Christianity

[henry quirk]

False dichotomies in red.

How is any of this...

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.

...false? Please, be specific.

I wish I could be specific but we don't seem to speak the same language or something. You don't seem to understand what I say and I can't understand why you can't understand me. I mean, I can understand where you're coming from. I used to be that way before I got an education. Otherwise, *I don't know where to begin.

I guess we could start with foreigners are people too. Maybe that would be a good start?

*It shouldn't be difficult for an educated man. Start with this: Morality is not opinion becuz...

[Gary Childress]

Now you need to back that assertion. If morality is not just opinion then its fact. Without God, what undergirds morality as fact?

If you don't behave morally, then you and others around you may pay for your actions. How about that, Henry. Does that help?

Not really. All you're saying is: if, in the opinion of other folks, you're doin' wrong then they may take you to task.

OK. If you shoot a guy's beloved dog, are you going to argue with him that it's just his "opinion" that you did him wrong when he comes looking for you? If you steal one of his possessions and he tries to take it back, are you going to tell him it's just your "opinion" that you can't have his possession as your possession? Where is the FOUNDATION for your amoral behavior?

[henry quirk]

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

You can't ask a machine why it does what it does, Gary. Even the vaunted AI can only regurgitate. It can't assess, muse, consider or conclude.

You can't ask a person in a coma either. Should we assume they're "machines"?

If you mean human when you say person, then no, they're not meat machines.

[Gary Childress]

How is any of this...

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.

...false? Please, be specific.

I wish I could be specific but we don't seem to speak the same language or something. You don't seem to understand what I say and I can't understand why you can't understand me. I mean, I can understand where you're coming from. I used to be that way before I got an education. Otherwise, *I don't know where to begin.

I guess we could start with foreigners are people too. Maybe that would be a good start?

*It shouldn't be difficult for an educated man. Start with this: Morality is not opinion becuz...

See above.

[Gary Childress]

You can't ask a machine why it does what it does, Gary. Even the vaunted AI can only regurgitate. It can't assess, muse, consider or conclude.

You can't ask a person in a coma either. Should we assume they're "machines"?

If you mean human when you say person, then no, they're not meat machines.

Animals aren't "MACHINES" either! OMG! It's like you just want to be difficult. You cannot possibly listen to anything I say, can you?

[henry quirk]

If you don't behave morally, then you and others around you may pay for your actions. How about that, Henry. Does that help?

Not really. All you're saying is: if, in the opinion of other folks, you're doin' wrong then they may take you to task.

OK. If you shoot a guy's beloved dog, are you going to argue with him that it's just his "opinion" that you did him wrong when he comes looking for you? If you steal one of his possessions and he tries to take it back, are you going to tell him it's just your "opinion" that you can't have his possession as your possession? Where is the FOUNDATION for your amoral behavior?

I'm a moral realist. If I shoot that man's dog for any reason outside of self-defense/defense of another, I've taken and destroyed unjustly that which is not mine. I would be wrong, not as a matter of opinion, but objectively, factually.

EDIT: added a word for clarity.

[Lacewing]

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?

Well, you need to define what you mean by "programming."

To create and/or follow programs of human behavior and belief, consciously or unconsciously, in cooperation with others, or as an individual. Try not to limit yourself to the idea of 'computer programming', and recognize how human beings are 'programmed' in all sorts of ways too. Then you can expand on that to realize that we do it to ourselves, as well... as I describe below.

But if it's done by a "self" and to yourself, then it's not actually "programming."

We program ourselves all the time by repeating certain beliefs and ideas, and only accepting supporting claims of those. We can program ourselves in what to think, how to feel, what behaviors and habits to follow, etc. Therapy is used to help people reprogram themselves.
https://arootah.com/blog/health-and-wel ... ious-mind/

It bears no resemblance to what a computer does because computers have no self-awareness

So you think self-awareness prevents people from being programmed?

because computers have no self-awareness, and no volition. They can only do what they are programmed to do

I'm not suggesting humans are computers. It's easiest to see human programming in action when you look at groups, cults, religions, politics, etc. People become (and allow themselves to be) programmed to only hear and process certain information. They become pawns for the 'programmers'. They'll think and do things they otherwise wouldn't.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... %20another.

[Gary Childress]

Not really. All you're saying is: if, in the opinion of other folks, you're doin' wrong then they may take you to task.

OK. If you shoot a guy's beloved dog, are you going to argue with him that it's just his "opinion" that you did him wrong when he comes looking for you? If you steal one of his possessions and he tries to take it back, are you going to tell him it's just your "opinion" that you can't have his possession as your possession? Where is the FOUNDATION for your amoral behavior?

I'm a moral realist. If I shoot that man's dog for any reason outside of self-defense/defense of another, I've taken and destroyed that which is not mine. I would be wrong, not as a matter of opinion, but objectively, factually.

OK. Most venomous snakes apparently don't strike a human unless they feel threatened. Are they "moral realists" too?

[henry quirk]

You can't ask a person in a coma either. Should we assume they're "machines"?

If you mean human when you say person, then no, they're not meat machines.

Animals aren't "MACHINES" either! OMG! It's like you just want to be difficult. You cannot possibly listen to anything I say, can you?

I won't abandon a perfectly apt metaphor -- meat machine -- becuz you don't like it. You know what I mean when I say meat machine, so why are you focusin' on that instead of the topic?

[henry quirk]

OK. If you shoot a guy's beloved dog, are you going to argue with him that it's just his "opinion" that you did him wrong when he comes looking for you? If you steal one of his possessions and he tries to take it back, are you going to tell him it's just your "opinion" that you can't have his possession as your possession? Where is the FOUNDATION for your amoral behavior?

I'm a moral realist. If I shoot that man's dog for any reason outside of self-defense/defense of another, I've taken and destroyed that which is not mine. I would be wrong, not as a matter of opinion, but objectively, factually.

OK. Most venomous snakes apparently don't strike a human unless they feel threatened. Are they "moral realists" too?

Are snakes people? No, they're not. They strike becuz that's what they do. They don't choose to strike. It's instinct. They're not free wills, they're *ahem* meat machines.

[henry quirk]

I wish I could be specific but we don't seem to speak the same language or something. You don't seem to understand what I say and I can't understand why you can't understand me. I mean, I can understand where you're coming from. I used to be that way before I got an education. Otherwise, *I don't know where to begin.

I guess we could start with foreigners are people too. Maybe that would be a good start?

*It shouldn't be difficult for an educated man. Start with this: Morality is not opinion becuz...

See above.

Please, Gary, I don't see it. Be kind and restate it.

[henry quirk]

Is this it?

Why is the idea that morality must be opinion or fact irk you? If you have a third option, I'd like to hear it.

The third option is that there is no God and morality is not just "opinion".

If there is no God, no moral arbiter, then how can morality not be opinion?

[Gary Childress]

*It shouldn't be difficult for an educated man. Start with this: Morality is not opinion becuz...

See above.

Please, Gary, I don't see it. Be kind and restate it.

You saw it and merely answered that you wouldn't do something immoral. You seem to think that morality isn't possible without God. I suppose the rest of us should hope there is a God in that case (unless we want to sleep with one eye open all the time). I'd hate to think what you would do if you thought there wasn't a God.

[Gary Childress]

Is this it?

Why is the idea that morality must be opinion or fact irk you? If you have a third option, I'd like to hear it.

The third option is that there is no God and morality is not just "opinion".

If there is no God, no moral arbiter, then how can morality not be opinion?

In your world, with your "education" apparently it cannot be otherwise. In mine, it's different. But I'm no teacher. Just a (mostly) ordinary person.

[Immanuel Can]

Then how much better than atheists are you?

Like them, I'm a normal human being, actually, no "better" than anybody else, and plausibly worse in some ways, maybe. But we don't need to judge a person in order to judge a creed. And that's what we're doing: we're talking about Atheism, and what makes sense in harmony with it, and what doesn't. We have no need to criticize particular people, but we certainly can criticize their belief system.

That's fair. After all, the one thing they set out to do, by their own declaration, is to criticize faith. If they can't take it, they probably shouldn't have come out swinging in the first place, right?

OK.

1. The Bible is full of a lot of things that never really happened. Can we agree?

Not really: but I have no reason to doubt your word that your "clergy," whomever they were, may have misrepresented some things. That's possible.

2. Any human being is capable of demonstrating moral awareness regardless of whether they believe there is a God or not. Can we agree?

Awareness? Yes. We all have a conscience -- even those of us who cannot really account for it. But of having a reasonable account of why they should be moral? No.