tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post5838000430847974574..comments2023-11-05T01:05:14.895-07:00Comments on A Blog from Hell: First came the brain dead, now come the brainwashednormdoeringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03279378756658563565noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-80881902376907487872007-02-27T11:58:00.000-08:002007-02-27T11:58:00.000-08:00"Good" and "Bad" cannot be proven. They must be j..."Good" and "Bad" cannot be proven. They must be judged. And you judge based on the situation and your moral basis. I cannot prove to you that the Inquisition was "bad", or that the Renaissance was "good", because they are subjective terms. Just as I cannot tell you that Picasso's <I>Guernica</I> is "bad" or "good". I can tell you it is an example of cubist impressionism, and that will be objectively true, but if your moral basis favors cubist impressionism, you might think it's "good" while I may think it's "bad".<BR/><BR/>Moral bases are allowed (indeed, perhaps preferred) to change, and that's why things like the Inquisition have changed from a "good" thing (at the time) to a "bad" thing now.<BR/><BR/>I regard my basis as good (I shall eschew the quotation marks for now; I assume my point is made) because it emphasizes respect for everyone, explicitly forbids intentionally harming others and explicitly promotes benevolent behaviour.<BR/><BR/>My problem with theistic (specifically, Judeo-Christian) moral bases is that they are contradictory. For example, they explicitly forbid murder (The 6th Commandment) and explicitly promote murder (See Deuteronomy, Leviticus, any number of God-blessed genocides). This is not the theist's fault, of course. The Torah, Bible and Koran are all horribly unparsimonious and ambiguous documents which will ultimately lend itself to contradiction in one form or another.<BR/><BR/>As far as your example, if Sam had my moral basis, they would have respect for their neighbor's life, family and property and not infringe on their right to enjoy any of these.<BR/><BR/>If Sam had a theistic moral basis, he may do the exact same thing. But if Sam's neighbor was a Hindu or an Amalekite, perhaps, Sam may order his buddy Saul to exterminate his neighbor based on a 400-year-old grudge. (1 Samuel 15:2-3).<BR/><BR/>As the Nobel Prize-winning scientist Steven Weinberg said, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."AtheistAcolytehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670606373353771966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-8989374208960186952007-02-26T04:19:00.000-08:002007-02-26T04:19:00.000-08:00I think that you gave *a* basis, just as theists d...I think that you gave *a* basis, just as theists do.<BR/><BR/>Your claim that it is a "good" one is not proven. What's more, if you were to try to make a case that it is, I suspect it wouldn't look like a "reasonable doubt" proof.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, I would suggest something even stronger: that it cannot be proven, conclusively, even if you have more than 31 words.<BR/><BR/>Accordingly, it starts to look like you have "faith", of a kind, in postulates that you take as given.<BR/><BR/>Maybe a challenge to atheist ethics might help afterall. Here is one:<BR/><BR/>My friend Sam doesn't believe that murder is "wrong" outright. He is bigger and stronger than his neighbor. Accordingly, he believes that it is his obvious biological evolutionary role to kill his neighbor, take his food and money, and procreate with his wife and/or daughters, while killing the sons or pressing them into service.<BR/><BR/>This seems to be a right order of things to him. In his mind, it makes sense for him to preserve his position by taking from others, because it is so obviously an efficient use of his time.Amicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535211912769378958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-48070836648737422472007-02-25T02:10:00.000-08:002007-02-25T02:10:00.000-08:00You asked me to answer how I as an atheist account...You asked me to answer how I as an atheist account for my ethics. And I gave you a good basis for secular ethics to rival any theistic ethics. If you asked me to prove something, I would have to deal with more rigor than my brief 31-word basis. If I asked you to prove something and you gave me wishy-washy twaddle, I'd have to say "Sorry, but that's not rigorous enough for a reasonable doubt proof."AtheistAcolytehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670606373353771966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-18109486410607854392007-02-24T21:48:00.000-08:002007-02-24T21:48:00.000-08:00AA said: "I have not proven anything ..."----o.k. ...AA said: "I have not proven anything ..."<BR/>----<BR/>o.k. That's copacetic with me and the fact that other atheists have different arguments than you might be analogous to various theists having their own basis in their doctrines. <BR/><BR/>Notwithstanding that concurrence, how come if I were ever to offer something not quite "proven" I get called stupid or wanting ("in conflict with reason (and, therefore, ... necessarily in conflict with science" - SH)?Amicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535211912769378958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-30671641133515830042007-02-24T17:16:00.000-08:002007-02-24T17:16:00.000-08:00First, I did not set out to 'prove' anything. I s...First, I did not set out to 'prove' anything. I set out to answer your question, under the circumstances you set out. And I did.<BR/><BR/>Second, no, I have not proven anything, other than how an atheist <I>can</I> arrive at a moral and ethical decision secularly. I'm sure many atheists derive their morality differently than I derive mine, but as long as their morality and mine are compatible (and I can challenge them to rationally support their morality when they are not compatible), then I have no problems.AtheistAcolytehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670606373353771966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-32432927176390403262007-02-24T00:21:00.000-08:002007-02-24T00:21:00.000-08:00o.k. So a theist and a rational atheist can hold ...o.k. So a theist and a rational atheist can hold the same belief that murder is wrong. It would seem to follow that doctrine isn't wholly outside the bounds of reason.<BR/><BR/>Rather than be contentious just for the sake of it, I'll leave it there, except to note that you haven't proven anything. I could disagree / refute you at every turn in your argument (If you don't see for yourself how, exaclty, I suppose I could do it if you asked - I'm just not going to trash everything you said just because). <BR/><BR/>The big picture is just that the kind of argument you've made isn't quite like 2+2=4. That's not just a strawman observation either - ethics is not wholly a product of the scientific method.Amicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535211912769378958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-23323551270121657812007-02-23T09:35:00.000-08:002007-02-23T09:35:00.000-08:00"As an atheist, how do you reject murder (homicide...<I>"As an atheist, how do you reject murder (homicide) on an exclusively rational basis?"</I><BR/><BR/><I>"Forty words or less, answer the question, if you would."</I><BR/><BR/>OK.<BR/><BR/>"Because it is most rational to hold respect for all human beings, therefore to not cause intentional harm and, when practical, to alleviate the suffering of fellow human beings is rational."<BR/><BR/>31. Fortunately, I have filler material:<BR/><BR/>"I <B>KNEW</B> I took a wrong turn at Albuquerque"<BR/><BR/>To expound on this a bit:<BR/><I>"... it is most rational to hold respect for all human beings..."</I><BR/>All human beings have certain 'inalienable human rights', most notably the right to live. If this were a truly secular moral standard, we would expect all societies to maintain this as a cultural rule, regardless of religion. It is interesting to note that this is widely true, with punishments meted out to all who break this rule. (However, one must note that there are exceptions in the form of human sacrifice and warfare; the first is primarily religious and the second is primarily nationalistic and occasionally religious; both thrive on the demonization of the "others")<BR/><BR/><I>"...therefore to not cause intentional harm and, when practical, to alleviate the suffering of fellow human beings is rational."</I><BR/>Note that this does not require that one seek out those in need of aid, nor even that it requires us to aid those we find. Rather, it establishes the directive that we do not cause harm to others with the intent to harm them, and that we help those who need our help when we can practically help them. This establishes a need to take care of the self before helping others, but the selfless nature that once you are taken care of, you should help others. This is exemplified in airline pre-flight instructions: Put your own oxygen mask on before helping your child put theirs on. Another way, you are of no help to anybody when you help others to the point of exhaustion of your own resources.<BR/><BR/><I>(For a humorous note, I originally had omitted the ", when practical," and my filler consisted of "Oo ee oo ah ah, ting tang walla walla bing bang!". It's remarkably difficult to come up with a phrase consisting of only 9 words.)</I>AtheistAcolytehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670606373353771966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-54890250994885676822007-02-23T00:02:00.000-08:002007-02-23T00:02:00.000-08:00Brainwashed, eh? Just because Andrew was *truthfu...Brainwashed, eh? Just because Andrew was *truthful*, admirably so, in revealing to Sam that he had never really been without his faith, as he conceives it, doesn't mean that you are not going to encounter those who really are going hit those serves back at you with a tennis racket strung more tightly. I'm not quite sure that I'm that person, but you cannot imagine that the such challenges haven't been dealt with, each in its turn, over time by those far more schooled than I am.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the definition of "atheism", I'd agree that no belief in God is different than a belief in no God, as a logician might formulate it. However, this doesn't show "ignorance" in my formulation to you, but it did get you to reveal that you are a "strong atheist" (apparently in a stylized way, as you conceive it, related to the Christian God only), a tidbit which can only move the dialogue forward. More on that, later, perhaps.<BR/><BR/>I would agree that the word "atheism" is problematic, because of the dual uses for the prefix, "a", so that it might be interpreted either as "against God" (Latin prefix, as in "avert", with connotation of "anti-theism") or "absence of God" (Greek prefix, as in "atonal", with connotation of "nontheism"). I hardly feel "brainwashed" because I used one interpretation of the term, that's for sure.<BR/><BR/>Your author, Cline, suggests the rigorous categories of agnostic-atheist and agnostic-theist, while admitting that many often drop this rigor in regular-way talk (see conclusions section, see the two penultimate paragraphs). For myself, I'm not sure it changes what I said, which was "I think agnostics have a more defensible position than do atheists ...", other than that I would sweep both these two agnostic terms into my general use of "agnostic" in order to match the justification I gave.<BR/><BR/>The argument that there are lots of theisms so that there cannot be any truth in any one theism is a bit of a red herring. To be sure, the capacity of people *in general* to believe or do this or that thing, even against logic is astonishing (why do people smoke, if it is known it will kil them?), but you couldn't just start calling yourself a God and have everyone believe you. It's really not that arbitrary, altogether.<BR/><BR/>Jihad is most certainly part of Sam's apparent motivation for writing letters (it's right there in his opening note to Andrew, right?). But, as I've shown, this is just atheist opportunism, if you consider that he hasn't made the broader case that atheist beliefs will somehow magically erase the hatred in the hearts of men. Sullivan gives Sam a pass on this, but I don't have to.<BR/><BR/>On the rest, you didn't answer my questions. What do I care if my neighbor believes that the earth is 6,000 y.o. or if he knows the physics of black holes? Do have any special interest in whether someone is a snake handler that I should know about - be more specific? I can make a list of a-religious actions that caused the deaths of tens of millions, so you need to bring more to the table than this list, that's for sure. <BR/><BR/>Also, I asked specifically, "As an atheist, how do you reject murder (homicide) on an exclusively rational basis?" I didn't ask for some long discussion about Law and Humanity, anymore than Sam asked for Sullivan to go into what seemed to you a long digression about the importance of tradition in his spiritual life, which some interpreted as his dodging Sam's "hard hitting" questions.<BR/><BR/>So, what's the problem? Forty words or less, answer the question, if you would. It's not a trick. My cards are on the table as to how your specific answer fits into what seems to be a stumbling block for you, which is how doctrine can win the form of rationality.Amicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535211912769378958noreply@blogger.com