/GOD%20CHANGES_zpsmmmoyd6x.jpg?t=1487842202
God’s nature hasn’t changed. The objective of pleasing him hasn’t changed. The goal of becoming more and more selfless hasn’t changed.
If you’re struggling with this, you’re as primitive as the middle Eastern civilization you constantly obsess over.
What’s YOUR name for God, JZ?
How can its nature not change if its opinion on things like slavery and murdering gays, for example, shift with time?
Oh, you’re embarrassed to answer my question?
Coward.
Please just answer the question put to you without the typical Branyan ONE-HUNDRED-COMMENT-DIVERSION-SONG-AND-DANCE.
Can you do that?
Is it within your capabilities?
Please.
How can there be an “objective” when your particular Middle Eastern god, Yhwh, the god of Christianity and the alleged source of this “objectivity,” changes?
There’s JZs diversionary song and dance! Playing his own part to make sure this goes on forever!
You don’t get to jump in to demand answers and never offer any. What is your name for God? (Note: if you’re not sure yet, and you just call him “God” like most monotheists, that’s an acceptable answer.)
Yes or no… Is Yhwh the source of the objectivity you speak of?
Yes or no, do you think you’re more stubborn than I am?
I had a conversation with Allallt yesterday, and one with Violet today. But YOU are a jackass.
Blow away.
Yes or no… Is Yhwh the source of the objectivity you speak of?
So, you DO think you’re more stubborn. LOL!
Yes or no… Is Yhwh, the god of Christianity, the source of the objectivity you speak of?
Lol!
Yes or no… Is Yhwh, the god of Christianity, the source of the objectivity you speak of?
Lol!
Yes or no… Is Yhwh, the god of Christianity, the source of the objectivity you speak of?
Lol!
Yes or no… Is Yhwh, the god of Christianity, the source of the objectivity you speak of?
Lol!
Yes or no… Is Yhwh, the god of Christianity, the source of the objectivity you speak of?
Lol!
Okay then, and there we have it.
Lol!