Christians: bad for society.
10 Nov 2010, 12:10 am
91 wrote:
Are you going to contend that it is true and go against what it says in your signature.
91, given that my signature is message invariant, it is not a part of any message I write. It is something expressing personal opinions.
Quote:
You do know what it says in your signature don't you?
No, I actually don't. In fact, I am just entirely ret*d. You do realize that what I have in my signature is not what I am explicitly stating at a given point in time. It just isn't relevant.
Quote:
I have made this quite clear. In nature whatever 'is' is right. That without God there is no moral objectivity, so have many atheists for instance the Biological Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci:
‘on atheism there is no such thing as objective morality, morality in human cultures has evolved and what is moral for you, might not be moral for the guy next door and certainly is not moral for the guy across the ocean and what makes you think that your personal morality is right and everybody elses is wrong? What we call homicide and rape is very common among many kinds of animals, lion for example commit infanticide on a regular basis, are any of these kinds of acts to be condoned? I don’t even know what that means; the lion does not understand what morality is.
According to Peliuchi, morality is an invention of human beings; a convention that humans have adopted to live together but that it has no objectivity.
‘on atheism there is no such thing as objective morality, morality in human cultures has evolved and what is moral for you, might not be moral for the guy next door and certainly is not moral for the guy across the ocean and what makes you think that your personal morality is right and everybody elses is wrong? What we call homicide and rape is very common among many kinds of animals, lion for example commit infanticide on a regular basis, are any of these kinds of acts to be condoned? I don’t even know what that means; the lion does not understand what morality is.
According to Peliuchi, morality is an invention of human beings; a convention that humans have adopted to live together but that it has no objectivity.
Appeal to authority.
Quote:
This is reinforced by the ethicist Richard Taylor
'The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong (or in your case good or bad), not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion'
"Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning"
'The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong (or in your case good or bad), not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion'
"Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning"
Appeal to authority.
Quote:
How therefor could you argue that something is bad, in the sense of it being a value statement, without reference to objective morality?
You made two appeals to authority. I don't have to assume them right, and technically, if we wanted to just outright ignore argumentation and just rest on authority alone, it seems that a very good proportion of meta-ethicists and ethicists are moral realists AND atheists. http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.p ... ain=coarse
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.p ... ain=coarse
Quote:
Modern Christian philosophers see no such issues. For instance according to Dr William Lane Craig for this dilemma to be valid moral values would have to be contingent on God. Theologically speaking this is not supportable. God 'is' love, God is morality and therefor grounds those values in every possible world, in this sense morality exists as an aspect of God not as a contingent. Though I am not the best person to talk to on this subject, my understanding of the matter is limited. Suffice to say that no atheist or Islamic cleric has ever refuted this successfully in the the 20 years he has been stating it.
That's funny, philosopher Wes Morriston already developed a refutation.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/wes/GodGood.pdf
Even further, "God is love" is incompatible with large portions of scripture on the face of it, a point also made by Wes Morriston in reference to genocides in the Old Testament:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/wes/ ... nocide.pdf
I don't find the "suffice" that sufficient. I've listened to a number of debates by Craig, as well as informing myself on some of these issues. The position has flaws, and it certainly doesn't work as well as you seem to think. I know that Craig is a good debater, but it does not follow that his philosophy is nearly as good, as most philosophers are just not great debaters.
Quote:
This is a textbook case of the logical fallacy of infinite regress. One does not have to explain how that thing came to be in order to explain its existence. If we held this to be the standard of evidence we would spend eternity arguing in circles.
"Infinite regress" isn't a logical fallacy. It is a problem in epistemology, and the problem with it is that it doesn't mesh with our intuitions, not that there is a flaw in the logic of a person holding to an infinite regress. That being said, you misinterpreted my point entirely. My point had nothing to do with "infinite regress", but rather that your knowledge claims seemed to lead to one of two disliked conclusions, and this was made very much explicit.
10 Nov 2010, 12:13 am
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Mainline Protestantism is a better picture of modern mainstream Christianity than the fundie/evangelical crowds, so by the survey posted one could argue that Christianity (when not distorted by evangelical demogogues) contrbutes to a sense of morality, as evidenced by the greater opposition to torture within mainstream Christianity.
Eh.
Add higher rates of charitable giving as well, lower rates of delinquency, drug abuse, etc. Religious people are also known to have a somewhat higher life expectancy.
Quote:
Only a few more liberal denominations allow gay clergymen.
By denomination this is true; but in most mainline Protestant denominations there is a strong contingent within pushing to change those policies and allow homosexuals to be ordained clergy. So while the PCUSA for instance does not allow gay clergy, a fairly large portion of the PCUSA member churches (and individual members) support changing that rule.
Quote:
Even further, much of the anti-gay sentiments COMES FROM Christianity, so I still think that is relevant.
Fine, I'll grant that much.
Quote:
Well, you know that I could make the effort. Really though, Orwell, very little justifies the Christianity the masses hold to, and even within it, there seem to be blatant contradictions, so, I don't really see what more that needs to be said. Even further, even in your faith, exactly how much rational justification do you have for what you believe?
To the Christianity of the masses: that's irrelevant, as the typical person holds incoherent views on any topic you care to ask about. For rational justification in my faith, I do at least seek internal consistency.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
10 Nov 2010, 12:16 am
Orwell wrote:
Add higher rates of charitable giving as well, lower rates of delinquency, drug abuse, etc. Religious people are also known to have a somewhat higher life expectancy.
That's funny, I had statistics disagreeing with yours. Even on charitable giving the impact of religion wasn't very impressive.
Quote:
Even further, much of the anti-gay sentiments COMES FROM Christianity, so I still think that is relevant.
Fine, I'll grant that much.
Quote:
To the Christianity of the masses: that's irrelevant, as the typical person holds incoherent views on any topic you care to ask about. For rational justification in my faith, I do at least seek internal consistency.
Well, ok, but that's not really justification. You could likely think of an untold amount of internally consistent views with reality. The real issue is whether they are justified views. Generally, given your avoidance of the topic, I tend to suspect that you really don't have great reasons.
10 Nov 2010, 12:17 am
91 wrote:
LKL wrote:
Timothy McVeigh was a lapsed Catholic.
How dare you insinuate this. He was an Atheist! He stated 'Science is my religion'. You cannot insinuate that he was a terrorist of the religious right. Do not take this as an invitation to try and do some sort of loaded balance sheet of sin, that would be pointless.
Why would the Pope need to excommunicate someone who is not a practicing Catholic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
quote:
McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic.[83] During his childhood, he and his father attended daily Mass at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York.[citation needed] In a March, 1996, interview with Time magazine, McVeigh professed his belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."[83]
After the bombing and before his execution, McVeigh said that he was Agnostic and that science was his religion; at the time of the bombing, however, he was at most a lapsed Catholic.
Also, are you implying that pedophile priests are not practicing Catholics?
10 Nov 2010, 12:18 am
Dismissing something as an appeal to authority does not make the criticism invalid.
Until you refute these points without recourse to statistics (which only prove Talyors point BTW ""Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning"") I shall consider your argument surrendered.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
10 Nov 2010, 12:20 am
LKL wrote:
91 wrote:
LKL wrote:
Timothy McVeigh was a lapsed Catholic.
How dare you insinuate this. He was an Atheist! He stated 'Science is my religion'. You cannot insinuate that he was a terrorist of the religious right. Do not take this as an invitation to try and do some sort of loaded balance sheet of sin, that would be pointless.
Why would the Pope need to excommunicate someone who is not a practicing Catholic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
quote:
McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic.[83] During his childhood, he and his father attended daily Mass at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York.[citation needed] In a March, 1996, interview with Time magazine, McVeigh professed his belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."[83]
After the bombing and before his execution, McVeigh said that he was Agnostic and that science was his religion; at the time of the bombing, however, he was at most a lapsed Catholic.
Also, are you implying that pedophile priests are not practicing Catholics?
Referencing WIKI are you serious?
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
10 Nov 2010, 12:34 am
91 wrote:
Dismissing something as an appeal to authority does not make the criticism invalid.
The problem is that these people were not presenting arguments. If you want to argue otherwise, then restate their argumentative claims. As it stands, you were simply making barefaced appeals to authority.
Quote:
Until you refute these points without recourse to statistics (which only prove Talyors point BTW ""Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning"") I shall consider your argument surrendered.
Hold on....
My original point was very much statistical in many areas, and it was simply to point out that there is no moral difference between Christians and non-Christians. I hardly see how you can call this invalid if I don't address a higher point in ethical philosophy, simply because that higher point in ethical philosophy has little to no relevance to our question if no difference is detected. Prove to me that success in my point requires that I refute yours, because as far as I've seen, your writings on what I can and cannot do are inconsistent, irrelevant and outright failures.
As for Taylor's point? Umm.... so far I haven't weaved too many webs. I've been pretty conservative in the claims made, and for the most part have rebutted you more than anything else. So... nothing's been proved. You've just asserted something is true, and you have such problems keeping reality straight from your projections, that you can't really go much further from that.
10 Nov 2010, 12:35 am
LKL wrote:
91 wrote:
Until you refute these points without recourse to statistics...I shall consider your argument surrendered.
*snort*
translation:
'unless you refute my point without relying on evidence, I shall declare my victory and go home.'
Yeah.... that's kind of how I saw that point at first too. Maybe he is trying to turn my empirical arguments into philosophical ones, but for the most part he hasn't even shown his philosophical argument to actually exist, or even to be relevant.
10 Nov 2010, 12:36 am
LKL wrote:
91 wrote:
Until you refute these points without recourse to statistics...I shall consider your argument surrendered.
*snort*
translation:
'unless you refute my point without relying on evidence, I shall declare my victory and go home.'
No this is not what I am claiming. What I am saying is that showing statistics that display what percentage of the academic community hold a certain belief, does not refute a claim that they hold these views based on assumptions.
Taylor States: wrote:
'The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion'
"Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning"
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
10 Nov 2010, 12:37 am
91 wrote:
Referencing WIKI are you serious?
I'm sure he is. If you don't like it, princess, you can get on your high horse and get going. In most circles, wiki is considered a respectable enough source until a real conflict of sources emerges. It functions well enough for casual functions, while being very very easily accessible.
10 Nov 2010, 12:40 am
91 wrote:
No this is not what I am claiming. What I am saying is that showing statistics that display what percentage of the academic community hold a certain belief, does not refute a claim that they hold these views based on assumptions.
'The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion'
"Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning"
Taylor States: wrote:
'The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion'
"Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning"
Umm... the problem is that Taylor is really just making an assertion. There is nothing to engage or even refute in anything he is saying. My whole point in the statistics of philosophers is that if you want to appeal to authorities, I have the majority of philosophers on my side, so I have nothing to worry about. All your use of that philosopher is is an appeal to authority. If you believe otherwise, then cut his "argument" down into syllogisms, or some other similar form so that we ALL may see the steps and assumptions taken to get to his conclusion and where there might be disagreement with this philosopher. If you do not do this, then "I shall consider your argument surrendered".
10 Nov 2010, 12:41 am
91 wrote:
LKL wrote:
91 wrote:
LKL wrote:
Timothy McVeigh was a lapsed Catholic.
How dare you insinuate this. He was an Atheist! He stated 'Science is my religion'. You cannot insinuate that he was a terrorist of the religious right. Do not take this as an invitation to try and do some sort of loaded balance sheet of sin, that would be pointless.
Why would the Pope need to excommunicate someone who is not a practicing Catholic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
quote:
McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic.[83] During his childhood, he and his father attended daily Mass at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York.[citation needed] In a March, 1996, interview with Time magazine, McVeigh professed his belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."[83]
After the bombing and before his execution, McVeigh said that he was Agnostic and that science was his religion; at the time of the bombing, however, he was at most a lapsed Catholic.
Also, are you implying that pedophile priests are not practicing Catholics?
Referencing WIKI are you serious?
That was the top link when I googled 'timothy mcveigh religion.'
second link:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15532
quote:
Time: Are you religious?
McVeigh: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.
Time: Do you believe in God?
McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way [to] alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now.
third link only mentions interviews made shortly before McVeigh's execution in which he says he's an agnostic.
fourth link is another wiki.
fifth link:
http://www.nndb.com/people/936/000031843/
quote:
[2] Baptized a Roman Catholic. During many of the adult years of his life McVeigh considered himself an agnostic. But immediately prior to his death (on the gurney), McVeigh received Sacrament of Extreme Unction. As a child he attended the Good Shepherd Roman Catholic Church in Pendleton, New York, where his father remains a member. A memorial mass was held for him there on February 15th, 2002.
I could go on, but I think my point is made.
Also, why do you think that the Pope didn't excommunicate any of the pedophile priests?
10 Nov 2010, 12:50 am
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Umm... the problem is that Taylor is really just making an assertion. There is nothing to engage or even refute in anything he is saying. My whole point in the statistics of philosophers is that if you want to appeal to authorities, I have the majority of philosophers on my side, so I have nothing to worry about. All your use of that philosopher is is an appeal to authority. If you believe otherwise, then cut his "argument" down into syllogisms, or some other similar form so that we ALL may see the steps and assumptions taken to get to his conclusion and where there might be disagreement with this philosopher. If you do not do this, then "I shall consider your argument surrendered".
I did lay out an argument that does all of the things that you are claiming I haven't. The reasoning behind my use of Talyor was to build upon what I said by quoting Pigliucci. Just so you can see it again for yourself, I'll put it up again.
91 wrote:
I have made this quite clear. In nature whatever 'is' is right. That without God there is no moral objectivity, so have many atheists for instance the Biological Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci:
‘on atheism there is no such thing as objective morality, morality in human cultures has evolved and what is moral for you, might not be moral for the guy next door and certainly is not moral for the guy across the ocean and what makes you think that your personal morality is right and everybody elses is wrong? What we call homicide and rape is very common among many kinds of animals, lion for example commit infanticide on a regular basis, are any of these kinds of acts to be condoned? I don’t even know what that means; the lion does not understand what morality is.
According to Peliuchi, morality is an invention of human beings; a convention that humans have adopted to live together but that it has no objectivity.
This is reinforced by the ethicist Richard Taylor (LOOK AT THIS PART.... this is what you are saying I did not do)
'The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong (or in your case good or bad), not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion'
"Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning"
‘on atheism there is no such thing as objective morality, morality in human cultures has evolved and what is moral for you, might not be moral for the guy next door and certainly is not moral for the guy across the ocean and what makes you think that your personal morality is right and everybody elses is wrong? What we call homicide and rape is very common among many kinds of animals, lion for example commit infanticide on a regular basis, are any of these kinds of acts to be condoned? I don’t even know what that means; the lion does not understand what morality is.
According to Peliuchi, morality is an invention of human beings; a convention that humans have adopted to live together but that it has no objectivity.
This is reinforced by the ethicist Richard Taylor (LOOK AT THIS PART.... this is what you are saying I did not do)
'The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong (or in your case good or bad), not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion'
"Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning"
The only criticism I can see in my view is that your complaining that I have used quotes to establish my argument, this does not render it invalid. It does not appeal to authority, it references it. It lets you know I did not just make this stuff up. Build a bridge and get over it.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
10 Nov 2010, 1:40 am
More on Pigliucci's view of morality:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/ ... julia.html
quote:
I define ethics as that branch of philosophy that deals with the maximization of human welfare and flourishing. I’m sure this will disappoint Julia and others, but I simply don’t understand what else they might possibly wish to include in a talk about ethics. Neither Julia nor I believe in morality as imposed by a god, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that there is not a shred of evidence in favor of the existence of any gods, but more importantly because of the decisive (again, philosophical!) argument known as Euthyphro’s dilemma, in which Plato showed that gods are simply irrelevant to the question of morality.
So yes, for me morality is neither arbitrary (the relativist position) nor absolute (the typical religionist position, though Kant also famously attempted to arrive at a logically necessary ethics via an entirely secular route — and failed). Rather, I think of morality as something that makes sense only for human beings and other relevantly similar species. By relevantly similar, I mean social animals with brains complex enough to be able to reflect on what they are doing and why they are doing it (that is, being able to philosophize!). As far as I know, Homo sapiens is currently the only such species on planet Earth, though of course there may be others elsewhere in the cosmos.
Personally, I think that I would argue that fundamentalism is bad for society rather than that Christianity is bad for society, Sam Harris not withstanding (the traditional definition of 'fundamentalist' works in this case for Christianity and other 'book' religions, but I would expand it to include fervent religious-level faith in any concept or movement).
10 Nov 2010, 3:27 am
LKL wrote:
Personally, I think that I would argue that fundamentalism is bad for society rather than that Christianity is bad for society, Sam Harris not withstanding (the traditional definition of 'fundamentalist' works in this case for Christianity and other 'book' religions, but I would expand it to include fervent religious-level faith in any concept or movement).
I would agree with almost everything you say here. What you say about fundamentalism is true. Though, I personally don't have much of a problem with a fundamentalist who wants to sit in their room and be fundamentalist (its still probably not got for society though). Nor do I have a particular issue if they want to go and hold some sign up on the street. though I don't thing fervent religious-level faith is intrinsically bad for society. Sometimes you have to believe in things in order to improve society, like Dr King or John Adams. This level of belief in inherently unstable; but sometimes, it makes the world a better place.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
