tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post2303208577293950657..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: An Atheistic EthicUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32786435285599332002007-06-20T14:02:00.000-04:002007-06-20T14:02:00.000-04:00On why we would be ethical without god---"The answ...On why we would be ethical without god---<BR/><BR/>"The answer is quite simple and essentially the same for atheists as for supernaturalists. Out of empathy for others and concern for their well-being." <BR/><BR/>If ethics are based on rational self interest---then how does empathy and concern for others fit into the eqation?<BR/><BR/>Also---<BR/>From an evolutionary perspective it makes no sense to me why we would have evolved empathy- it can lead to personal demise which is contrary to the evolutionary view that the ultimate goal of an organism is to survive.lotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05399280809180102216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37450247172369721022007-06-20T13:57:00.000-04:002007-06-20T13:57:00.000-04:00one problem to address with "an ethic that is base...one problem to address with <BR/><BR/>"an ethic that is based upon some solid evidence about who we are as human beings and why we act the way we do,"<BR/><BR/>humans do not always behave rationally- <BR/>for example, a man down the road from me entered his buring house to save a dog, he died (with the dog) was this rational? <BR/><BR/>Also---<BR/>This man did this because...(we can only guess) but I may choose not to because...(fill in the blank) So- people act the way they do or do not for differnet reasons. <BR/><BR/>this is only one simple examplelotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05399280809180102216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21923359950980287992007-06-14T16:15:00.000-04:002007-06-14T16:15:00.000-04:00I agree, Rich. Which is exactly why I find the qu...I agree, Rich. Which is exactly why I find the question so frequently posed by Christians: "if there is no God and no Judgement in the afterlife then what reason is there to act ethically" so absurd.<BR/><BR/>The answer is quite simple and essentially the same for atheists as for supernaturalists. Out of empathy for others and concern for their well-being.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37182311164673535592007-06-14T14:24:00.000-04:002007-06-14T14:24:00.000-04:00I'll chime in on Jason's side here and agree that ...I'll chime in on Jason's side here and agree that most Christians behave the way they do out of desire to do what they feel is right and not out of fear of hell. It's more like a desire to reach a goal rather than fear of failing that motivates ethical behavior, to me.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19109505485269927782007-06-14T10:25:00.000-04:002007-06-14T10:25:00.000-04:00David, I mostly agree with you. But I still ma...David,<BR/> I mostly agree with you. But I still maintain that ethical action is not the determining factor for entrance to heaven on the standard Christian worldview. I think the Christian position would hold that someone who has truly accepted Christ will not do the sort of things you mentioned. Yet still, if one did "fall" and commit murder or rape, this would still not nullify their salvation. A "true Christian" would most likely feel guilt in such a circumstance, and hopefully repent and start living ethically again.<BR/> You are right to say their their position is not "ok now you have accepted Christ into your heart so go and do what you want and it will be forgiven". <BR/> I still maintain that the primary motivating factor for Christians to act ethically is not avoidance of Hell, it should be their love of Christ.<BR/><BR/>-JasonJasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085371221645186774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45055931129014873622007-06-14T07:18:00.000-04:002007-06-14T07:18:00.000-04:00I don't think that's entirely accurate as far as t...I don't think that's entirely accurate as far as the views of most christians go, Jason.<BR/><BR/>True, most view salvation as an undeserved gift of grace....that we cannot earn it as a result of our moral goodness.<BR/><BR/>But most also believe that we must be sincerely devoted to trying to serve God---even if we can only do so imperfectly.<BR/><BR/>Few christians would say that a man can with impunity rape, steal and kill and be said to have sincerely accepted christ as his savior.<BR/><BR/>A sincere devotion to acting ethically is, in the view of most christians, a necessary consequence of a sincere acceptance of Christ---so ethical behavior and salvation are far from disconnected issues in the typical christian view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86585908656272502762007-06-13T18:55:00.000-04:002007-06-13T18:55:00.000-04:00John, There are many comments and I have not r...John,<BR/> There are many comments and I have not read them all, I apologize if this is redundant.<BR/> I think a very important point needs to be made about what Christian's actually believe. Christian's do not believe they need to try to "be good enough" to get into heaven and avoid hell by obeying God's ethical law. Christian's are quick to recognize that they can never be good enough, indeed this is central to their belief. Because of this they must have belief in Christ to be saved. There must be some other motivation for Christian's to want to act ethically. It is NOT in order to avoid Hell, as you suggest in your article.<BR/><BR/>-JasonJasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085371221645186774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89376618279292251832007-06-13T08:00:00.000-04:002007-06-13T08:00:00.000-04:00Indeed, please list the evidence for your claim. ...Indeed, please list the evidence for your claim. To the best of my knowledge Marx was a naturalist---he didn't believe in the supernatural in any form---and that would include Satan.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and the earliest known atheists were the philosophers of the Carvaka school in ancient India----something on the order of two and a half thousand years before Marx or other European atheists (and they go back much further than Marx in Europe as well---Baron D'Holbach, for example, born a century earlier than Marx).<BR/><BR/>Nice try, though, why bother reasoning about the issues when you can just smear atheists by calling them satanists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49510164064135349082007-06-13T02:59:00.000-04:002007-06-13T02:59:00.000-04:00Uh, anon- as david ellis already asked: do you hav...Uh, anon- as david ellis already asked: do you have any evidence for that statement, or do we just have to take your word for it? Who were the "first atheists", and how do you know what they believed?zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31621459657630010692007-06-12T20:11:00.000-04:002007-06-12T20:11:00.000-04:00Sorry, let me refrase that last sentence: You are...Sorry, let me refrase that last sentence: You are part of a revenge sceme directed towards God that was begun by people who hated God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30665699003984735182007-06-12T16:55:00.000-04:002007-06-12T16:55:00.000-04:00"But even if he were a Satanist, that would say no..."But even if he were a Satanist, that would say nothing about atheists, because Satanists are believers, and atheists are not."<BR/><BR/>That's my point. The first athiests beleived in God, they rebelled against God and created dogmas and traditions and ideologies that their children would pick up in that way they still work against god in their deaths. You are part of a revenge sceme against people who hate God and you don't even know it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39337349072728502812007-06-12T13:48:00.000-04:002007-06-12T13:48:00.000-04:00Well, I don't have the time to read the whole thin...Well, I don't have the time to read the whole thing, anon. If anyone's interested, it's available (in German) <A HREF="http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:7GHP_xSRSPgJ:www.horst-koch.de/download/karl_marx_satan.pdf+Richard+Wurmbrand+marx+satan&hl=de&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=at&client=firefox-a" REL="nofollow">here.</A> Skimming it, the only evidence I could find that Wurmbrand offers for Marx being a Satanist is that he rejected his Christian upbringing and called God names in a play he wrote as a student.<BR/><BR/>But even if he were a Satanist, that would say nothing about atheists, because Satanists are believers, and atheists are not.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88317179880921551642007-06-12T10:56:00.000-04:002007-06-12T10:56:00.000-04:00Well, Marx and his bunch were satanists. Read Ric...Well, Marx and his bunch were satanists. Read Richard Wurmbrand's book marx and Satan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9023823707360854412007-06-12T07:05:00.000-04:002007-06-12T07:05:00.000-04:00Early athiests actually beleived in God, they were...<B><BR/>Early athiests actually beleived in God, they were actually Satanist, elitest who rebelled against God.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>A bold claim.<BR/><BR/>Care to back it up?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15869049448458234422007-06-12T07:01:00.000-04:002007-06-12T07:01:00.000-04:00God is the true genrator of desire whether you rec...<B><BR/>God is the true genrator of desire whether you recognize it or not. <BR/></B><BR/> <BR/>How do you know?<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>Early mdern athiest admeitted that they wanted to pursue false desires with a clean conscience and so they worked to remove God form their psychies.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>I'm sure you'd like to believe that. But its nonsense. Atheists, in almost all cases, become atheists because they find the claims of theism unfounded and implausible. Not because they want to pursue worldly desires. After all, one does not need to become an atheist to pursue worldly desires (sin). Theists do it all the time.....and often with little sign that it much troubles them. So clearly one need not deconvert and give up the idea of an afterlife to pursue sin.<BR/><BR/>If I were going to change my beliefs out of a desire for sin rather than evidential reasons I would have converted to universalism---then I could have my cake and eat it too.<BR/><BR/>But that is almost never the reason for deconversion. Much as you might like to think it is.<BR/><BR/>But I'mAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46022775124254546302007-06-12T02:27:00.000-04:002007-06-12T02:27:00.000-04:00Barry- what david ellis said. I would just add th...Barry- what david ellis said. I would just add that moral authority is, like life itself, an evolved entity, a combination of our evolved social animal nature and decisions we make about how we want to live. This is true whether or not we claim divine or absolute status for our morals. Positing a God as the source of our morals has been an effective way of enforcing them, but it's not the only way, as many atheist humanists have shown.<BR/><BR/>anon- you say "God is the true genrator of desire whether you recognize it or not."<BR/><BR/>No, anon- desire, and fear, are the true generators of God, whether you recognize it or not.<BR/><BR/>If believing in God feels good and makes you a better person, more power to you. I just hope, when you say you're "impossible to stop", that you don't have in mind, say, getting Creationism into public school science classes, or perhaps like one poster I encountered on "raptureready", pouring weed killer down the drain because "Jesus is coming soon anyway".<BR/><BR/>If you behave nicely, you can go ahead and believe that atheists are evil, or anything else you want.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58613846282091082472007-06-12T00:33:00.000-04:002007-06-12T00:33:00.000-04:00These bonds are desires. God is the true genrator...These bonds are desires. God is the true genrator of desire whether you recognize it or not. There is true desire which comes from God and we all have this and then there is false desire which comes without God and none of us have this unless we deny the true desire. False desire is not desire at all it is only denial of true desire.<BR/> <BR/><BR/>The problem with Satan is that he denied the true desire to serve God and in turning away from the truth he embraced evil, flasness and beleived falsly that he could be God. Proof of the falsness of Satan's desire is the fact that he can never be God. The probelm with evil, is that it is not the opposite of God, but the absence of God. Good is the presence of God. When we do evil we are being false. We are denying everything that is true. <BR/><BR/>Early mdern athiest admeitted that they wanted to pursue false desires with a clean conscience and so they worked to remove God form their psychies. This they beleived would take the guilt away and let them be happy with the way they were living. However, it was not enough to change their own mind, they needed to change the minds of society as well. To make it more real. But it is false and the early atheist admitted this much. <BR/><BR/>Early athiests actually beleived in God, they were actually Satanist, elitest who rebelled against God. And they began an ideology of unbeleif that you people take up today. <BR/><BR/>To be an athiest is evil in that you are false becasue you deny the truth. I know you all beleive in God, that is why you work so hard at trying to convinvce others of your false veiws so as to make it more real. <BR/><BR/><BR/>I stand firm in my belief in God. I beleive in Jesus Christ, I beleive I have a personal relationship with him. I've walked and talked with him. People like me are impossible to stop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4014571825770161702007-06-11T19:08:00.000-04:002007-06-11T19:08:00.000-04:00Barry, it would seem quite apparent to me that rec...Barry, it would seem quite apparent to me that recognition of rights for others proceeds from our capacity to empathize. Where there is real, sincere empathy for others acting morally is as natural as breathing.....where it is absent morality is a near impossibility.<BR/><BR/>So the basis of morality all boils down to one simple question:<BR/><BR/>is empathy/love of intrinsic worth?<BR/><BR/>The answer seems obvious to me---there is nothing in life more valuable and worthwhile than the bonds of fellowship.<BR/><BR/>I think anyone who has felt those bonds deeply cannot help but agree....and those who cannot, well, there's a name for such people: sociopathsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44138858222107945262007-06-11T18:58:00.000-04:002007-06-11T18:58:00.000-04:00But where does the moral athourity to rule come fo...But where does the moral athourity to rule come for anyone? Just the will of the people? What happens to the minorities? What if the power is in a small concentrated group that wishes to do away with all opposition? Do I, if I'm not in the power group, have any rights? If so, from where do they come?<BR/>Without a absolute moral standard based on inherent rights, there can be know logic for any society to operate under. It's just those most able to manipulate and maintain power do as they please. That's great if I'm in that group but really sucks if I'm not. And I have no justice claims if there are no inherent rights.Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10895113429977047542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55674997420761451392007-06-11T03:33:00.000-04:002007-06-11T03:33:00.000-04:00"And exactly who decides that's the goal? What if ..."And exactly who decides that's the goal? What if I don't care about the needs of society if it gets in my way?"<BR/>These are indeed the problems all societies face, and there are no easy answers. Or, rather, the easy answers are delusions- as H.L. Mencken said, "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."<BR/><BR/>If we want to enjoy the fruits of society, we have to make rules, and we have to enforce these rules somehow. One tried-and-true method to enforce rules that has evolved over and over again is divine carrots and sticks. Another is secular governments with executive powers, whether they are monarchies or democracies, or something in between.<BR/><BR/>Of course, who ends up dictating what our goals should be, and what rules are made and how they are enforced, is quite complex. The power to decide is balanced between the "will of the people", whether they can vote or not, and various concentrations of power in secular and religious authorities, whether in the form of humans, gods, or documents: kings, presidents, priests, deities, constitutions, holy writ.<BR/><BR/>In any case, we're navigating incompletely charted seas when trying to design societies, and we end up landing on islands largely of our own device. To believe that these islands exist outside of our own conflicting desires and imperfect abilities is an alluring illusion, one that helps us submit to the yoke, but an illusion nonetheless.<BR/><BR/>It is necessary for us to draw lines, make rules, to create societies. But as soon as we invest these lines with the standing of absolute truths, we've crossed over from engineering to religion. And in building societies, like building bridges, all we really have is engineering.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50378064163513272322007-06-10T22:21:00.000-04:002007-06-10T22:21:00.000-04:00"Ethics are based upon our evolved needs and desir..."Ethics are based upon our evolved needs and desires as social animals, balanced against the needs of society."<BR/>And exactly who decides that's the goal? What if I don't care about the needs of society if it gets in my way?Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10895113429977047542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22701769916353984962007-06-10T14:48:00.000-04:002007-06-10T14:48:00.000-04:00But David, Acharya does bash Christians for that!I...<B><BR/>But David, Acharya does bash Christians for that!<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>If so its the first atheists I've encountered who condemns christians for the acts of aztecs.....on the other hand one finds atheists in general condemned for the acts of communist regimes routine in debates on atheism.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>As for commies...they were dialectical materialists.<BR/><BR/>Atheists.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>So what. And aztecs are supernaturalists....but, as I said, it still doesn't mean I (or any rational person) would condemn supernaturalists in general for the practices of one particular religion.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>And their atheism meant that believers were in the way and had to be eliminated...by any means necessary. (Trotsky, in his Testament...available at Trotsky.net...declares that he was an "irreconciable atheist".)<BR/><BR/>But I know you KNOW this. Solzhenitsyn documented their attacks on believers and their motivations in stunning detail in the Gulag Archipelago series.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Again, so what? What does that have to do with atheism in general?<BR/><BR/>Both atheistic and theistic belief systems can be fanatical and desire to stomp out by force all contrary belief systems (rather than using persuasion and reasoned discussion).<BR/><BR/>To condemn christians for the acts of aztecs is silly.<BR/><BR/>To condemn humanists for the acts of communists is also silly.<BR/><BR/>Lets hope this discussion can rise to a more reasonable level than that.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>Dawkins is a humanist.<BR/><BR/>Dennet is a humanist.<BR/><BR/>Harris is a humanist.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>And which of them has called for the extermination of people who will not convert to humanism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57703247552081435592007-06-10T08:53:00.000-04:002007-06-10T08:53:00.000-04:00But David, Acharya does bash Christians for that!A...But David, Acharya does bash Christians for that!<BR/><BR/>As for commies...they were dialectical materialists.<BR/><BR/>Atheists.<BR/><BR/>And their atheism meant that believers were in the way and had to be eliminated...by any means necessary. (Trotsky, in his Testament...available at Trotsky.net...declares that he was an "irreconciable atheist".)<BR/><BR/>But I know you KNOW this. Solzhenitsyn documented their attacks on believers and their motivations in stunning detail in the Gulag Archipelago series.<BR/><BR/>And you have atheists leaders today calling believers delusional (Dawkins), child abusers (Dawkins AND Dennet), and saying that it is ethical to kill people for BELIEFS! (Sam Harris, p 52-53 of TEOF)<BR/><BR/>Not to mention morons like "good man" above paroting Nietzsche and saying believers have to be locked up.<BR/><BR/>Dawkins is a humanist.<BR/><BR/>Dennet is a humanist.<BR/><BR/>Harris is a humanist.<BR/><BR/>So I "lack belief" in your claims about the superiority of your brand of "humanism".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39114650244182093312007-06-10T08:03:00.000-04:002007-06-10T08:03:00.000-04:00And, for pete sake, lets leave off the bashing ath...And, for pete sake, lets leave off the bashing atheist's for the atrocities of communists.<BR/><BR/>Almost all the atheists in this discussion are HUMANISTS---not communists.<BR/><BR/>Its like blaming christians for the human sacrifices of the Aztecs because both believed in deities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44330533332786367102007-06-10T07:59:00.000-04:002007-06-10T07:59:00.000-04:00One point I think need to be kept in mind in a dis...One point I think need to be kept in mind in a discussion of the basis of values:<BR/><BR/>Subjective and arbitrary are not the same thing. It is all too often assumed, in the discussion of ethics, that they are---and that's an error that has huge consequences in meta-ethics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com