Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

But an Atheist still has zero reason to believe his conscience is telling him anything real...especially if he tells himself that his morality is merely subjective and personal. Reason would tell him to override that, and do whatever he wants.

If you were an atheist, then you might be able to speak for them, but you're not.

The opposite is true. If I were an Atheist, I'd be being fooled by the same illusion of self-creation and self-sufficiency that they suffer under, and I'd have nothing to offer them by way of something better.

Most people I meet in Chuch are nice, however, I just can't get past the stack of assumptions the clergy read.

I don't quite understand this sentence: "...the stack of assumptions the clergy read?" Can you explain what you mean? Maybe you can even give an example?

[Gary Childress]

But an Atheist still has zero reason to believe his conscience is telling him anything real...especially if he tells himself that his morality is merely subjective and personal. Reason would tell him to override that, and do whatever he wants.

If you were an atheist, then you might be able to speak for them, but you're not.

The opposite is true. If I were an Atheist, I'd be being fooled by the same illusion of self-creation and self-sufficiency that they suffer under, and I'd have nothing to offer them by way of something better.

Most people I meet in Chuch are nice, however, I just can't get past the stack of assumptions the clergy read.

I don't quite understand this sentence: "...the stack of assumptions the clergy read?" Can you explain what you mean? Maybe you can even give an example?

Assumptions in the Bible:

God created the world in 7 days.
God created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs.
God killed everyone in a flood.
God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.
God told the Israelites to commit genocide against another tribe.
Jesus was God incarnate
Jesus is in heaven
That anyone at all is in either heaven or hell.
Jesus is the one true and only way to heaven.

Run some more passages from the Bible by me and I can expand that list if you want.

And YES, you have no idea what you are talking about when you make your generalizations about Atheists.

[henry quirk]

No life form is a "machine".

You've misunderstood the Naturalistic and Materialistic arguments, Gary. According to them, that's exactly what an animal is: a series of physical relays and levers inside a skin. No more. And man is just one of those.

It has no soul or spirit, and is entirely a product of physical causality, and at the command of the physical-causal chain...and nothing else. It may be made up of "meat" rather than metal, but that is, for them, the only distinguishing feature; other than that, it's just a machine. So Henry's usage, while blunt, is totally apt for what they actually believe.

Where are you on that? If you protest that human beings are more than "machines made of meat," then exactly what "more" are they?

I'm not a "naturalist" or "materialist". What is with you and condemning people who are skeptical of whether there is a God to amoralism? This is a gambit you play just to coerce people to your view. *There is no evidence that there cannot be morality without a diety. If you were honest, you'd admit it. Or perhaps you're just ignorant? Is that it?

*Without a moral arbiter, your morality is just opinion becuz without a moral arbiter the only measure of what is right or wrong is opinion which can be personal (your own) or public (culture, etc.).

I don't get why you balk at this. You can't deny God's existence but then claim morality is anything but opinion.

Without God morality is just opinion. Without God my morality is just opinion. Without God Mannie's morality is just opinion. Without God your morality is just opinion.

With God morality has an objective ground. It's real, like a camp fire is real, and like a camp fire, your denying its exstance has no bearing on its existence. And like a campfire, it'll burn you if you ignore it or deny it.

Opinion or fact: morality must be one or the other. There's no middle ground.

[Gary Childress]

You've misunderstood the Naturalistic and Materialistic arguments, Gary. According to them, that's exactly what an animal is: a series of physical relays and levers inside a skin. No more. And man is just one of those.

It has no soul or spirit, and is entirely a product of physical causality, and at the command of the physical-causal chain...and nothing else. It may be made up of "meat" rather than metal, but that is, for them, the only distinguishing feature; other than that, it's just a machine. So Henry's usage, while blunt, is totally apt for what they actually believe.

Where are you on that? If you protest that human beings are more than "machines made of meat," then exactly what "more" are they?

I'm not a "naturalist" or "materialist". What is with you and condemning people who are skeptical of whether there is a God to amoralism? This is a gambit you play just to coerce people to your view. *There is no evidence that there cannot be morality without a diety. If you were honest, you'd admit it. Or perhaps you're just ignorant? Is that it?

*Without a moral arbiter, your morality is just opinion becuz without a moral arbiter the only measure of what is right or wrong is opinion which can be personal (your own) or public (culture, etc.).

I don't get why you balk at this. You can't deny God's existence but then claim morality is anything but opinion.

Without God morality is just opinion. Without God my morality is just opinion. Without God Mannie's morality is just opinion. Without God your morality is just opinion.

With God morality has an objective ground. It's real, like a camp fire is real, and like a camp fire, your denying its exstance has no bearing on its existence. And like a campfire, it'll burn you if you ignore it or deny it.

Opinion or fact: morality must be one or the other. There's no middle ground.

Sorry, no bananas here, Henry. Strawmen and fallacies belong in another forum.

[henry quirk]

Programming is just programming. It comes from outside the machine, without its permission, and controls everything it does.

Maybe you're only considering an archaic concept of programming. Are you unaware that you program yourself all the time?

I make choices and commit. Thats not programming in the sense I or Mannie mean.

[henry quirk]

You've misunderstood the Naturalistic and Materialistic arguments, Gary. According to them, that's exactly what an animal is: a series of physical relays and levers inside a skin. No more. And man is just one of those.

It has no soul or spirit, and is entirely a product of physical causality, and at the command of the physical-causal chain...and nothing else. It may be made up of "meat" rather than metal, but that is, for them, the only distinguishing feature; other than that, it's just a machine. So Henry's usage, while blunt, is totally apt for what they actually believe.

Where are you on that? If you protest that human beings are more than "machines made of meat," then exactly what "more" are they?

I'm not a "naturalist" or "materialist".

That's fine. But if Henry was talking to people who think like that, obviously: which means he got the implications of their beliefs exactly right when he characterized them as he did.

And I never mentioned naturalism and have only, in this current conversation, brushed up against materialism.

I'm simply pointing out what is obvious: if there is no God, morality is just opinion. I keep waiting for someone to counter, but they don't.

[Gary Childress]

Programming is just programming. It comes from outside the machine, without its permission, and controls everything it does.

Maybe you're only considering an archaic concept of programming. Are you unaware that you program yourself all the time?

I make choices and commit. Thats not programming in the sense I or Mannie mean.

I think you just need to lose the prejudice that no one can have the right morality unless they read the exact same books and believe in the same exact God (or one at all) that you and Manny do. You might make more friends that way and scare fewer people away. Of course, maybe that's the whole point. I guess that's where xenophobia comes into play.

[Gary Childress]

I'm not a "naturalist" or "materialist".

That's fine. But if Henry was talking to people who think like that, obviously: which means he got the implications of their beliefs exactly right when he characterized them as he did.

And I never mentioned naturalism and have only, in this current conversation, brushed up against materialism.

I'm simply pointing out what is obvious: if there is no God, morality is just opinion. I keep waiting for someone to counter, but they don't.

Here you go, then. MORALITY IS NOT JUST OPINION. Does that help?

[henry quirk]

I'm not sure ANYONE thinks that they can do whatever they want if there is no God. But if that's the case, then yes, I disagree with "naturalists".

Did any of us moral realists say subjectivists or atheists think they can do whatever they want?

I sure didn't.

[henry quirk]

No life form is a "machine". "Machines" are made of inanimate matter that aren't sentient or conscious and generally serve the needs of living beings. Hence the reason for the existence of the study of philosophy of mind--trying determine (among many things) whether computers can be sentient or conscious. You're stuck in a category error with that kind of language.

It's a metaphor, Gary. A meat machine, like a machine, lacks free will (is not a free will) and has no moral responsibility.

It's not clear to me that other living beings lack free will completely. Perhaps they work in different frames of mind but *even most predators don't kill just because they can, usually it's out of fear or survival need.

*That's right. They kill becuz it's what they do to defend and to eat. Only man kills for other reasons. And only man can choose to not kill even if the choice hurts him. Man can choose. The shark or bear or eagle cannot.

[Gary Childress]

I'm not sure ANYONE thinks that they can do whatever they want if there is no God. But if that's the case, then yes, I disagree with "naturalists".

Did any of us moral realists say subjectivists or atheists think they can do whatever they want?

I sure didn't.

You're no more a "moral realist" than anyone else, Henry (if the opposite is to be a moral unrealist or nonrealist). Stop pretending to be something you're not. Go stroke your gun for awhile if it'll make you happier.

[henry quirk]

I'm not a "naturalist" or "materialist". What is with you and condemning people who are skeptical of whether there is a God to amoralism? This is a gambit you play just to coerce people to your view. *There is no evidence that there cannot be morality without a diety. If you were honest, you'd admit it. Or perhaps you're just ignorant? Is that it?

*Without a moral arbiter, your morality is just opinion becuz without a moral arbiter the only measure of what is right or wrong is opinion which can be personal (your own) or public (culture, etc.).

I don't get why you balk at this. You can't deny God's existence but then claim morality is anything but opinion.

Without God morality is just opinion. Without God my morality is just opinion. Without God Mannie's morality is just opinion. Without God your morality is just opinion.

With God morality has an objective ground. It's real, like a camp fire is real, and like a camp fire, your denying its exstance has no bearing on its existence. And like a campfire, it'll burn you if you ignore it or deny it.

Opinion or fact: morality must be one or the other. There's no middle ground.

Sorry, no bananas here, Henry. Strawmen and fallacies belong in another forum.

Please, point out the strawmen and fallacies.

[Immanuel Can]

If you were an atheist, then you might be able to speak for them, but you're not.

The opposite is true. If I were an Atheist, I'd be being fooled by the same illusion of self-creation and self-sufficiency that they suffer under, and I'd have nothing to offer them by way of something better.

Most people I meet in Chuch are nice, however, I just can't get past the stack of assumptions the clergy read.

I don't quite understand this sentence: "...the stack of assumptions the clergy read?" Can you explain what you mean? Maybe you can even give an example?

Assumptions in the Bible:

Thanks for the examples: some of them are what the Bible actually claims, and some not. But I take your point, if you think the "clergy," whoever they are, is asserting them, and you don't wish to believe them. That would frustrate you.

And YES, you have no idea what you are talking about when you make your generalizations about Atheists.

I do, for two reasons: one, I know a lot of Atheists, and talk to a lot; and they write, and they post, and they love to say what they believe in all kinds of forms; two, Atheism itself is dead simple, since it is only a one-premise belief. So it's really, really easy for anybody to see what rationalizes with Atheism, and what does not.

Sorry. It's just not that hard.

[Gary Childress]

It's a metaphor, Gary. A meat machine, like a machine, lacks free will (is not a free will) and has no moral responsibility.

It's not clear to me that other living beings lack free will completely. Perhaps they work in different frames of mind but *even most predators don't kill just because they can, usually it's out of fear or survival need.

*That's right. They kill becuz it's what they do to defend and to eat. Only man kills for other reasons. And only man can choose to not kill even if the choice hurts him. Man can choose. The shark or bear or eagle cannot.

How do you know? How would you even ask a shark or bear why they kill something?

[Gary Childress]

Sorry. It's just not that hard.

Indeed, you seem to have little difficulty at all pegging full human beings into your limited belief system. It's as easy as "us" and "them". Sorry, I grew out of that a long time ago. Wish I could regress but once one comes out into the light, it's much more refreshing and impossible to want to go back.