Christianity

[Harbal]

Everybody's got opinions, of course...and I'm no different.

Neither am I, so I have opted to go with them, rather than those of God and Jesus. For one thing, it will avoid any unpleasant stand offs on the occasions when their opinion conflicts with mine. This is absolutely no comment on who's opinion you should relinquish your autonomy in favour of.

[tillingborn]

Eliminating God from the universe maximizes what they want: moral freedom for humanity, and open license for human manipulation to do anything it wants to do...including through the methods of science, but not at all limited to them. The human race in general wants to believe it has no moral responsibility and will never give account to God, and so that's great incentive for embracing Atheism, and Atheism needs an alternate narrative of how things came about -- absent God, of course. Evolutionism is the flavour of the day.

So we can practice abortion, euthanasia or eugenics, or call men "women," or sexually exploit or even murder our children, or manipulate other people as much as we want, or declare ourselves "masters of our own fate" without fear, or expect the future to bend to our will and none other, if we can only find a way we can bring ourselves to believe there's no God. That's Evolutionism's huge gift -- and curse.

Have you thought this through?

Have you?

Yes and having done so, I can only see two options:
1. If it is only your fear of God that prevents you from doing all those things, you confess to being a dangerous lunatic that needs to be controlled.
2. If you are not a dangerous lunatic, you admit that your sense of morality is independent of God.
As an advocate of the law of the excluded middle, you are committed to one or other choice. Given your reliance on the objectivity of morality as an argument for God, I think you would sooner admit to being a dangerous lunatic than that your fundamental morality is not dependent on the existence of God.

[iambiguous]

1] I continue to make a fool out of him myself
2] I allow him to continue doing that entirely by himself

I think I should have some say in the matter ...Iambiguous: you can get what you want from me not by telling me how I must respond to you, or that I must agree to participate in your peculiar project, but through genuine engagement with the ideas I have.

I'm not telling anyone how to respond to me. I'm merely noting that my own interest in religion and race and morality revolves around attempts to integrate one's theoretical assumptions into actual social, political and economic interactions that unfold between flesh and blood human beings.

I'm suggesting that you choose instead to hide behind words -- theoretical jargon, pedantry -- up in the didactic clouds rather than walk the talk down here on the ground where actual black, brown, red, and yellow folks [Jewish or not] can't help but wonder what exactly you are telling them to expect when those who do walk your talk act out a policy to stem the "democratic crisis" in places like America.

All the rest [with me] is just polemics. My tendency to be provocative derived largely from what I still don't fully understand about myself here:

"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest." John Fowles from The Magus

[Belinda]

Development of the moral sense.

Stage 1 (Obedience and Punishment): The earliest stages of moral development, obedience and punishment are especially common in young children, but adults are also capable of expressing this type of reasoning. According to Kohlberg, people at this stage see rules as fixed and absolute.6 Obeying the rules is important because it is a way to avoid punishment.
Stage 2 (Individualism and Exchange): At the individualism and exchange stage of moral development, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve individual needs. In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of action was the choice that best served Heinz’s needs. Reciprocity is possible at this point in moral development, but only if it serves one's own interests.
Level 2. Conventional Morality
The next period of moral development is marked by the acceptance of social rules regarding what is good and moral. During this time, adolescents and adults internalize the moral standards they have learned from their role models and from society.

This period also focuses on the acceptance of authority and conforming to the norms of the group. There are two stages at this level of morality:

Stage 3 (Developing Good Interpersonal Relationships): Often referred to as the "good boy-good girl" orientation, this stage of the interpersonal relationship of moral development is focused on living up to social expectations and roles.6 There is an emphasis on conformity, being "nice," and consideration of how choices influence relationships.
Stage 4 (Maintaining Social Order): This stage is focused on ensuring that social order is maintained. At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty, and respecting authority.
Level 3. Postconventional Morality
At this level of moral development, people develop an understanding of abstract principles of morality. The two stages at this level are:

Stage 5 (Social Contract and Individual Rights): The ideas of a social contract and individual rights cause people in the next stage to begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people.6 Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards.
Stage 6 (Universal Principles): Kohlberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based on universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.
Kohlberg believed that only a relatively small percentage of people ever reach the post-conventional stages (around 10 to 15%).6 One analysis found that while stages one to four could be seen as universal in populations throughout the world, the fifth and sixth stages were extremely rare in all populations.7

[Immanuel Can]

This is a really good video exploring how evolution and theology could be reconciled. No agenda, no bias. And if you watch to the end, you will be rewarded with the spectacle of a philosopher who bears a suspiciously close resemblance to Count Dracula.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q62GJdhQwZ8

Thanks. I did.

And yes, that's Dracula. The walzing through the graveyard does little to abate that impression.

[Immanuel Can]

There is an atheist creed?

Yes. It has but one essential precept: no god(s).

It's not very brilliant, I'll admit...and not anywhere near enough to inform anything, like a law system, a social institution, or even a personal moral conscience. It doesn't really do much at all, except negation of the positives of others.

That doesn't seem to inhibit its popularity with those whose only bent is on removing God from all consideration. They're not into thinking, but into dismissing. And that, it allows them to do.

That "creed" says nothing about morality.

Not explicitly. But it implies that there can be no grounds for objective moral judgments at all. That's downstream from the basic creed, but it's definitely part of the logical package that follows, as Nietzsche said.

See "The Parable of the Madman." He reveals it quite shockingly there.

[Immanuel Can]

Try this: How does no Atheism follow from no God?

There's no longer anything to deny. So Atheism's one central precept, "no God" becomes an incoherent statement. As you point out, it's like "no fairies." Nobody's a No-Fairyist, and for good reasons...that question is settled and gone. It does not even require denying.

Get it, yet?

[Immanuel Can]

This is absolutely no comment on who's opinion you should relinquish your autonomy in favour of.

I'd never relinquish anything for a mere opinion, whether mine or anybody else's. But God doesn't have "opinions." Only humans do, because "opinion" implies the possibility of a disjuncture between what is thought and what is actually the case: opinions are evaluate by their correspondence to truth, and can be better or worse.

God doesn't have "opinions," even if we take the minimal definition of "Supreme Being." By definition, He would not ever have a disjunction between what He believed to be the case, and what was the case. For Him, they would be identical.

[phyllo]

Yes. It has but one essential precept: no god(s).

It's not very brilliant, I'll admit...and not anywhere near enough to inform anything, like a law system, a social institution, or even a personal moral conscience. It doesn't really do much at all, except negation of the positives of others.

That doesn't seem to inhibit its popularity with those whose only bent is on removing God from all consideration. They're not into thinking, but into dismissing. And that, it allows them to do.

That "creed" says nothing about morality.

Not explicitly. But it implies that there can be no grounds for objective moral judgments at all. That's downstream from the basic creed, but it's definitely part of the logical package that follows, as Nietzsche said.

See "The Parable of the Madman." He reveals it quite shockingly there.

Objective moral judgments only require an agreed standard. It doesn't have to come from a god.

[Immanuel Can]

Have you thought this through?

Have you?

Yes and having done so, I can only see two options:
1. If it is only your...
2. If you...

Straight to the ad hominem. I knew it.

I recognize that as the sign of a person out of answers. When you can't address the subject, try to shoot the messenger; and maybe nobody will notice you didn't really say anything relevant.

[Immanuel Can]

That "creed" says nothing about morality.

Not explicitly. But it implies that there can be no grounds for objective moral judgments at all. That's downstream from the basic creed, but it's definitely part of the logical package that follows, as Nietzsche said.

See "The Parable of the Madman." He reveals it quite shockingly there.

Objective moral judgments only require an agreed standard. It doesn't have to come from a god.

Be cautious here, so as not to make a logical error. I'll go slowly and carefully, because there's an easy mixup here.

There are two ways of speaking about a moral judgment as "objective." They are:

1. It is an objective fact that people have opinions about morality.

2. The opinions they have are objectively right.

You're talkiing about #1. You're just saying that as long as people agree, they have a common determination about a moral matter. But that doesn't show that their common determination is objectively right. It's manifest that large groups of people can arrive at moral determinations that you and I regard as hideous.

I gave you one.

Russians believe they rightfully own Ukraine. It's objective that they hold that belief. (sense 1)

Do you want to grant them sense 2 as well? Do you want to concede that they DO, objectively, have the rightful ownership of Ukraine?

[Harbal]

There's no longer anything to deny. So Atheism's one central precept, "no God" becomes an incoherent statement. As you point out, it's like "no fairies." Nobody's a No-Fairyist, and for good reasons...that question is settled and gone. It does not even require denying.

Even if only for the purpose of usefulness on this forum, what would you suggest for the appropriate terminology for someone who has no religious or spiritual beliefs, and has no particular interest in attacking such beliefs of others, or promoting his own lack of such beliefs?

[Harbal]

This is absolutely no comment on who's opinion you should relinquish your autonomy in favour of.

I'd never relinquish anything for a mere opinion, whether mine or anybody else's. But God doesn't have "opinions." Only humans do, because "opinion" implies the possibility of a disjuncture between what is thought and what is actually the case: opinions are evaluate by their correspondence to truth, and can be better or worse.

God doesn't have "opinions," even if we take the minimal definition of "Supreme Being." By definition, He would not ever have a disjunction between what He believed to be the case, and what was the case. For Him, they would be identical.

How can you possibly know for sure that there is no disjunction between what God believes to be the case and what is the case?

[tillingborn]

Try this: How does no Atheism follow from no God?

There's no longer anything to deny. So Atheism's one central precept, "no God" becomes an incoherent statement. As you point out, it's like "no fairies." Nobody's a No-Fairyist, and for good reasons...that question is settled and gone. It does not even require denying.

Get it, yet?

By which logic evolution exists and you are incoherent for denying it.

[Immanuel Can]

There's no longer anything to deny. So Atheism's one central precept, "no God" becomes an incoherent statement. As you point out, it's like "no fairies." Nobody's a No-Fairyist, and for good reasons...that question is settled and gone. It does not even require denying.

Even if only for the purpose of usefulness on this forum, what would you suggest for the appropriate terminology for someone who has no religious or spiritual beliefs, and has no particular interest in attacking such beliefs of others, or promoting his own lack of such beliefs?

I'd have to say "agnostic." It means "I don't know."

Some people have suggested "apatheist," but that's a dumb term. It implies that the person is actually so utterly clueless that he/she can't even see that the question matters at all. And it's pretty impossible to understand the question, and not to see that it would matter...that's something on which Theists and Atheists all agree.

It would be like saying, "If I have a tiger in my kitchen, I'm apathetic about that fact." We'd really have to doubt the sanity of the person who said it.

So "agnostic" will do. It's at least not insulting to anybody's intellect.