Happy Atheist Forum

Quote from: "Fourth Iteration"Does a constitution necessarily make a country's policies right? Absolutely not. But it is the guiding text of a nation. There are things in it I do not agree with just as apparently there are things that you do not agree with.... but in effect, what you just said is its okay for you to break our laws of men because you believe in a more divine law.

And yes, if I were in another country I would respect thier doctrines for that is how THEY wish for THIER country to opperate. I won't be the one to cock it up.

You have the right under our constitution to uphold your anarchist ideals, but don't for a second think that God gave you that right.

And does it follow from that, that if you were in, say, a muslim country, you would keep your women wrapped up in burkhas, and stop schoolgirls from getting an education?

Would you REALLY follow that country's constitution, knowing what you know about so-called american freedom, and the right to personal happiness, etc?

If I was a citizen and not already blinded by propoganda or fear, then a transfer to a better place would be in order.

Let me ask ya, would you do the same? Stop your girl from getting an education; beat your wife to submission? .... The Old Testament says you should....

Quote from: "Fourth Iteration"If I was a citizen and not already blinded by propoganda or fear, then a transfer to a better place would be in order.

So what are you saying, then?

I'm trying to put myself in the mind set of a citizen of that country from birth. IF I wasn't blinded by the forces in power, AND I knew of a better place, then I would certainly move my family. Sorry it wasn't clear the first time. .

Now, if I was a guest in the nation, yes, if my wife was in agreement to come, then she would wear the clothes mandated.

Aw, come on, 4thI

Do you really think you would submit to such archaic laws, subjecting your women to what is essentially 'slavery'?   Maybe you would.  Would the women in your life?  I think that's sick.

No reflection on you, 4thI.  Just trying to pick your brains, is all.

No no no, understood 100%. Ummm, lemme explain. If that is what I grew up with, I would know no better (Option A)/ If I was on a visitation of some kind, I really would insist that if my wife tagged along that we abide by the silly rules until we leave. I'd even grow that horrible beard.....(Option B)

Now, what are the odds that I'd actually go there for the Hell of it knowing damn well how we live here? Slim to none, in all honesty.

Good answer, 4thI

But would you really grow that horrible beard?    Horrible being the operative word, of course.

Quote from: "Fourth Iteration"Does a constitution necessarily make a country's policies right? Absolutely not. But it is the guiding text of a nation. There are things in it I do not agree with just as apparently there are things that you do not agree with.... but in effect, what you just said is its okay for you to break our laws of men because you believe in a more divine law.

And yes, if I were in another country I would respect thier doctrines for that is how THEY wish for THIER country to opperate. I won't be the one to cock it up.

You have the right under OUR constitution to uphold those anarchist ideals, but don't for a second think that God gave you that right.

Like I said before:  different countries have different 'constitutions'.  
Stalin had something of a 'constitutioin' and worked millions of his own countrymen to death.   Hitler's constitution allowed for the killing of millions of jews.  Saddam Hussain's constitution included wiping out the kurds.  Bin Laden's constitution (if he was in power to make it legal), promotes the killing of innocent civilians in the 'free world'.

Constitutions vary, according to who happens to be in power at any given moment.  Not good.

There should be a moral absolute.  I'm realistic enough to know that this won't happen, at least not in my lifetime.

Morals are a product of the environment.  That's why the Eskimos used to practiced euthanasia and why some cultures have polygamy.

Why do you think that your moral code is better than someone else's?  The bible?  The same book that requires stoning for a myriad of petty crimes?  Excuse me if I am a little more humble than that.  

The more freedom people have, the better.

Quote from: "imrational"Morals are a product of the environment.  That's why the Eskimos used to practiced euthanasia and why some cultures have polygamy.

Why do you think that your moral code is better than someone else's?  The bible?  The same book that requires stoning for a myriad of petty crimes?  Excuse me if I am a little more humble than that.  

The more freedom people have, the better.

I agree with you to a certain extent, rational.  

The NT, though, does not condone stoning, in my understanding of it.  Remember Jesus' teaching?....'Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.'


As regards you saying 'the more freedom people have, the better'.....now, that is not really practical, is it?

As I said before, people who are given the freedom to persecute certain other members of society, the jews, kurds, etc.....are they supposed to have all freedoms,  just because the state sanctions it?  Certain 'freedoms' have to be curtailed.  We have to submit to a common standard of what is acceptable in a civilised society.

This is one of the problems highlighted in the OT, because 'every man did what was right in his own eyes'

Well, some people had different ideas about what was acceptable.  It was every man for himself, and hang the consequences, as long as 'I' got what 'I' wanted.

That is why I said that not all people should have all freedom to do whatever they want.  There has to be a common standard.  There has to be an absolute truth, which caters for and includes all members of society.  Is that not so?

QuoteWhy do you think that your moral code is better than someone else's?

This is where I think atheists run into a major philosophical SNAFU.  Purely from a material deterministic POV, no moral code is any better, nor any denunciation justified, because every denunciation implies a moral code of some sort.  

The concept of an objective moral code is at least philosophically permissible or coherent from a theistic framework, but from a truly atheistic viewpoint, to talk of an objective moral code is incoherent babble based upon the fundamental assumption that morals are only subjective personal interpretation.

It's the Coppelston/Russell debate all over again.  Here is a great excerpt from that debate:


In a landmark debate between the agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell and the Christian philosopher Frederick Copleston, Copleston asked Russell if he believed in good and bad. Russell admitted that he did. Copleston then asked him how he differentiated between the two. Russell said that he differentiated between good and bad in the same way that he distinguished between colors. "But you distinguish between colors by seeing, don't you? How then, do you judge between good and bad?" "On the basis of feeling, what else?" came Russell's sharp reply.

Somebody should have told Russell that in some cultures people love their neighbors while in other cultures they eat them--both on the basis of feeling! Did Mr. Russell have a personal preference?

How can we possibly justify differentiating between good and bad merely on the basis of feeling? Whose feeling? Hitler's or Mother Theresa's? There must be a transcendent moral law, a standard by which to determine good and bad. Without such a point of reference, the question of evil is no longer coherent. Removing a god, the giver of the moral law, from the question of evil, in essence, blunts the force of the question.

QuoteThe more freedom people have, the better.

If freedom is the answer, then what business is it of yours to ever punish a criminal for his crimes...he just has a different moral code from yours.  His freedom allows him to do things your moral code won't allow you to do.  The criminal in essence, is more evolved in his freedom and has more liberty than the simpleton who governs himself with a moral code.  Seems to me like we should respect the criminal for his enlightenment and forward thinking...

Personally, I think that we can draw a few lines in the sand here. If we grant freedoms without breeching others, then we won't have murdering as a non-crime. EVERYONE has rights, they all have freedoms. The moment they use those freedoms to take another's away, a great line has been crossed. Is this a morel line? Some say so. Is it one developed through years of living in the world's largest superpower? It may very well be. If I were to grow up elsewhere I may feel differently than I do. This greatly defends Iplaw's subjective world..... And its true. This is why there can be no perfect society; we would have to unite everyone under one belief. Now how to do it is the question...... Through religion? That's the easiest way, but as we evolve why not embrace discovery rather than relapsing to archaic ideals and theories? If I ranted this entire time to make one point, it was this: Ultimate freedom can only come from unified thought. Theists would never lose they're religion to resist eradication (as we know well at this point in time), and atheists would bend not to a religion for such a reason either. If the world were run by man's law, the divine law would surface with an uprising to back it..... OWWWWWW! My brain hurts!  :bang:

There is a problem with the idea of the need for an absolute moral code dictated by god.  The problem is, there is no such code, and that's because there is no god to dictate it. If the code exists, theists, please let us all see it. Is it the moral code dictated by god to the Christians, or to the Muslims, or to the Hindus, or to the Sikhs, or to the Aztecs, or to some lost tribe in the deepest Amazonian rainforest?  I think you get the point.

    The theists here wouldn't be alluding to anything written in the Christian Bible would they? That very human book of contradictions, prejudice and awful cruelty can't be where we'll find this absolute moral code, can it? Surely you don't mean the 10 Commandments do you? I think that would not only insult the intelligence of atheists but would reflect badly on your intelligence too.

    Theists are sure that we need some god-given moral code because they can't accept that humans are capable of taking care of themselves; there must be such a code, and that too proves there must be a god. However, if we are left looking for a secure basis for morality in the Bible, or the Koran, of Bhagavad Gita, then we are in trouble.  No sign of any god there...just the hand of very mortal men dictating their very human concept of morality tied in with their myths and ignorance, as arbitrary and meaningful as any modern godless morality - they share the same source; the human mind and heart.  There is no absolute moral code, there never has been and never will be.  

Theists have a very poor opinion of humanity.  The truth is, we sometimes get it awfully wrong and sometimes we get it very nearly as near perfect as is possible.  The swing will continue to move between the terrible and the wonderful, humans will suffer horribly at the hands of others of their own kind and we shall experience the wonders of our shared humanity in societies which come as close to ideal as we are ever going to get.  I am an optimist - I think that the modern western culture is one of our best attempts yet at an equitable and just society.  It isn't perfect, and it is never likely to be so, but it is still far superior to anything I'm aware of which ever came out of any theocracy.  There is no absolute moral code - it is just another fairy tale, believed by people who seem to need such fairy tales.  Theists: deal with it.

Boy...and people here call theists arrogant!

You cannot argue that no god exists simply by pointing to inconsistencies within a given philosophy.  You can attempt to argue against the validity of that specific philosophy, but that CANNOT be extrapolated to encompass a refutation of every philosophy, or god's ultimated existence; that is just a fallacious argument.  When it's all said and done, no one philosophy may have it right, but that has no direct bearing on the ultimate existence of a god.

QuoteThere is a problem with the idea of the need for an absolute moral code dictated by god. The problem is, there is no such code, and that's because there is no god to dictate it.

I read the first sentence and thought you were going somewhere with this until I read the second sentence.  You actually could have tried to make a point here instead of comitting intellectual suicide by dismissing the problem as opposed to arguing a point.

BTW, there is a philosophical problem with justifying any moral denunciation without objective moral ethics, a question that atheists have to deal with as well as the theist.  It gets even more difficult philisophically for the atheist when you discuss things like supererogatory acts.

If we are merely mind machines dancing to the tune of DNA you have no right to tell me what I may or may not do.  Your subjective analysis of reality is no more or less valid.   What is wrong today may be well within the bounds of progressive eithics next week.  You should err on the side of personal freedoms and succumb to the reality that you have no right to pidgeon hole another human into your subjective view of the world.

QuoteThe problem is, there is no such code, and that's because there is no god to dictate it.

Interesting assertion, but it happens to be personal opinion and not a widely shared philosophical basis at that.

QuoteIs it the moral code dictated by god to the Christians, or to the Muslims, or to the Hindus, or to the Sikhs, or to the Aztecs, or to some lost tribe in the deepest Amazonian rainforest? I think you get the point.

No. Not really.  That position is a disjunctive argument.  "Who's ethics are correct" is another distinct topic unto itself and cannot be argued as a proof that no moral code exists by showing diversity of opinion.  That's simply ad hoc arguendo.

QuoteThe theists here wouldn't be alluding to anything written in the Christian Bible would they? That very human book of contradictions, prejudice and awful cruelty can't be where we'll find this absolute moral code, can it? Surely you don't mean the 10 Commandments do you? I think that would not only insult the intelligence of atheists but would reflect badly on your intelligence too.

Spoken like a true atheistic exeget.  Again, more fallacious ad hoc arguments combined with the fallacy of argument by outrage.  The fallability of scripture and applicability of the 10 commandments are facinating topics, but whether the christian version of ethics is right is another discussion.  Whether objective moral ethics exist doesn't depend on whether the version I choose is correct.  I could be wrong in my belief, but that doesn't serve to prove the non-existence of god or a transcendent moral ethic.

QuoteNo sign of any god there...

Again, this argument is rife with personal opinion.  Thousands of brilliant minds that preceded you have thought differently.

QuoteTheists have a very poor opinion of humanity.

No more than the atheist has an over inflated opinion of its inherent good.  Take a look at the book Court recommended, The Wanting Seed, both extremes are abstractions and wholly incorrect.

QuoteI think that the modern western culture is one of our best attempts yet at an equitable and just society.

Yes.  A system concocted, drafted and ratified by theistic minds of varying flavors.  Theism was part of the initial conditions of the creation of the revolutionary American culture.  That matter is also another independent discussion which I would love to be a part of if anyone is interested.

QuoteThere is no absolute moral code - it is just another fairy tale, believed by people who seem to need such fairy tales. Theists: deal with it.

Somebody's been reading too much Mushford Brains.  Again, more personal opinion, and extremly arrogant opinions at that.  I love to see people who are so confident in their own summations and paradigmatic dogma who turn around and criticize others for being rigid and dogmatic.

Fourth Iteration

QuoteThat's the easiest way, but as we evolve why not embrace discovery rather than relapsing to archaic ideals and theories?

Because what is ancient is often poignant and transcendent.  Most truth about human behavior is as old as humanity itself.  I firmly believe that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to people.  We may drive cars and type on computers, but from what I can tell of human history and human beings, we have changed very little over the course of time.  We may understand our behaviors and motivations better, but our actions and behaviors are seemingly very consistent over time.

Technology and science are wonderful tools to help us understand our world, but I contend there are esoteric matters which will elude our understanding forever, specifically on a scientific level.  Some things cannot be measured with a compass and a ruler.

Hmmm, so this is where this thread wound up.... I was looking for it.

So, it has come to the point where we bear the steel of hearsay and opinions. I claim science will unearth answers we seek whilst you plead science falls short of what lies ethereal and spiritual... This is where we lie. Right here before our defences. You cannot push back my front line, and I doubt what I say will change what you believe either.... You're right, some things you just have to feel and believe. I'll believe in what proof we have until the day comes when our "compasses and rulers" can bring us that much more knowledge (which is more and more each day), whereas the Bible has said nothing new in almost two thousand years... four hundred and some change if you count King James.

Quote from: "iplaw"

Quote from: "Fourth Iteration"That's the easiest way, but as we evolve why not embrace discovery rather than relapsing to archaic ideals and theories?

Because what is ancient is often poignant and transcendent.  Most truth about human behavior is as old as humanity itself.

Perhaps you misunderstood me and misconstrued what I said because you felt it would make a good argument. Those archaic ideals, those ancient theories fall into the spiritual category, not the sociological. Hmmm, convienient, no? What I was alluding to was in fact in the same thought pattern as the rest of the paragraph, not a AWOL thought. The theories in question are that of God, of religion. No religion has withstood the trials of time. Whether quietly into submission or through bloodshed and strife, each one has left the world in all but memory and allusions in literary pieces. That, iplaw, is also transcendent human nature, no?

QuoteI'll believe in what proof we have until the day comes when our "compasses and rulers" can bring us that much more knowledge

I have read the wisdom of men and women throughout the ages, most being far greater than you or I, and have seen the recurring theme that some questions simply have no answers.  Also, that some of the oldest tomes of wisdom are the truest.  Our current technological age has created a humanity that is uniquely arrogant and overly convinced of its own unsurpassed brilliance.  One thing modern man has utterly forgotten is humility.

QuoteBible has said nothing new in almost two thousand years...

Well, since the context of the discussion is objective transcendent moral ethics, it would seem to fit that the invariability of the message would be a convenient and positive characteristic.

QuotePerhaps you misunderstood me and misconstrued what I said because you felt it would make a good argument. Those archaic ideals, those ancient theories fall into the spiritual category, not the sociological.

No.  I wasn't laboring under any misunderstanding.  I would simply argue that as much as we think we have discovered about sociology and human behavior, Aristotle and Plato, whom I would consider as ancient texts are still very much valuable material.

QuoteNo religion has withstood the trials of time...

Is that why Judaism has been around for about 5,000 years, almost the entire length of meaningful, recorded human history?  Religions are growing, whether they be christianity, islam, or hinduism.  It simply does no good to assert that since you don't find the evidence for any one in particular compelling, that these religions have somehow dissapeared.

Judaism has survived because it has adapted and changed. Not to mention most Jews ignore the old laws of Moses more and more. THey are Jew merely by name and heritage. Besides, Jews are the most diverse group of all the Semites. Religions are growing merely because of renewed mysticism brought on by Hollywood, not some mystical force outside. Now it's chic to be a Christian because of the various movies that came out just like it's chic to be all Nietzche thanks to the Matrix.

Quote from: "Woody"There is a problem with the idea of the need for an absolute moral code dictated by god.  The problem is, there is no such code, and that's because there is no god to dictate it. If the code exists, theists, please let us all see it. Is it the moral code dictated by god to the Christians, or to the Muslims, or to the Hindus, or to the Sikhs, or to the Aztecs, or to some lost tribe in the deepest Amazonian rainforest?  I think you get the point.

    The theists here wouldn't be alluding to anything written in the Christian Bible would they? That very human book of contradictions, prejudice and awful cruelty can't be where we'll find this absolute moral code, can it? Surely you don't mean the 10 Commandments do you? I think that would not only insult the intelligence of atheists but would reflect badly on your intelligence too.

    Theists are sure that we need some god-given moral code because they can't accept that humans are capable of taking care of themselves; there must be such a code, and that too proves there must be a god. However, if we are left looking for a secure basis for morality in the Bible, or the Koran, of Bhagavad Gita, then we are in trouble.  No sign of any god there...just the hand of very mortal men dictating their very human concept of morality tied in with their myths and ignorance, as arbitrary and meaningful as any modern godless morality - they share the same source; the human mind and heart.  There is no absolute moral code, there never has been and never will be.  

Theists have a very poor opinion of humanity.  The truth is, we sometimes get it awfully wrong and sometimes we get it very nearly as near perfect as is possible.  The swing will continue to move between the terrible and the wonderful, humans will suffer horribly at the hands of others of their own kind and we shall experience the wonders of our shared humanity in societies which come as close to ideal as we are ever going to get.  I am an optimist - I think that the modern western culture is one of our best attempts yet at an equitable and just society.  It isn't perfect, and it is never likely to be so, but it is still far superior to anything I'm aware of which ever came out of any theocracy.  There is no absolute moral code - it is just another fairy tale, believed by people who seem to need such fairy tales.  Theists: deal with it.

Well spoken, sir.  I like the cut of your jib (not to mention your penny whistle!)

I do have one minor "linguistic" issue in that I wish there was another word for "Theists attached to organized religion".  I believe in a god, but do not think of it as a definable concept (agnostic).

So, I am a theist by strict definition, yet I agree with your statements above.

Anywho, thanks for the post - most enjoyable...
  JoeActor

QuoteJudaism has survived because it has adapted and changed. Not to mention most Jews ignore the old laws of Moses more and more. THey are Jew merely by name and heritage.

Go down to your local temple and tell the rabbi this...I bet you'll get a different opinion about what Judaism is.

QuoteJudaism has survived because it has adapted and changed. Not to mention most Jews ignore the old laws of Moses more and more. THey are Jew merely by name and heritage.

So says the atheist about a religion he doesn't belong to.  Go down to your local temple and tell the rabbi this...I bet you'll get a different opinion about what Judaism is.

Iplaw, what a surprise! By the way, your posts give a whole new meaning to the term, "dictionary attack".

        I find it most interesting, but not in the least surprising, that in your very predictable response you failed to show us evidence for an objective absolute moral code. Well, that is understandable because, as you rightly pointed out, the one you choose to believe in might not actually be THE absolute moral code.  Hmm. If theists no more than 'believe' that they have the right moral code, then it is clear that their morals are as subjective as any code can be - they are choosing their morals just like any arrogant atheist, unless of course they have had a personal visitation by an angel to point out the way, or if they meet god on a mountain top and have their moral code hand-delivered to them. Happens all the time doesn't it.  Look, no amount of intellectualizing is ever going to make your opinions on this matter reflect reality, iplaw. You said that thousands of brilliant minds have seen things differently - well, I'm sure I might argue for a few brilliant minds on my side of the fence too.  If your proofs and evidence for a god are so outstanding, why are the brilliant minds who stand with me acting so dumb?  Hmm, again.  I guess the evidence isn't quite what it's cracked up to be.

        You talk of arrogance, but you are very guilty of having a whacking great intellectual arrogance.  Incidentally, no one has ever accused me of being arrogant before, but perhaps after over 50 years I have earned my right of passage and maybe it's time I started to get arrogant, damn it! Anyone who actually knows me would acknowledge me to be one of the most reasonable people they have ever met. But, anyway, whatever... You appear to think you are smarter than anyone else using this forum and you obviously have a lot of fun trying to intimidate other people here, and no doubt you often succeed in your efforts.  Well done. Your god must be proud of you.

        I do find it curious how some intelligent people hang on to the god myth.  See, I do give you credit for your intelligence, iplaw, but why are you so desperate to hang on to the myth? I have often felt curious as to why some intelligent and sometimes outstandingly clever people, in this more enlightened age, continue to believe in religious mythology, even going through extreme intellectual contortions to try and create an apparently sensible foundation for their personal opinion.  I believe it might have something to do with how compartmentalized our brains are. The cause of this, I don't know, but a person's achievements in one area of life are not necessarily a good indicator of overall performance.  People often assume that someone who shines brilliantly in one discipline must be able to apply their brilliance to all other areas of life and they gain a credibility which isn't necessarily deserved or earned. It goes back to what I was saying above, about why some brilliant minds believe in god and others don't - brilliant minds don't always get things right,  and so, actually, neither you nor I should resort to the support of other brilliant minds. We might even both admit that we too have got it all wrong, but we are both too arrogant to do that.  It's all pretty meaningless, and I don't want to use the word brilliant anymore in this post. Anyway, I can only think that something like this has happened in your case, iplaw. Your intellect isn't really helping you to solve the problem but appears to be only confounding the error. You are smart, and you are trying to be a lawyer for god.  Let's face it, you couldn't have a more prestigious client. But your client is imaginary so I guess he is a bad payer, but his credit is good with you, no doubt. Too bad you aren't an atheist, because with your mind I think you would make a very good one.


        Why are you so dismissive of the inconsistencies in books such as the Bible?  People are basing their lives on the contents of that book yet it is clearly full of holes and everyone just picks and chooses the parts which they like best. That's nice and very accommodating, but it seems to me that it would be impossible to construct a sound philosophy based on such a work.  You might not think inconsistencies in philosophy count for much, but inconsistencies in science usually indicate that something isn't quite right - they aren't accepted and scientists move on to find better, consistent answers. Anyway, you did, to be fair, rightly point out that you might argue against the validity of a particular philosophy because of inconsistencies. However, not use inconsistencies to extrapolate the existence or non-existence of god?  I understand your point. However, if the philosophy is seriously claimed to be based on the unerring word of god, then the inconsistencies CAN be used to extrapolate the non-existence of that god, unless you are prepared to accept that the said god is seriously flawed.  And if god is seriously flawed, what then are we to make of any moral code transmitted by such a being?

        But I maintain that the whole concept of an almighty god is a ridiculous anachronism, fit only for children and primitive cultures.  I really have no interest in pursuing the theists' arguments for the existence of god any more than I am interested in pursuing the arguments which might be put forth supporting the existence of fairies.  I have better things to do with my time, thank you. I'm sure that some brilliant (sorry, there's that word again) mind could devise a complex proposition attempting to prove the existence of fairies. If he or she were smart enough he or she would probably convince quite a few people of his or her irrefutable proofs. I rather wish someone would do just that, just for fun.


        This world has its fair share of crackpots and gullible folk. Some appear to be smart and others don't.  The saddest thing is, the two leaders of our two countries fall into those former two categories, spilling over with the Christian god's love and morality, threatening that positive culture which I referred to in my previous post, but I will leave it to you, dear reader, to decide on the personal qualities of Mr Tony Blair and Mr George W Bush, and which one is the crackpot and which is the gullible one.  God speaks to Mr Bush and Mr Blair and tells them to carry on with their god-given moral crusade, on an international scale, killing thousands and lying to the public every step of the way.  God help us all!

Quote from: "iplaw"

QuoteJudaism has survived because it has adapted and changed. Not to mention most Jews ignore the old laws of Moses more and more. THey are Jew merely by name and heritage.

So says the atheist about a religion he doesn't belong to.  Go down to your local temple and tell the rabbi this...I bet you'll get a different opinion about what Judaism is.

Surprisingly poor comeback, iplaw. One need not be a member of a specific religion in order to say something about that religion, or even know a lot about it. People have doctorates in comparitive religion and aren't members of all of them, yet they are experts, just the same.

Quote from: "joeactor"Well spoken, sir.  I like the cut of your jib (not to mention your penny whistle!)

I do have one minor "linguistic" issue in that I wish there was another word for "Theists attached to organized religion".  I believe in a god, but do not think of it as a definable concept (agnostic).

So, I am a theist by strict definition, yet I agree with your statements above.

Anywho, thanks for the post - most enjoyable...
  JoeActor

Thank you, joe.  I appreciate your position and your comment.  I agree with you that a distinction needs to be made between a theist attached to organized religion and one who is not affiliated and believes in an indefinable and unknowable god.  I do think that your position is much more tenable and my comments were not direct at you, neither those of my long response to iplaw.  Besides, I already like you.

First, let me say that for such a long post it has very little substance.  You touch on so many different topics it is hard for me to respond to each paragraph.  They almost deserve separate responses in and of themselves.

QuoteI find it most interesting, but not in the least surprising, that in your very predictable response you failed to show us evidence for an objective absolute moral code. Well, that is understandable because, as you rightly pointed out, the one you choose to believe in might not actually be THE absolute moral code. Hmm. If theists no more than 'believe' that they have the right moral code, then it is clear that their morals are as subjective as any code can be - they are choosing their morals just like any arrogant atheist, unless of course they have had a personal visitation by an angel to point out the way, or if they meet god on a mountain top and have their moral code hand-delivered to them. Happens all the time doesn't it. Look, no amount of intellectualizing is ever going to make your opinions on this matter reflect reality, iplaw. You said that thousands of brilliant minds have seen things differently - well, I'm sure I might argue for a few brilliant minds on my side of the fence too. If your proofs and evidence for a god are so outstanding, why are the brilliant minds who stand with me acting so dumb? Hmm, again. I guess the evidence isn't quite what it's cracked up to be.

I chose my faith based upon much study and personal discovery.  Christianity was intriguing mainly due to christ's summation of the human condition.  No other philosophy, I feel is as exhaustive or valid in it's description of the heart of humanity.

As for objectivity, I think we have no better example of a transcendent moral ethic than a close inspection of world-wide jurisprudence and laws.  Although they may vary to superficial degrees there is mostly uniformity concerning acceptable standards of behavior.  You can either chalk that up to random evolutionary processes or transcendency.  

The choice of a random evolutionary process as your answer doesn't jive with logic.  There is no reason from that chosen basis to subject me to your ideals other than "might makes right."

What cracks me up about atheists like you is that you are so limited by your own inhumility that you fail to see that the existence of god has been debated for 5,000 years and no one has defeated religion.  If YOUR proof is so conclusive, religions would have dissapeared long ago.  

QuoteYou talk of arrogance, but you are very guilty of having a whacking great intellectual arrogance. Incidentally, no one has ever accused me of being arrogant before, but perhaps after over 50 years I have earned my right of passage and maybe it's time I started to get arrogant, damn it! Anyone who actually knows me would acknowledge me to be one of the most reasonable people they have ever met. But, anyway, whatever... You appear to think you are smarter than anyone else using this forum and you obviously have a lot of fun trying to intimidate other people here, and no doubt you often succeed in your efforts. Well done. Your god must be proud of you.

No.  What I see here is that you have finally ran into someone who sees through your half-baked understandings of philosophy and has called you on the carpet for rediculous ad hoc thought processes.  I only intimidate those who can be intimidated and that usually encompasses individuals who don;t like being challenged about what they believe.

QuoteYour intellect isn't really helping you to solve the problem but appears to be only confounding the error. You are smart, and you are trying to be a lawyer for god.

You have to be one the most presumptuous individuals I have met on this board thus far.  You build up a false idea of what I am in your mind and feel some sophomoric comfort in debunking what you THINK I am.  This is to be expected from someone who argues from abstractions and draws ad hoc conclusions about two mutally exclusive topics.

QuoteWhy are you so dismissive of the inconsistencies in books such as the Bible? People are basing their lives on the contents of that book yet it is clearly full of holes and everyone just picks and chooses the parts which they like best. That's nice and very accommodating, but it seems to me that it would be impossible to construct a sound philosophy based on such a work. You might not think inconsistencies in philosophy count for much, but inconsistencies in science usually indicate that something isn't quite right - they aren't accepted and scientists move on to find better, consistent answers. Anyway, you did, to be fair, rightly point out that you might argue against the validity of a particular philosophy because of inconsistencies. However, not use inconsistencies to extrapolate the existence or non-existence of god? I understand your point. However, if the philosophy is seriously claimed to be based on the unerring word of god, then the inconsistencies CAN be used to extrapolate the non-existence of that god, unless you are prepared to accept that the said god is seriously flawed. And if god is seriously flawed, what then are we to make of any moral code transmitted by such a being?

The infallibility of scripture is not a belief I hold so this entire paragraph was a waste of space.  If I believed in the inerrancy of the Bible you would have a point, but I don't.

QuoteBut I maintain that the whole concept of an almighty god is a ridiculous anachronism, fit only for children and primitive cultures.

That's because you're arrogant and you live in a self imposed myopic worldview that only accepts ideas which fit within that paradigm that you have so carefully crafted over time.  Seems as restricitve as any religion to me.  Only such a person could not see the limitless debate that is ongoing even today concerning such topics and unilaterally conclude that such debate is frivolous; that sir, is the epitome of arrogance.

QuoteI really have no interest in pursuing the theists' arguments for the existence of god any more than I am interested in pursuing the arguments which might be put forth supporting the existence of fairies. I have better things to do with my time, thank you.

Interesting protracted response to my post from someone who has better things to do with their time than worry about such things.  You're responses belie your true thoughts.

To intimate that religious people are simpletons who just can't seem to get it; just aren't smart enough to figure the "truth" out is comical.  It's nothing more than a convenient copout to help you avoid honestly questioning what you think and it's the height of intellectual laziness.  Easier just to label the other guy as insane so you don't have to explain your logical and philosophical inconsistencies.

Quote from: "Woody"Thank you, joe.  I appreciate your position and your comment.  I agree with you that a distinction needs to be made between a theist attached to organized religion and one who is not affiliated and believes in an indefinable and unknowable god.  I do think that your position is much more tenable and my comments were not direct at you, neither those of my long response to iplaw.  Besides, I already like you.

No offense taken.  I had assumed that's what you meant - just double checking.

[schild=4 fontcolor=0000FF shadowcolor=00008B shieldshadow=1]Tip of my hat to you![/schild]

QuoteSurprisingly poor comeback, iplaw. One need not be a member of a specific religion in order to say something about that religion, or even know a lot about it. People have doctorates in comparitive religion and aren't members of all of them, yet they are experts, just the same.

My point is that those who practice Judaism would probably take offense to saying they have somehow deviated, especially Hasidic  Jews.  I agree that people who have doctorates in comparative religions could make such claims, but we both know that Big Mac aint one.  His comment was just a shot in the dark.  I would love to see some scholarly work that backs up that assertion.  That was all.

Oh, I am not intimidated by your, iplaw, any more than you are by me.  I've met self-important smart-asses in my time, don't care for them much, but they don't intimidate me.

I didn't say religious people are simpletons or stupid.  What I said was that belief in an almighty god is an idea only FIT for children and primitive cultures.  I specifically said that you are smart and that many intelligent or even brilliant minds believe in god, so how did I intimate that you need to be stupid to believe in god?  You immediately misrepresent me, and as for drawing conclusions, you know nothing about my level of understanding or how lazy or otherwise I am intellectually.

You said that people have been debating the existence of god for 5,000 years and that no one has defeated religion.  I think people have been wondering about such things for much longer than 5,000 years!  No one has defeated religion?  What on earth do you mean by that?  Think this is some kind of war?  The human mind's primary function is imagination - without it we couldn't interact with our environment or do a single thing.  It's easy to turn that imagination to non-existent things and invest them with substance - it's something we excel at.  Look at the world of fiction in books, television and cinema.  What people have believed for thousands of years says nothing about the truth of the beliefs themselves, but it does say a lot about human nature.  The fact that religion is still around after so long proves it must be true? How intelligent a remark is that? What happened to your powers of logic?

Along with great powers of imagination we also have a knowledge of death and it is only natural that having such knowledge we wonder what happens when we die.  It's not difficult to see how our imagination has come up with many different possibilities for our post demise state.  People generally hate the idea of death - they don't want to believe they won't exist anymore.  They find it difficult to deal with emotionally, especially when they see the people they love die.  I believe that these things are probably the main driving power behind religious belief.  The ego wants immortality, and the ego fights back against nature.  Societies comes together in religious groups where everyone can reassure one another that their belief is based on reality, and every new birth is soon subjected to the process of indoctrination, and thus the circle is completed and the continuance of the beliefs is assured.

Thank you for reminding me that I really do have better things to do than to continue in pointless exchanges with you iplaw.  I shall ignore the fact that you have still not given me information about the source or the nature of the absolute moral code we should all be abiding by. I know you really don't have a clue but feel sure it is out there somewhere.  You and I have both reached our conclusions.  Despite what you think, I am still travelling a road of discovery and I can assure you that the atheist position is anything but restrictive - free of all that religious garbage, the whole universe opens up, and it is a fantastic and endlessly interesting place.  Letting go is great, and I'm sure every atheist here could confirm that, except they are probably a bit too intimidated by you to do so.  I do understand if no one here chooses to jump in with me and cross mr iplaw, so please everyone, it's okay!

But now, I've said all I am ready to say to you, iplaw.  You are simply not worth it.  Come back to me with your usual diatribe if you wish, and I'm sure you will, but there will be no further comment from me.

Quote from: "iplaw"

QuoteSurprisingly poor comeback, iplaw. One need not be a member of a specific religion in order to say something about that religion, or even know a lot about it. People have doctorates in comparitive religion and aren't members of all of them, yet they are experts, just the same.

My point is that those who practice Judaism would probably take offense to saying they have somehow deviated, especially Hasidic  Jews.  I agree that people who have doctorates in comparative religions could make such claims, but we both know that Big Mac aint one.  His comment was just a shot in the dark.  I would love to see some scholarly work that backs up that assertion.  That was all.

Ok. Appreciate the clarification.

You remind me of another big shot who used to run these halls.  His name was Chris.  He's now gone because he was just "too smart" and had "been around the block" enough not to engage in conversation with people.  I smell the same stench on you.

QuoteThe fact that religion is still around after so long proves it must be true?

As you persist in intentionally misinterpreting me to make your point.

I am preparing a full response to the assertion that I have nothing to back up my belief in a transcendent moral ethic.  You have the right to ignore the post or respond, it's your choice, but if you chose to ignore it based upon your aforementioned logic that you've spent too much wasted time talking about things like this....well...it will be just another example of intellectual suicide on your part.

Fist before I answer your post I need to know what your view of the origin of ethics is before I take my time to prepare a response.  Do you belive in objectivism, or total relativism?  I don't want to waste both of our time making arguments against one or the other when points may be ceded based upon agreement.

Fourth Iteration:

Yes.  You basically said the same thing Chris...I mean...Woody said.  The thing that I appreciated about your response was the lack of the added comments like:

geez, don't you see you just believe in faries;
"free of all that religious garbage";
"I am interested in pursuing the arguments which might be put forth supporting the existence of fairies"

I feel like there was a mutual respect for each others positions which is lacking in his responses.  Some would call comments like those arrogant, but according to him he's as humble as the day is long.