Is morality objective or subjective?

[Atla]

The relationship between countries' belief in a god and national average IQ.

[Harbal]

God just isn't a big deal to the average person, even if they believe in him.

In the West, that might be so...worldwide, and historically, it's very far from the average.

If somebody said to me, "There's a huge lion in my bedroom, but it's just isn't a big deal to me," I'd still think they're smarter than somebody who says, "I just don't bother to think about God."

Well I don't have a huge lion in my bedroom, so my lack of concern seems reasonable, and I don't believe God exists, so what would be smart about my spending time thinking about him?

The thing is, when people get passionate about religion, no good ever comes of it.

That's such a funny belief...and again, it can only be sustained by knowing nothing about history, really.

In point of fact, religions have had varying effects on people; but Christianity in particular, and Judaism as well, despite their imperfections, have had overwhelmingly positive effects on human history.

I don't know how true that is, but it isn't relevant. My comment was about religion being taken too far; when people become obsessed with it. It's not good for them, and it certainly isn't good for everyone else.

I want you to try something: Just for one week, see if you can spend less time thinking about God, and definitely less time talking about him. If at the end of the week you don't feel inspired to carry on until you hardly think of God at all, you can just go back to your unhealthy preoccupation with him. How about it?

[Immanuel Can]

God just isn't a big deal to the average person, even if they believe in him.

In the West, that might be so...worldwide, and historically, it's very far from the average.

If somebody said to me, "There's a huge lion in my bedroom, but it's just isn't a big deal to me," I'd still think they're smarter than somebody who says, "I just don't bother to think about God."

Well I don't have a huge lion in my bedroom, so my lack of concern seems reasonable, and I don't believe God exists, so what would be smart about my spending time thinking about him?

Is not one always better to have a grip on how things really are, rather than to pretend they aren't that way? And if God will call all men to account, is it not a service to anybody to point that out before the accounting comes?

The thing is, when people get passionate about religion, no good ever comes of it.

That's such a funny belief...and again, it can only be sustained by knowing nothing about history, really.

In point of fact, religions have had varying effects on people; but Christianity in particular, and Judaism as well, despite their imperfections, have had overwhelmingly positive effects on human history.

I don't know how true that is, but it isn't relevant. My comment was about religion being taken too far; when people become obsessed with it. It's not good for them, and it certainly isn't good for everyone else.

"Taken too far?" Can one be "too loving," or "too charitable," or "too sacrificial" or "too stable," or "too realistic," or "too unselfish," or "too committed to the welfare of others"? Maybe. But we'll see how that goes.

I want you to try something: Just for one week, see if you can spend less time thinking about God, and definitely less time talking about him. If at the end of the week you don't feel inspired to carry on until you hardly think of God at all, you can just go back to your unhealthy preoccupation with him. How about it?

There was a time when I thought little about God. In retrospect, those years were quite wasted. I have no more desire to waste my time, or yours, or anybody else's.

What you will find, if you dare to look, is that Atheism has absolutely no answer to very important questions, such as the question of the existence of evil. I went looking, very seriously, for something that would respond to this concern, and found that all the secular routes to an answer were not merely dusty but absolutely bankrupt. Thus, it was the existential bankruptcy of Atheism that ultimately drove me to seek Christ. In Him, I found the answers Atheism never had, and the peace I could not find in the world. And you suggest that as an experiment, I try to pretend the the dusty is thirst-quenching and the bankrupt is not bankrupt?

No, I don't need a return to that. And there'd be no profit whatsoever in me doing so. I've seen what the experience of an Atheist has to offer, and it sure isn't enough.

[promethean75]

One night IC dreamed a dream. He was walking along the beach with his Lord. Across the dark sky flashed scenes from his life. For each scene, he noticed two sets of footprints in the sand, one belonging to him and one to his Lord.

When the last scene of his life shot before him he looked back at the footprints in the sand. There was only one set of footprints. He realized that this was at the lowest and saddest times of his life. This always bothered him and he questioned the Lord about his dilemma.

"Lord, You told me when I decided to follow You, You would walk and talk with me all the way. But I'm aware that during the most troublesome times of my life there is only one set of footprints. I just don't understand why, when I need You most, You leave me. Especially when that asshole Iambiguous won't shut the fuck up on the forum."

He whispered, "My precious IC, I love you and will never leave you, never, ever, during your trials and testings. When you saw only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you."

Footprints In The Sand. Isn't that a great allegory tho? I mean it's all nonsense but you're like damn that WAS deep, bro.

[promethean75]

Wait just a damn minute. I just noticed something. U said u turned to Christianity becuz u felt atheism was morally bankrupt. Are u suggesting that in the event that u stayed with atheism and, for whatever reason, didn't feel morally bankrupt, u wouldn't have turned to Christianity?

So the only reason u believe in god is becuz it makes u feel better?

Unbelievable. There's a special place in hell for selfish people like u, manny. I hope u know that.

[bahman]

Yes, that entity, whatever you like to call it is the uncaused cause.

Right. Fine. We're agreed. Next step.

But now, we have to ask an obvious next question: namely, what IS that Entity? To answer that, we'd have to resort to a kind of explanation that is called, "argument to the best explanation," meaning, "choosing the most likely of various alternatives, rather than being able to say in an absolute way."

That's because absolute proof would require us to be present at the beginning of the universe...and we weren't. So we're making a sort of best-estimate, based on what evidence we do have access to.

Fair enough?

Yes, it is fair.

What is the next IC?

[Immanuel Can]

Wait just a damn minute. I just noticed something. U said u turned to Christianity becuz u felt atheism was morally bankrupt. Are u suggesting that in the event that u stayed with atheism and, for whatever reason, didn't feel morally bankrupt, u wouldn't have turned to Christianity?

No. Nobody can say the "would have," because it didn't happen. But what I CAN say is that it was the total failure of Atheism that made it impossible for me to rest there. Had Atheism been capable of answering the questions I had, maybe I would not have looked further; but maybe I would have, anyway. I can only tell you what DID happen, and WHY it happened that way. Had I been a person who was content not to think and not to ask serious questions, I might have become like so many, who don't press those sorts of questions logically, and satisfy themselves with less-than-thorough asking.

Who can say?

So the only reason u believe in god is becuz it makes u feel better?

No. But I certainly do feel better. What makes that happen, though, is the depth of satisfaction of knowing God and of having such questions put into proper perspective. And that's no small benefit.

Unbelievable. There's a special place in hell for selfish people like u, manny. I hope u know that.

We're all naturally selfish, Prom. It's only Christ that can save us from that. And it's no just the selfish that deserve Hell...it's the dishonest, the lustful, the greedy, the God-hating, the cruel, the covetous...and somewhere in there, among those descriptors, all of us will find ourselves. That's why we all know we need saving...we aren't what we should be, and we all can't face what we deserve. Without rescue, there's no hope, because none of us has the intrinsic perfection we need in order to become fit companions of a holy God. So if He doesn't rescue us, you can be sure that what you say of me is true of us all...even the "best" of us.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This is an excerpt from Chapter 33 of of The 10-Week “Wack-the-Zealous-Mole” Email Course:

Revelation — L.F. Clauss calls the Oriental race “revelation men” — the forming of religions through a prophet, the excitability and impulsiveness of the faithful for the revealed faith, are all phenomena which do not prosper in the realm of Indo-European religiosity.

Faith in itself cannot be an Indo-European value, but it is certainly a value for men of Oriental (desert land) races. Goethe in his introductory poem to the Westöstlichen Divan typified the over-excess and excitedness of Oriental faith and the lack of thought corresponding to such excess, being all “Broad belief and narrow thought”.

Excitedness for a belief, excitedness over an urge to convert, the mission to “unbelievers” the assertion that one's own belief alone could make one blessed, an excitedness, further, which expresses itself in hatred towards other Gods and persecution of their believers: such excited rage or fanaticism has repeatedly emanated from tribes of predominantly Oriental race and from the religious life of such tribes.

Eduard Meyer, in his Geschichte des Alterums (1907,Part I, Book I, p. 385), has even spoken of the brutal cruelty, which has distinguished the religious spirit of peoples of Semitic language.

[Immanuel Can]

Right. Fine. We're agreed. Next step.

But now, we have to ask an obvious next question: namely, what IS that Entity? To answer that, we'd have to resort to a kind of explanation that is called, "argument to the best explanation," meaning, "choosing the most likely of various alternatives, rather than being able to say in an absolute way."

That's because absolute proof would require us to be present at the beginning of the universe...and we weren't. So we're making a sort of best-estimate, based on what evidence we do have access to.

Fair enough?

Yes, it is fair.

What is the next IC?

Well, what about coming up with plausible alternatives? What "entity" or "Entity" could we propose as the First Cause of all things? God, obviously...but what else? What could this eternal, uncaused "force" be, whereby all things that exist came into existence, and joined the causal chain we observe around us?

What would you suggest as other candidates?

[bahman]

Yes, it is fair.

What is the next IC?

Well, what about coming up with plausible alternatives? What "entity" or "Entity" could we propose as the First Cause of all things? God, obviously...but what else? What could this eternal, uncaused "force" be, whereby all things that exist came into existence, and joined the causal chain we observe around us?

What would you suggest as other candidates?

We have two options: (1) What physicists call the singularity, an entity that is uncaused cause and exists at the beginning, and 2) God, who is uncaused cause who created the singularity.

By the way, we have to accept (1) if we strive on Occam's razor but let's put it aside for a moment.

[Immanuel Can]

What is the next IC?

Well, what about coming up with plausible alternatives? What "entity" or "Entity" could we propose as the First Cause of all things? God, obviously...but what else? What could this eternal, uncaused "force" be, whereby all things that exist came into existence, and joined the causal chain we observe around us?

What would you suggest as other candidates?

We have two options: (1) What physicists call the singularity, an entity that is uncaused cause and exists at the beginning, and 2) God, who is uncaused cause who created the singularity.

By the way, we have to accept (1) if we strive on Occam's razor but let's put it aside for a moment.

We don't, actually. Occam's Razor is not a hard-and-fast principle: it doesn't mean that the simpler explanation IS ALWAYS the only possible right one. But besides that, there needs to be a demonstration that believing in "the Singularity" is genuinely "simpler" (in the relevant sense of that word) than believing in God...and that's not been shown, and certainly isn't automatically obvious.

However, as you say, let's put that to one side, for the moment.

You're right: there are essentially two options, I think. One is obviously the Supreme Being (and we can leave aside, for a few moments, what sort of Being He is, and just say, "some intelligent, purpose-having, personal entity of some kind," maybe). The other is that some non-intelligent "force" did it.

But we should explore that alternate possibility: what would this so-called "singularity" or non-intelligent "force" be? It would have to be eternal, uncaused, and capable of producing the universe we see around us, with all its complexity, and its laws, and its regularities, and its people. What can we propose that can do that?

[Harbal]

Well I don't have a huge lion in my bedroom, so my lack of concern seems reasonable, and I don't believe God exists, so what would be smart about my spending time thinking about him?

Is not one always better to have a grip on how things really are, rather than to pretend they aren't that way?

Yes, so when you don't see a huge lion in your bedroom, and you don't see lion paw prints on the carpet, and your teddy bear remains completely unsavaged, why would the thought of a lion even enter your head? I know someone famously inferred that the absence of a lion in the bedroom pointed to its being somewhere beyond the back of the wardrobe, but I don't have that sort of imagination. I can't say that never does happen, of course, only that it never seems to happen with Ikea wardrobes. So I do agree it is better to have a grip on reality, rather than pretend things are there when they are not.

And if God will call all men to account, is it not a service to anybody to point that out before the accounting comes?

No, it isn't a service, and it soon becomes tedious when someone persistently does it.

I don't know how true that is, but it isn't relevant. My comment was about religion being taken too far; when people become obsessed with it. It's not good for them, and it certainly isn't good for everyone else.

"Taken too far?" Can one be "too loving," or "too charitable," or "too sacrificial" or "too stable," or "too realistic," or "too unselfish," or "too committed to the welfare of others"? Maybe. But we'll see how that goes.

It's strange you should list a collection of qualities that are typically lacking in over religious types. From what I've seen they tend to be rather harsh and severe people. Condemnation and inciting hostility seem to be their main interests. Condemning people for being gay, for having abortions, and even for engaging in sexual activity. What is loving or charitable about trying to turn people against one another? Only a few pages back you stated that people in sexual relationships were wanting to commit "evil". That's an atrocious attitude, yet you seem to think it is righteous and praiseworthy. Think of evangelistic preachers and Youtubers; you couldn't find more horrible people.

What you will find, if you dare to look, is that Atheism has absolutely no answer to very important questions,

What has atheism got to do with answering important questions? Atheism isn't a system of thought. Logic, critical thinking and common sense are things that you need to answer questions.

such as the question of the existence of evil.

And what is evil; some malevolent entity or power that infects people with the desire to inflict misery for its own sake? No, that is superstitious hogwash. When people do "bad" things, the reason lies in their psychology, and it needs to be understood as such and addressed from a position of knowledge, not just written off as "evil". Do you propose we abolish psychiatry and recruit lots of exorcists?

I went looking, very seriously, for something that would respond to this concern, and found that all the secular routes to an answer were not merely dusty but absolutely bankrupt. Thus, it was the existential bankruptcy of Atheism that ultimately drove me to seek Christ. In Him, I found the answers Atheism never had,

And what does Christ say we should do to solve the problem of murderers, rapists and paedophiles? Perhaps we could pray them away.

Thus, it was the existential bankruptcy of Atheism that ultimately drove me to seek Christ. In Him, I found the answers Atheism never had, and the peace I could not find in the world. And you suggest that as an experiment, I try to pretend the the dusty is thirst-quenching and the bankrupt is not bankrupt?

No, I don't need a return to that. And there'd be no profit whatsoever in me doing so. I've seen what the experience of an Atheist has to offer, and it sure isn't enough.

I don't know what made me suggest it; I remember thinking what a silly idea it was when someone once suggested something along the same lines to me.

[Harbal]

We have two options: (1) What physicists call the singularity, an entity that is uncaused cause and exists at the beginning, and 2) God, who is uncaused cause who created the singularity.

By the way, we have to accept (1) if we strive on Occam's razor but let's put it aside for a moment.

We don't, actually. Occam's Razor is not a hard-and-fast principle: it doesn't mean that the simpler explanation IS ALWAYS the only possible right one. But besides that, there needs to be a demonstration that believing in "the Singularity" is genuinely "simpler" (in the relevant sense of that word) than believing in God...and that's not been shown, and certainly isn't automatically obvious.

However, as you say, let's put that to one side, for the moment.

You're right: there are essentially two options, I think. One is obviously the Supreme Being (and we can leave aside, for a few moments, what sort of Being He is, and just say, "some intelligent, purpose-having, personal entity of some kind," maybe). The other is that some non-intelligent "force" did it.

But we should explore that alternate possibility: what would this so-called "singularity" or non-intelligent "force" be? It would have to be eternal, uncaused, and capable of producing the universe we see around us, with all its complexity, and its laws, and its regularities, and its people. What can we propose that can do that?

I wonder how this story will end; I really can't imagine.

[bahman]

Well, what about coming up with plausible alternatives? What "entity" or "Entity" could we propose as the First Cause of all things? God, obviously...but what else? What could this eternal, uncaused "force" be, whereby all things that exist came into existence, and joined the causal chain we observe around us?

What would you suggest as other candidates?

We have two options: (1) What physicists call the singularity, an entity that is uncaused cause and exists at the beginning, and 2) God, who is uncaused cause who created the singularity.

By the way, we have to accept (1) if we strive on Occam's razor but let's put it aside for a moment.

We don't, actually. Occam's Razor is not a hard-and-fast principle: it doesn't mean that the simpler explanation IS ALWAYS the only possible right one. But besides that, there needs to be a demonstration that believing in "the Singularity" is genuinely "simpler" (in the relevant sense of that word) than believing in God...and that's not been shown, and certainly isn't automatically obvious.

However, as you say, let's put that to one side, for the moment.

You're right: there are essentially two options, I think. One is obviously the Supreme Being (and we can leave aside, for a few moments, what sort of Being He is, and just say, "some intelligent, purpose-having, personal entity of some kind," maybe). The other is that some non-intelligent "force" did it.

But we should explore that alternate possibility: what would this so-called "singularity" or non-intelligent "force" be? It would have to be eternal, uncaused, and capable of producing the universe we see around us, with all its complexity, and its laws, and its regularities, and its people. What can we propose that can do that?

The singularity according to physicists/cosmologists is a very dense form of energy that existed at the beginning. It is not eternal. The singularity cools down as it expands, so we could have elementary particles and such. I studied cosmology 30 years ago so I am rusty. But that is how physicists/cosmologists believe that things evolved. You can help yourself here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

[Immanuel Can]

Well I don't have a huge lion in my bedroom, so my lack of concern seems reasonable, and I don't believe God exists, so what would be smart about my spending time thinking about him?

Is not one always better to have a grip on how things really are, rather than to pretend they aren't that way?

Yes, so when you don't see a huge lion in your bedroom, and you don't see lion paw prints on the carpet, and your teddy bear remains completely unsavaged, why would the thought of a lion even enter your head? ...I do agree it is better to have a grip on reality, rather than pretend things are there when they are not.

That is also true.

So the only important question is not "What do I want to think about," but rather, "What is true?"

And if God will call all men to account, is it not a service to anybody to point that out before the accounting comes?

No, it isn't a service, and it soon becomes tedious when someone persistently does it.

Tedious or not, it saves lives. And tedious or not, it's the moral obligation of every Christian, and all the more if he cares anything for the welfare of his fellow men.

I don't know how true that is, but it isn't relevant. My comment was about religion being taken too far; when people become obsessed with it. It's not good for them, and it certainly isn't good for everyone else.

"Taken too far?" Can one be "too loving," or "too charitable," or "too sacrificial" or "too stable," or "too realistic," or "too unselfish," or "too committed to the welfare of others"? Maybe. But we'll see how that goes.

It's strange you should list a collection of qualities that are typically lacking in over religious types.

You need to meet a better class of "religious" person, I guess.

Only a few pages back you stated that people in sexual relationships were wanting to commit "evil".

I did not. Sorry that you imagine that. I said that adultery was evil, and even that lusting is evil; but I did not ever criticize "relationships." Check back, and you'll see.

What you will find, if you dare to look, is that Atheism has absolutely no answer to very important questions,

What has atheism got to do with answering important questions? Atheism isn't a system of thought. Logic, critical thinking and common sense are things that you need to answer questions.

Great! Then how does an Atheist, using only critical thinking and common sense, explain the existence of evil? I'm keen to know. All I've been able to find are dusty answers.

such as the question of the existence of evil.

And what is evil;

Yeah...that's one of the old answers I found so dusty. One of the things Atheists do is just try to "define away" evil. But I don't find them consistent in that, because they then often turn around and want to claim that such things as "religious zealotry" or "genocide," or "racism" are....(they struggle for words here, and then choose a synonym to conceal their failure of logic) wrong, bad, nasty, dsyfunctional, naughty, unfortunate, improper, inappropriate, offensive...and so on.

So they know there's evil. They just don't want to talk about it, because they have no conceptual "handles" with which to get any purchase on it.

I don't know what made me suggest it;

An attempt at irony, perhaps?