Atheism

madaz said:

I think he means "proof" that the philosophical concept of "cause and effect" can change.
Morality itself is subjective.

Click to expand...

the abolition of man (a book by cs lewis) has a section devoted to morals that are universal throughout culturs. So morality would NOT be subjective with an objective moral standard thats universal.

"The Law of General Beneficence
(a) NEGATIVE

'I have not slain men.' (Ancient Egyptian. From the Confession of the Righteous Soul, 'Book of the Dead', v. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics [= ERE], vol. v, p. 478)

'Do not murder.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:13)

'Terrify not men or God will terrify thee.' (Ancient Egyptian. Precepts of Ptahhetep. H. R. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. i3}n)

'In Nastrond (= Hell) I saw... murderers.' (Old Norse. Volospá 38, 39)

'I have not brought misery upon my fellows. I have not made the beginning of every day laborious in the sight of him who worked for me.' (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)

'I have not been grasping.' (Ancient Egyptian. Ibid.) 'Who meditates oppression, his dwelling is overturned.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

'He who is cruel and calumnious has the character of a cat.' (Hindu. Laws of Manu. Janet, Histoire de la Science Politique, vol. i, p. 6)

'Slander not.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:16)

'Utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded.' (Hindu. Janet, p. 7)

'Has he ... driven an honest man from his family? broken up a well cemented clan?' (Babylonian. List of Sins from incantation tablets. ERE v. 446)

'I have not caused hunger. I have not caused weeping.' (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 478)

'Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects of Confucius, trans. A. Waley, xv. 23; cf. xii. 2)

'Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart.' (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:17)

'He whose heart is in the smallest degree set upon goodness will dislike no one.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, iv. 4)
(b) POSITIVE

'Nature urges that a man should wish human society to exist and should wish to enter it.' (Roman. Cicero, De Officiis, i. iv)

'By the fundamental Law of Nature Man [is] to be preserved as much as possible.' (Locke, Treatises of Civil Govt. ii. 3)

'When the people have multiplied, what next should be done for them? The Master said, Enrich them. Jan Ch'iu said, When one has enriched them, what next should be done for them? The Master said, Instruct them.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, xiii. 9)

'Speak kindness ... show good will.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

'Men were brought into existence for the sake of men that they might do one another good.' (Roman. Cicero. De Off. i. vii)

'Man is man's delight.' (Old Norse. Hávamál 47)

'He who is asked for alms should always give.' (Hindu. Janet, i. 7)

'What good man regards any misfortune as no concern of his?' (Roman. Juvenal xv. 140)

'I am a man: nothing human is alien to me.' (Roman. Terence, Heaut. Tim.)

'Love thy neighbour as thyself.' (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:18)

'Love the stranger as thyself.' (Ancient Jewish. Ibid. 33, 34)

'Do to men what you wish men to do to you.' (Christian. Matthew 7:12)

If anyone who holds to the atheistic, naturalistic, humanistic worldview would like to sincerely engage in a discussion and present a clear, concise, intelligible, logically coherent and consistent defense for their views, I, on behalf of those who hold to the theistic worldview, will attempt to sincerely, logically, systematically, coherently, and humbly set forth for those interested, a framework defending the Christian's worldview regarding some fundamental points that every worldview has the responsibility of cogently dealing with.

I will do so if anyone is truly sincerely seeking to understand our position.

I will not however engage in an argument with someone whose main purpose is to belittle, degrade, ridicule and berate someone who thinks differently than they do. We are all men and women here. At the very least, we can agree to disagree.

I have observed that Christians who are unable to defend their position in a scholarly fashion are often derided as ignorant and superstitious simpletons. So I humbly ask if anyone adhering to the atheistic, naturalistic, humanistic worldview wants to enter into civil dialogue, enter into it with me.

Elioenai26 said:

If anyone who holds to the atheistic, naturalistic, humanistic worldview would like to sincerely engage in a discussion and present a clear, concise, intelligible, logically coherent and consistent defense for their views, I, on behalf of those who hold to the theistic worldview, will attempt to sincerely, logically, systematically, coherently, and humbly set forth for those interested, a framework defending the Christian's worldview regarding some fundamental points that every worldview has the responsibility of cogently dealing with.

I will do so if anyone is truly sincerely seeking to understand our position.

I will not however engage in an argument with someone whose main purpose is to belittle, degrade, ridicule and berate someone who thinks differently than they do. We are all men and women here. At the very least, we can agree to disagree.

I have observed that Christians who are unable to defend their position in a scholarly fashion are often derided as ignorant and superstitious simpletons. So I humbly ask if anyone adhering to the atheistic, naturalistic, humanistic worldview wants to enter into civil dialogue, enter into it with me.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I am an Atheist; and I would be more than happy to enter in such a dialogue. What would you like to discuss?

Ken

Elioenai26 said:

If anyone who holds to the atheistic, naturalistic, humanistic worldview would like to sincerely engage in a discussion and present a clear, concise, intelligible, logically coherent and consistent defense for their views, I, on behalf of those who hold to the theistic worldview, will attempt to sincerely, logically, systematically, coherently, and humbly set forth for those interested, a framework defending the Christian's worldview regarding some fundamental points that every worldview has the responsibility of cogently dealing with.

I will do so if anyone is truly sincerely seeking to understand our position.

Click to expand...

I'd be up for that. However, as it sounds like it would veer towards General Theology, which isn't allowed on CF, there may need to be a switch to PMs at some point.

To start, how are you defining your terms?

Elioenai26 said:

If anyone who holds to the atheistic, naturalistic, humanistic worldview would like to sincerely engage in a discussion and present a clear, concise, intelligible, logically coherent and consistent defense for their views, I, on behalf of those who hold to the theistic worldview, will attempt to sincerely, logically, systematically, coherently, and humbly set forth for those interested, a framework defending the Christian's worldview regarding some fundamental points that every worldview has the responsibility of cogently dealing with.

I will do so if anyone is truly sincerely seeking to understand our position.

I will not however engage in an argument with someone whose main purpose is to belittle, degrade, ridicule and berate someone who thinks differently than they do. We are all men and women here. At the very least, we can agree to disagree.

I have observed that Christians who are unable to defend their position in a scholarly fashion are often derided as ignorant and superstitious simpletons. So I humbly ask if anyone adhering to the atheistic, naturalistic, humanistic worldview wants to enter into civil dialogue, enter into it with me.

Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

I find this invitation to be tempting, but I am hesitant to enter a discussion with someone who apparently feels he can read minds and intentions.

quatona said:

(emphasis added)

I find this invitation to be tempting, but I am hesitant to enter a discussion with someone who apparently feels he can read minds and intentions.

Click to expand...

I've had many a PM debate with people, usually who come trying to witness or convert, and I go in with an open heart, only to have them run away, claiming that I'm being spiteful or offensive. It seems "not agreeing with me" or "challenging my beliefs" constitutes a grave and mortal offence.

I keep a tally. 12 for 12, at least count. I should have it painted on my car

Elioenai26 said:

If anyone who holds to the atheistic, naturalistic, humanistic worldview would like to sincerely engage in a discussion and present a clear, concise, intelligible, logically coherent and consistent defense for their views, I, on behalf of those who hold to the theistic worldview, will attempt to sincerely, logically, systematically, coherently, and humbly set forth for those interested, a framework defending the Christian's worldview regarding some fundamental points that every worldview has the responsibility of cogently dealing with.

I will do so if anyone is truly sincerely seeking to understand our position.

I will not however engage in an argument with someone whose main purpose is to belittle, degrade, ridicule and berate someone who thinks differently than they do. We are all men and women here. At the very least, we can agree to disagree.

I have observed that Christians who are unable to defend their position in a scholarly fashion are often derided as ignorant and superstitious simpletons. So I humbly ask if anyone adhering to the atheistic, naturalistic, humanistic worldview wants to enter into civil dialogue, enter into it with me.

Click to expand...

I am more than happy to talk to you on one condition... that condition is that you in turn remain open minded to the idea that you may be wrong, and will admit when a logically valid argument has been presented to you.

Of course, I would hold myself to the same standards.

Honestly though, the wording of your offer troubles me a bit. Namely the point about someone being truly sincere in seeking an understanding of your position.

By no means am I opposed to understanding your position... However, many Christians I've talked with in the past have used the argument that "if I really understood their viewpoint, then I'd believe". They usually resort to that line of thought after having a logical flaw in their argument exposed and have no other way to respond to it.

I'm not trying to accuse you of that. You even stated in your post that you acknowledge many Christians can't effectively debate or defend their positions... So hopefully you are able to present a strong logical case.

If you are successful in doing that, I will happily accept your argument. However in return, you must agree to accept if your argument is shown to contain a logical flaw or fallacy of some kind.

So, assuming you are ok with that.... What would you like to talk about? What is it you believe, and why should I accept your beliefs?

Elioenai26 said:

If anyone who holds to the atheistic, naturalistic, humanistic worldview would like to sincerely engage in a discussion and present a clear, concise, intelligible, logically coherent and consistent defense for their views, I, on behalf of those who hold to the theistic worldview, will attempt to sincerely, logically, systematically, coherently, and humbly set forth for those interested, a framework defending the Christian's worldview regarding some fundamental points that every worldview has the responsibility of cogently dealing with.

Click to expand...

I'd be happy to do so, time permitting.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Ow my! How grateful I am to all of you who responded to my invitation. I think it is simply wonderful that you all are willing to participate in this. I hope that our efforts shall serve as a commendable model on effective and amicable dialogue.

Too many times, as we can all attest to, debates have been rendered ineffective by the prejudices and presuppositions that both parties have brought to the table.

Therefore, it is my sincere aim to start with some general premises regarding our ability, as humans, to make meaningful statements about reality. As we receive and share information amongst each other, we can begin to build a case for our worldviews. I will primarily utilize logical and philosophical concepts at the outset and from there move to some metaphysical principles that will facilitate our discussions.

I look forward to embarking on this quest with you all and hope everyone is encouraged.

gradyll said:

the abolition of man (a book by cs lewis) has a section devoted to morals that are universal throughout culturs. So morality would NOT be subjective with an objective moral standard thats universal.

Click to expand...

I don't see how you can conclude this. There's no connection between "all cultures share a few basic bits of morality" and "there's an objective universal moral standard". It's entirely possible that the shared bits are every bit as subjective as the rest.

KCfromNC said:

I don't see how you can conclude this. There's no connection between "all cultures share a few basic bits of morality" and "there's an objective universal moral standard". It's entirely possible that the shared bits are every bit as subjective as the rest.

Click to expand...

in LAX airport you have people from all different cultures standing in long lines waiting to go on a flight. What if you decided to cut in front of someone who's nationality is from india? Do you think that in india they have basic moral codes as well? YES! And they are absolute, not relative. It is this moral code that we attest to that is called by CS Lewis as the "natural law." Also what if you decided to torture babies for fun, and giggled at it? Wouldn't you think that in any culture this would be wrong? Again it is the natural law we are attesting to. Some cultures may kill infants or burn them or torture them, but certainly not giggle at it! again this is the natural law, universal law we are attesting to.

gradyll said:

in LAX airport you have people from all different cultures standing in long lines waiting to go on a flight. What if you decided to cut in front of someone who's nationality is from india? Do you think that in india they have basic moral codes as well? YES! And they are absolute, not relative. It is this moral code that we attest to that is called by CS Lewis as the "natural law." Also what if you decided to torture babies for fun, and giggled at it? Wouldn't you think that in any culture this would be wrong? Again it is the natural law we are attesting to. Some cultures may kill infants or burn them or torture them, but certainly not giggle at it! again this is the natural law, universal law we are attesting to.

Click to expand...

This seems quite relative: "An Indonesian man has been sentenced to two and a half years in jail and fined $10,598 for professing his atheism on the internet, Al Jazeera has reported."

gradyll said:

in LAX airport you have people from all different cultures standing in long lines waiting to go on a flight. What if you decided to cut in front of someone who's nationality is from india? Do you think that in india they have basic moral codes as well? YES! And they are absolute, not relative. It is this moral code that we attest to that is called by CS Lewis as the "natural law." Also what if you decided to torture babies for fun, and giggled at it? Wouldn't you think that in any culture this would be wrong? Again it is the natural law we are attesting to. Some cultures may kill infants or burn them or torture them, but certainly not giggle at it! again this is the natural law, universal law we are attesting to.

Click to expand...

What about child brides, or slavery? Two mainstays of human culture. Does their prevalence make them part of this 'natural law', too?

Where can I get a copy of the 'natural law'? If my natural law disagrees with your natural law, who supersedes whom?

Non sequitur said:

This seems quite relative: "An Indonesian man has been sentenced to two and a half years in jail and fined $10,598 for professing his atheism on the internet, Al Jazeera has reported."

Click to expand...

A red herring is a clue which is intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual issue. Just because the governments are different in different countries does not mean that the natural law does not apply to each in the same way.

gradyll said:

A red herring is a clue which is intended to be misleading, or distracting from the actual issue. Just because the governments are different in different countries does not mean that the natural law does not apply to each in the same way.

Click to expand...

I was just going with the, "Do you think that in india they have basic moral codes as well? YES! And they are absolute, not relative," that was said.

I'm sure they have some basic moral codes, but I don't see anything absolute or moral about that; just it being relative.

Non sequitur said:

I was just going with the, "Do you think that in india they have basic moral codes as well? YES! And they are absolute, not relative," that was said.

I'm sure they have some basic moral codes, but I don't see anything absolute or moral about that; just it being relative.

Click to expand...

again, the laws I speak of are not necessarily legislated. Selfishness, love, bitterness, etc are all examples of a natural law either being followed or rejected.

gradyll said:

in LAX airport you have people from all different cultures standing in long lines waiting to go on a flight. What if you decided to cut in front of someone who's nationality is from india? Do you think that in india they have basic moral codes as well? YES! And they are absolute, not relative. It is this moral code that we attest to that is called by CS Lewis as the "natural law." Also what if you decided to torture babies for fun, and giggled at it? Wouldn't you think that in any culture this would be wrong? Again it is the natural law we are attesting to. Some cultures may kill infants or burn them or torture them, but certainly not giggle at it! again this is the natural law, universal law we are attesting to.

Click to expand...

What you're referring to has nothing to do with objective vs subjective morality.

Just because the man from India may be annoyed you cut in line, and the vast majority of people would agree torturing babies is morally reprehensible does not make it a universal, natural law. All it means is that it's a belief that most people hold in common.

History has shown that our view of morality both as a culture, and as an overall race has shifted with time. What was perfectly moral behaviour in the 15th century, would not be considered as such today... however some elements we would continue to consider moral.

That is a demonstration that moral belief is subjective. The culture as a whole determines what is considered moral, and that view can change as time passes.

gradyll said:

again, the laws I speak of are not necessarily legislated. Selfishness, love, bitterness, etc are all examples of a natural law either being followed or rejected.

Click to expand...

That didn't seem very loving and rather bitter.

So, these natural laws you speak of, they are followed or not followed, same as those legislated?

Dave Ellis said:

What you're referring to has nothing to do with objective vs subjective morality.

Just because the man from India may be annoyed you cut in line, and the vast majority of people would agree torturing babies is morally reprehensible does not make it a universal, natural law. All it means is that it's a belief that most people hold in common.

History has shown that our view of morality both as a culture, and as an overall race has shifted with time. What was perfectly moral behaviour in the 15th century, would not be considered as such today... however some elements we would continue to consider moral.

That is a demonstration that moral belief is subjective. The culture as a whole determines what is considered moral, and that view can change as time passes.

Click to expand...

yes we may be less annoyed than fifty years ago that somone cut in line, the point is that cheating or cutting in line is against the rules anywhere not just here. But why? Answer this question and you have made my point.

gradyll said:

yes we may be less annoyed than fifty years ago that somone cut in line, the point is that cheating or cutting in line is against the rules anywhere not just here. But why? Answer this question and you have made my point.

Click to expand...

Never seen those as posted rules in an airport.

It is the "standard", because it is a courtesy extended?