A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Harbal]

FYI, members do not need your permission to stop posting.

Oh really? I wish you would learn to not be so literal.

I've noticed before, VT, there are some things thedoc just doesn't seem to get. He literally does take everything literally.

[Ginkgo]

Three problems: firstly, as I pointed out, they say opposite actions are "good." In many situations, they flatly contradict one another. Secondly, Neo-Kantianism is generally understood as ruling out any Consequentialist elements. But thirdly, if we do "combine" them, then we can only do so on the basis of a third theory, one that is neither Consequentialism nor Deontology at all, but some form of Egoism or Pragmatism. In any case, whatever moral paradigm we use in order to decide when to act Consequentialist and when to behave like a Deontologist, it is that master paradigm that is our real ethic...neither of the other two.

But the work on the interminable conflicts between Neo-Kantianism and Consequentialism have been written up very, very frequently. Any basic book on Ethics will give you far more than I can give you here on that topic. You'll have to be referred to the literature, if you want more.

I wasn't talking about Neo-Kantianism.

I would pose the problem this way: why should we treat people as "ends," anyway?.

That's mere Consequentialism, and of a basically self-interested type. Kant would be appalled, and practically speaking, the problem runs something like this: if I steal, I know very well there is "always the possibility" that I will be caught and "paid back in kind." But that's not the same as saying the thing is really "wrong." It just means that some power-group may catch me. But the act itself is not condemned by such a paradigm. I may well call it "good" to steal.

Kant would not be appalled, just inconsistent. He is a deontologist who also talks about consequences as well. This is probably why some commentators claim he is a teleologist.

Moreover, what if, as a thief, I decide I don't fear that prospect of being caught enough to care. Beyond the pale threat of being caught, is theft really "wrong"? Why should I not do it, if I'm happy to take the risk -- especially in circumstances in which I am reasonably sure I won't get caught?

According to Kant you would be acting immorally.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

FYI, members do not need your permission to stop posting.

Oh really? I wish you would learn to not be so literal.

I've noticed before, VT, there are some things thedoc just doesn't seem to get. He literally does take everything literally.

I'm glad someone else noticed.

[Lacewing]

Oh really? I wish you would learn to not be so literal.

I've noticed before, VT, there are some things thedoc just doesn't seem to get. He literally does take everything literally.

Is that a tendency or requirement of some theist thinking, contributing to the communication gap between theists and atheists?

If theists DIDN'T take theist teachings literally, would there be any religion?

[Harbal]

Is that a tendency or requirement of some theist thinking, contributing to the communication gap between theists and atheists?

Well they do seem to accept some pretty weird stuff, there's obviously something interfering with their judgement.

[Dalek Prime]

Oh really? I wish you would learn to not be so literal.

I've noticed before, VT, there are some things thedoc just doesn't seem to get. He literally does take everything literally.

Is that a tendency or requirement of some theist thinking, contributing to the communication gap between theists and atheists?

If theists DIDN'T take theist teachings literally, would there be any religion?

Yes, there would. And as a dystheist, I'm proof of that. I have no problem accepting a deity. I do have a problem accepting a deities authority over me, and praising it for a dysfunctional creation I never asked to be a part of. I owe it bugger all nothing.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I've noticed before, VT, there are some things thedoc just doesn't seem to get. He literally does take everything literally.

Is that a tendency or requirement of some theist thinking, contributing to the communication gap between theists and atheists?

If theists DIDN'T take theist teachings literally, would there be any religion?

Yes, there would. And as a dystheist, I'm proof of that. I have no problem accepting a deity. I do have a problem accepting a deities authority over me, and praising it for a dysfunctional creation I never asked to be a part of. I owe it bugger all nothing.

It goes without saying that if there is a God then he's an evil bastard. There's no evidence of him doing anything good or kind. Plenty for the opposite though.

[seeds]

Doc, do you honestly believe that a series of bizarre circumstances involving a “talking snake” and the eating of the fruit from a tree that somehow represented the “knowledge of good and evil,” literally took place somewhere on this planet - sometime in the past?

The point is that if one can question the veracity of an “original sin” that was allegedly perpetrated by two “mythical humans” in what is clearly a mythical situation, then what does that suggest about the need for a “savior” to expunge the sin that was never committed?
_______

Don't tell anyone I said this, I only say it out loud to a few people, but I view much of the OT as mythology using allegory to convey a truth.

Isn’t that basically the unspoken M.O. of all of the world’s religions?

By the way, what is the “truth” that the OT is attempting to convey?

If you say that part of it is this...

The "Fall of Man" represents humans becoming aware of their own mortality and good and evil. Before this humans were like the other animals, unaware of mortality and good and evil, that is why I have often said that good and evil are human terms that do not apply to animals. Adam and Eve are symbolic of humanity reaching that level of awareness.

...then I totally agree with you – as mirrored in a conversation I had with Nick_A in “The Futility of Reason” thread. Check it out and see if it resonates with your view. Here’s the post - viewtopic.php?f=11&t=19396&start=195#p270405

All that being said, again I pose the question to you...

(or anyone else who cares to address the issue)

...that if one can doubt the veracity of an “original sin” (for surely it was a mythological event that never actually occurred), then what does that say about the need for the blood sacrifice of a “savior” to erase that sin?

(Needles to say, the atheists must be thinking that this is merely a sidebar to the primary problem upon which all religions are founded, i.e., the belief that something of a spiritual nature exists above and beyond this material dimension.)
_______

[Dalek Prime]

Is that a tendency or requirement of some theist thinking, contributing to the communication gap between theists and atheists?

If theists DIDN'T take theist teachings literally, would there be any religion?

Yes, there would. And as a dystheist, I'm proof of that. I have no problem accepting a deity. I do have a problem accepting a deities authority over me, and praising it for a dysfunctional creation I never asked to be a part of. I owe it bugger all nothing.

It goes without saying that if there is a God then he's an evil bastard. There's no evidence of him doing anything good or kind. Plenty for the opposite though.

At best, God's a fuck-up who couldn't be bothered to clean it's own mess up, and fix the recipe. Whatever it added to the mix, it was pretty bitter. But maybe it just likes bitter.

[Dubious]

Is that a tendency or requirement of some theist thinking, contributing to the communication gap between theists and atheists?

If theists DIDN'T take theist teachings literally, would there be any religion?

Yes, there would. And as a dystheist, I'm proof of that. I have no problem accepting a deity. I do have a problem accepting a deities authority over me, and praising it for a dysfunctional creation I never asked to be a part of. I owe it bugger all nothing.

It goes without saying that if there is a God then he's an evil bastard. There's no evidence of him doing anything good or kind. Plenty for the opposite though.

Nothing of the kind! If there were some hypothetical god - completely unknown to us compared to the ones WE create - why would we assume its function is to care for us, love us and all that stupid bullshit theists still believe? In having no concern for us or any other living creature in the cosmos "evil" is not a quality we can properly apply. It is instead one of total indifference equal to that of nature and impossible to tell the difference. Might as well say they are both the same. Would we call nature evil?

There is no GOD which has let us down but the god(s) we created and believe to have a "personal" relationship with customized to our own psychology which promotes wishful thinking in an afterlife of reward or punishment...because that's what we want to believe.

The epicenter for much of the evil we apply to god is anchored within the human psyche itself and from no other place. When we say "God is a bastard", it's true enough, except that we are the bastards who have created the gods we blame for not doing a better job.

[Dalek Prime]

Yes, there would. And as a dystheist, I'm proof of that. I have no problem accepting a deity. I do have a problem accepting a deities authority over me, and praising it for a dysfunctional creation I never asked to be a part of. I owe it bugger all nothing.

It goes without saying that if there is a God then he's an evil bastard. There's no evidence of him doing anything good or kind. Plenty for the opposite though.

Nothing of the kind! If there were some hypothetical god - completely unknown to us compared to the ones WE create - why would we assume its function is to care for us, love us and all that stupid bullshit theists still believe? In having no concern for us or any other living creature in the cosmos "evil" is not a quality we can properly apply. It is instead one of total indifference equal to that of nature and impossible to tell the difference. Might as well say they are both the same. Would we call nature evil?

There is no GOD which has let us down but the god(s) we created and believe to have a "personal" relationship with customized to our own psychology which promotes wishful thinking in an afterlife of reward or punishment...because that's what we want to believe.

The epicenter for much of the evil we apply to god is anchored within the human psyche itself and from no other place. When we say "God is a bastard", it's true enough, except that we are the bastards who have created the gods we blame for not doing a better job.

Meh. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The life system could be better, and lacking anyone in particular to blame, I may as well blame the universe, or whatever 'created ' it. Doesn't really matter whom or what, just that it is. And having preference, I say 'bah, humbug'. Of course saying that achieves nothing, but who's going to tell me how I should perceive the system? So I'll just keep perceiving it as such, and say fuck to whatever caused it. I just don't get hung up on the specifics of what the original cause was.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Yes, there would. And as a dystheist, I'm proof of that. I have no problem accepting a deity. I do have a problem accepting a deities authority over me, and praising it for a dysfunctional creation I never asked to be a part of. I owe it bugger all nothing.

It goes without saying that if there is a God then he's an evil bastard. There's no evidence of him doing anything good or kind. Plenty for the opposite though.

Nothing of the kind! If there were some hypothetical god - completely unknown to us compared to the ones WE create - why would we assume its function is to care for us, love us and all that stupid bullshit theists still believe? In having no concern for us or any other living creature in the cosmos "evil" is not a quality we can properly apply. It is instead one of total indifference equal to that of nature and impossible to tell the difference. Might as well say they are both the same. Would we call nature evil?

There is no GOD which has let us down but the god(s) we created and believe to have a "personal" relationship with customized to our own psychology which promotes wishful thinking in an afterlife of reward or punishment...because that's what we want to believe.

The epicenter for much of the evil we apply to god is anchored within the human psyche itself and from no other place. When we say "God is a bastard", it's true enough, except that we are the bastards who have created the gods we blame for not doing a better job.

If you mean nature then say nature. People give me a bloody headache.

[Dubious]

I just don't get hung up on the specifics of what the original cause was.

...if you know the cause you may get to known the cure as with any fucking disease. Start with one to end with the other.

[Dubious]

If you mean nature then say nature.

N A T U R E !!!

People give me a bloody headache.

Yeah! Me too! May you all fuck off, theist & atheist. Hoping this simple little message doesn't cause anyone a brain clot.

[thedoc]

I miss Hobbes' nail-hitting. It's jolly inconsiderate when interesting posters disappear without so much as a by your leave.

FYI, members do not need your permission to stop posting.

Oh really? I wish you would learn to not be so literal.

Who da' thought, what you post is not what you mean. But then you're a woman, you never post what you really mean.