501. Comment #82372 by irate_atheist on October 26, 2007 at 7:32 am

Theism is an entirely different way to understand reality, one that postulates that reality at bottom is not physical and governed by mechanical laws, but rather is spiritual and governed by personal will. And it turns out that the latter way to understand reality works much better than the former.

WTF? Are you serious?

The reason I have for dismissing Zeus is that a worldview based on God works much better than a worldview based on Zeus. (For one my wife has climbed mount Olympus and tells me she did not find any palaces on its summit :-) The same goes for the case of Emperor of Japan. And the same goes for atheism by the way.

Well, DG, there's no evidence for your crackpot theory of a god either. Hung by your own petard, I should say.

So the emperor of Japan hasn't got a palace on him? Why does that preclude him from being a god? What is your reference to atheism in this paragraph? I hope it's nothing to do with you trying to mount one on top of a temple or suchlike.

Sometimes I despair of the human race, I really do.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

502. Comment #82375 by irate_atheist on October 26, 2007 at 7:40 am

499. Comment #82356 by Philip1978 -

Save one of those virgins for me, please. The wife and I haven't yet decided what to have for dinner tonight. A succulent roasted virgin would do nicely.

As an aside, what sauce do you have with them? I usually have HP Brown Sauce, but the wife insists on smothering her portion with tomato ketchup. Do you think it is mandatory to drink Tea as an accompanying beverage? Neither of us drink the damn stuff and I prefer fruit juices.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

503. Comment #82376 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 26, 2007 at 7:44 am

Philip1978 (post 499, or #82356):

So, again, the more logical and knowledgeable an atheist is the less one can expect moral behavior from them

Oh great, so the more I learn and become logical the more I am likely to be a complete bastard, cheers mate! Well, as is now my wont, I am off to bbq some virgins, who is with me?

I don't see the point of bbqing virgins, but if one get can away with violating virgins it certainly makes excellent evolutionary sense. Now I know that you wouldn't violate virgins even if you could get away with it because of many obvious emotional reasons, but I can't see any logical reason why you wouldn't do it.

Or let's take a less inflammatory and more realistic case. Suppose you own a company and your accountant proposes to use a perfectly legal loophole in order to avoid paying taxes. I think you'll agree that to do so is immoral, because even if it's not against the letter of law, it feels clearly wrong to avoid paying one's fair share in society. So can you point out any logical reason why an atheist in such a real world situation would move away from this immoral course of action?

A possible answer would be: "Because if everybody avoided paying their taxes then society in general would suffer, which indirectly would hurt one's own interests also". But that answer has two errors: First, as a matter of fact, everybody (or almost everybody) does avoid paying taxes when they can find a legal way to do it, i.e. when they can get away with it. And secondly, to take advantage of tax loopholes does on balance offer much more direct gains than indirect losses; after all the government will collect the same amount of taxes it needs for society by simply pushing more burden to others.

So, again, on what logical grounds would an atheist decide to pay their fair share in society even if they can get away with not paying it?





Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

504. Comment #82387 by epeeist on October 26, 2007 at 8:10 am

Comment #82368 by Dianelos Georgoudis

You mean your question in post 461 (#81776) above? I thought that post were meant as humor, and found it quite good too;

No, it wasn't meant as humour. I really want to know how you can dismiss the gods of one bronze age people for that of another bronze age people. I want to know how you can dismiss a triune goddess that is much older than your triune god. I really want to know why the myths of a middle eastern people should override that of those of Northern Europe (or the Aztecs, or anywhere else come to that).

By the way, given your Greek background I am amazed that you are not aware of the matriarchal society and its mythos that preceded Zeus and his pantheon.

Other Comments by epeeist

505. Comment #82395 by epeeist on October 26, 2007 at 8:18 am

Comment #82376 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Or let's take a less inflammatory and more realistic case. Suppose you own a company and your accountant proposes to use a perfectly legal loophole in order to avoid paying taxes. I think you'll agree that to do so is immoral, because even if it's not against the letter of law, it feels clearly wrong to avoid paying one's fair share in society.

A little bit of equivocation here - you are conflating avoidance and evasion. Avoidance is legal, evasion is illegal.

But yes, one should pay one's fair share towards building a civic society since man is by nature a political animal. And this applies to everyone, not just atheists. One could question whether using charitable donations from tax breaks in order to proselytise is moral, or whether misusing donations in order to foster a particular lifestyle is moral. Can you say Kent Hovind?

Other Comments by epeeist

506. Comment #82404 by SRWB on October 26, 2007 at 8:29 am

DG,

So, again, on what logical grounds would an atheist decide to pay their fair share in society even if they can get away with not paying it?

What possible connection do you see between those of us who are atheists and not paying our fair share in society? The two thoughts aren't in any way connected. I simply don't believe in God, but I pay taxes, etc. The society we have developed over millenia has established certain norms, standards and practices, and if we wish to participate in such societies, we need to contribute for our own and our families' sakes. But it's got fuck all to do with belief in supernatural entities!

Other Comments by SRWB

507. Comment #82453 by Lauregon on October 26, 2007 at 11:11 am

Yes. You appear to be surprised, but not all Christians, not by far, are dogmatic. Haven't you ever heard of "liberal Christianity"? In fact, as far as liberal Christians go, I am pretty orthodox. There are Christians who don't believe in the incarnation, nor in the resurrection, nor in the Trinity. - Dianelos

Yes. Those people eventually become admirers of Bishop Spong, and abandon the concept of theism altogether, but you, bound inextricably to theism, see him as having thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

What's more, there are very few really "Fundamentalist Christians". There are many millions who pay lip service to the claim that every word in the Bible is literally true, but they obviously do not believe it as evidenced by the fact that they, for example, work on the Sabbath without giving it a thought, even though according to the Bible doing so is a terrible sin punishable by death. That all Christians are dogmatic or that many Christians are fundamentalist is one more figment in the imagination of popular atheism I am afraid. - Dianelos

I haven't heard that mainstream churches have abandoned the Apostles and Nicene creeds, and given the hatred Bishop Spong's views reap among the orthodox, it's safe to suppose that credal beliefs continue to hold great sway in Christian Churches. Nor have I heard that the Pope or the Archibishop of Canterbury have abandoned creedal beliefs. Nor have I heard anything about Eastern Orthodox prelates abandoning credal beliefs. Your argumentation is vacuous.

I find it pretty evident that atheism, being such a frail worldview, must find ways to trivialize theism and build up strawmen in order to shore up its own viability. - Dianelos

If the creeds are strawmen, Christian belief is what's frail.

I am not implying that atheists do this on purpose; I am only saying that if they didn't do that they wouldn't remain atheists for long. Dawkins in his TGD argues that agnosticism is not a viable intellectual position. I on the contrary think that if one studies the issues agnosticism is the only viable non-religious intellectual position. - Dianelos

If it ever happens the Pope, the A of C, and the prelates of Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., announce to their congregations that the creeds are obsolete, and that the resurrection will not celebrated any longer, maybe we can revisit this discussion.

SRWB in the next post shares your sentiment. But the dogma of atonement is not the whole substance of Christianity. What is, is the belief that there is a God of perfection and that we come closer to God by following the way of Christ as described in his "new commandment" in John 13:34-35.

The substance of John 13:34-35 is that Jesus is about to offer himself as scapegoat in a blood sacrifice. And what's a scapegoat for? The remission of sins, i.e., atonement.

Or, as Jesus elsewhere in the gospels says, if we try to be in this life as perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. That's the substance of Christianity. - Dianelos

Unfortunately, the idea that "God" is "perfect" is a dogma that has no means of being proven or even observed. We do, however, have the Parable of the Talents to look to to see what the Kingdom of Heaven would be like: a fiefdom run by an avaricious, murderous mafia don. And we have the Parable of the Unfaithful Servant who is cut to pieces by his master for being a bad servant. And we have the Lesson of the Fig Tree which Jesus inexplicably curses for not having fruit out of season. And we have other delightful tales from the Bible, such as Jesus' tale about the Last Judgement in which sinners will fry in hell for eternity. Lovely models of perfection for humans to emulate.

Other Comments by Lauregon

508. Comment #82454 by Lauregon on October 26, 2007 at 11:17 am

As for the "Green man" and the "triple goddess" I don't know what you mean by that. - Dianelos

Which enhances my suspicion that you're a run of the mill creationist poseur.

Other Comments by Lauregon

509. Comment #82457 by epeeist on October 26, 2007 at 11:23 am

Comment #82454 by Lauregon

As for the "Green man" and the "triple goddess" I don't know what you mean by that. - Dianelos

Which enhances my suspicion that you're a run of the mill creationist poseur.

Since Veronique isn't coming here any more, could I announce this as a Mazda moment on her behalf.

Other Comments by epeeist

510. Comment #82459 by Lauregon on October 26, 2007 at 11:24 am

By constantly drumming up the various stupid bits in the Bible or by fishing up the most titillating anecdotes of theistic mischief around in order to argue – against reason and scientific evidence – that religious belief conduces to immoral behavior, atheism is blowing a lot of smoke to hide the fact that it is its own house that is conceptually shaky and besides offers a clear and logical path towards immoral behavior.- Dianelos

LOL. Picking through the Bible for wee bits that suit your "perfect God" theory, and dumping the rest is a shaky proposition.

Other Comments by Lauregon

511. Comment #82461 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 11:33 am

Since Veronique isn't coming here any more, could I announce this as a Mazda moment on her behalf.

Wikipedia:

Mazda:

* Mazda Motor, a Japanese automobile manufacturer
* Ahura Mazda, the transcendental and universal God of Zoroastrianism
* Mazda (light bulb), a trademarked name used on incandescent light bulbs

I assume you mean the third? :)

(A Trinity of definitions - how appropriate)

Other Comments by steve99

512. Comment #82468 by BMMcArdle on October 26, 2007 at 11:52 am

A worldview that supports my delusion works better.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

513. Comment #82475 by epeeist on October 26, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Comment #82461 by steve99

Mazda:

* Mazda Motor, a Japanese automobile manufacturer
* Ahura Mazda, the transcendental and universal God of Zoroastrianism
* Mazda (light bulb), a trademarked name used on incandescent light bulbs

I assume you mean the third? :)

V. was actually coupling the second and third together, but the third (the holy spirit?) in particular. A total aside - did you know that Odin went by the names of High, Just as High and Third?

I made a mistake in using Zeus as an example. I should have used Dionysus, it would have been rather more obvious what I was trying to indicate.

Other Comments by epeeist

514. Comment #82515 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 2:22 pm

V. was actually coupling the second and third together, but the third (the holy spirit?) in particular. A total aside - did you know that Odin went by the names of High, Just as High and Third?

No, I didn't. I am afraid my knowledge of Norse Gods is limited to a few school books, reading 'The Mighty Thor' Marvel comics in the 60s, Douglas Adams' "The Dark Teatime of the Soul", and Stargate SG-1.

I made a mistake in using Zeus as an example. I should have used Dionysus, it would have been rather more obvious what I was trying to indicate.

Indeed it would. Dionysus is far more appropriate, what with all the parallels with Christianity. Perhaps the God of The Matrix was having a rehearsal, testing out his Messiah program.

Other Comments by steve99

515. Comment #82540 by alovrin on October 26, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Here we have a worldview that is full of paradoxes and ever-increasing gaps and does not really explain anything of our condition (not to mention paints a hideous picture of reality and is conducive to immoral behavior to boot), and there we have a worldview that is coherent and free of paradoxes and explains our condition very well (not to mention makes our life better and is ethically empowering) - but - the former worldview is more reasonable because we like mystery in our lives

You really have mastered being a condescending a/hole havent you Dianelost. This whole paragraph is a web of lies and if you had the slightest inkling of commonsense you would see it. But you dont.

Point 1. Lets just look at where these "ever increasing gaps" are appearing shall we. The sciences are just racing along into subatomic worlds, into theories of the cosmos. Which only 150yrs ago humanity didnt know much about and enmasse didnt know they existed. If you want to insert the supernatural into these "gaps" go ahead, me I think I'd prefer if more research was funded, education was improved, and people encouraged to seek a career in these fields.

Point 2. "Our condition" WTF is that, living, dying, eating shitting, working, thinking, feeling. Oh but why are we here? What is the meaning of life?
This has to be the most pointless question ever asked. I know your answer, well whatever floats your boat. But injecting a god into this "gap" , is like sticking your finger in a hole in the dyke wall. Your stuck for life with your finger in a hole which you cant leave lest you are overwhelmed.

Point 3. A "hideous picture of reality" sez you dyke boy.

Point 4. Ah, but god is so much nicer on the eye. How do you know? Your sitting with your finger in a hole in a dyke to worried to take it out 'cause if you do your life will be rendered meaningless, and all you'll want to do is run out and kill your neighbours.

Point 5. religions "free of paradox's" since when? "explains our condition very well" If you accept religions explanation of our "condition". Heard of the Stockholm Syndrome, this is a classic example.


And here you are trying to say religion is reasonable and what Philip1978 said promotes mystery.
I am sure now it's not your finger you have in that hole but your head. FWTP!

Other Comments by alovrin

516. Comment #82546 by phil rimmer on October 26, 2007 at 4:52 pm

468. Comment #81947 by Dianelos Georgoudis

The pretense discussion was a misapprehension of mine. I had it in mind that you were intimating pretense on my part. It seems I imagined that. Apologies. Equally wrong was the Wilde aphorism you quoted. I didn't intend that at all, but just let it pass. I intended only that the seeming paradox of love your enemy was like a typical paradox of Wilde's used in his aphorisms.

Sham, therefore, was unnecessary also. Consider it dropped.

The rest I am disappointed in. As ever you miss the meat rather more catastrophically than I do.

You miss that an atheist may love his children, care for their happiness, which will in turn possibly depend on children of their own. Bringing children into an unsafe world is a great motivator for self-sacrifice. (The childless, too, may well invest emotionally in adopted, fostered or otherwise related kids.) Not a hint from you that this chain of love is quite the match for the christian one you quoted...sky daddy loves you so s'pose we must too.

Your keenness not to engage with this is curious. Further, you completely fail to acknowledge that I gave two rational reasons why, if one's enemy becomes the mad-axeman, the more moral action (given the issue of time and the number of others at risk) may be to kill him. (On another thread on the same theme I proposed an improvement on Love your Enemy, to whit, "Strive to love your Enemy. If you can't, cherish his children.")

I shouldn't be surprised at your hasty disengagement really. I think you just stubbed your toe on the uncomfortable fact that an atheist (a Pod Person, for chrissakes!) had a fully logical reason to hold moral convictions you thought only possible for a Christian.

Ah, but no. I am not a rock you hit. I am a string of words from outside your head. And you always did have problems with third person data, didn't you?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

517. Comment #82553 by TheUniversalAcid on October 26, 2007 at 5:18 pm

McGrath is atheist. He just makes books upsetting the applecart to make money.

Other Comments by TheUniversalAcid

518. Comment #82576 by Lauregon on October 26, 2007 at 7:13 pm

I am sure now it's not your finger you have in that hole but your head. FWTP! - Alovrin

Pictorial!

Other Comments by Lauregon

519. Comment #82584 by Goldy on October 26, 2007 at 8:12 pm

Long time replying - been making a shower! Adn daughter is ill...

I think you are confusing the concepts of "observational fact" and "irrefutable proof".

Nope. You said "fact". No "observational" or anything else. Just "fact". And you didn't mention "maybe" or "might" or "it is my belief". Just "fact".
V et al, I should know better :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

520. Comment #82605 by epeeist on October 27, 2007 at 12:10 am

Comment #81620 by Goldy

Brooks's book does make a more detailed breakdown of the figures in fact. It turns out that religious people donate more than nonreligious people even to secular charities. They donate more of their blood. And so on.

Care to quote some of these stats?

Now if I was an unethical atheist I would just post the following link with no comment - http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

However, it was actually posted in another thread by kraut, it just seemed apposite.

Other Comments by epeeist

521. Comment #82617 by Goldy on October 27, 2007 at 1:36 am

:-)
Given DG's love of observational facts, can I give one too? In Auckland, the main form of donations observed in churches appears to be tithes - 10% of your salary given to the church. Should you not give, your name is read out in order to shame you.
I stress this is only an observational fact - I dare say it would be hard to provide irrefutable evidence as, well, who's to say anything exists...really?
So, following from my observational fact, are religious people more generous or are they forced to be? Hmmmm.....
As to whether religiosity makes one more ethical, epeeist's link (ex-kraut) does remind me of Europe's history - seemingly an endless series of wars between Protestants and Catholics before nation states fought each other. Ethical? Be hard to convince me. In Aberdeen, I met a lad who detested Catholics - claimed he could "smell" them! Make the following quotation a bit suspect

So, again, the more logical and knowledgeable an atheist is the less one can expect moral behavior from them.

But given DG's cavalier use of facts and theories (seems they are interchangeable) I know I can read this and ignore it as mental ramblings.

For one my wife has climbed mount Olympus and tells me she did not find any palaces on its summit

And you believe this? Did YOU go up Mount Olympus and not see the palaces (and after the Greek Orthodox church's opposition to ancient pagan worshipers [http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2003096,00.html] I would wonder if there were anything left at all). As it is, I have been to many churches, cathedrals even, and never felt God. Maybe it's the same thing.

Other Comments by Goldy

522. Comment #82930 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 28, 2007 at 9:40 am

SRWB (post 501, or #82367):

…a maybe subconscious pull of atheism is the wish to believe that our actions do not necessarily have consequences,

Of course our actions have consequences, just not the supernatural ones you ascribe to

I meant consequences to the one who makes these actions; I thought that was clear. And, no, if death is the end of our life then neither our bad actions have bad consequences, nor our good actions have good consequences – not always and arguably not typically. As Lennox said in his debate with Dawkins, if death is the end then there is no justice. Or, in other words, if death is the end of one's life then in many situations it pays to behave immorally. Which is the problem of practical morality I have been discussing: atheism offers no logical path away from immoral behavior where such immoral behavior is to one's advantage. Which is typically the case: the typical moral dilemma is whether to do what is to one's advantage in this life, or to do what one feels is the right thing.

Your comparison (post 479) between what you call the "ignoble morals gambit", i.e. belief out of fear and reward, and the examples of studying to get into university and looking both ways before crossing a street are hardly pertinent. The last two are issues that are relevant to living in modern civilizations and are very important to surviving and thriving where most of us live and work.

I don't understand your point here; my examples are indeed pertinent in the case of modern civilizations. And if theism (or rather religion in general) is true, ethics is pertinent always and in all cases, because objective reality is such that our actions always have consequences.

We know intuitively that to do the "right thing" makes it easier to get along with our particular societal group, and that has nothing to do with being "made in the image of God".

We speak of morality precisely in those cases where the right thing to do is not what is to our advantage. If to do something makes it easier to live in society or gives us any other advantage then we don't speak of being moral but of being smart. For example, the consequences of the immoral action of legally avoiding to pay one's fair share of taxes produces obviously many more advantages than disadvantages. (Even if your actions became known to your peers they are apt to admire you for it, and if you do the right thing they are apt to think you are being stupid.)

I don't know, I find it so obvious and so easy to demonstrate that atheism is conducive to immoral behavior that this line of argument strikes me as not particularly interesting, and sometimes makes me feel like I am beating a dead horse. The fact that new atheists go around in each of their books and each of their speeches drumming up theism's immorality evidences their maybe unconscious intent to obscure the fact that atheism has an obvious disadvantage as far as morality is concerned.

But perhaps I am not being fair here. Both Harris and Dawkins strike me as honest people, and it's probable that new atheism is a genuine reaction of moral indignation in respect to religion's many excesses. But they have committed two huge and, considering their intellect, inexcusable errors:

1) In virtually all cases where religious people behave immorally they do so contrary to their religion's basic teaching against violence and greed and against its ontology of ultimate justice. So to suggest as a solution for the immoral behavior of religious people the removal of religion is like suggesting as a solution for criminal behavior the removal from society of law and order. I mean, if human nature and conditions are such that despite religions' teaching many religious people behave badly, to remove that teaching can only makes things worse. (Which is the same that I have been arguing here: non-religion makes immorality logical.)

2) They fail to put theists' misbehavior in perspective. Indeed the common strand of criticism of Dawkins's TGD is the blatant use of selective evidence. He focuses in cases of theistic mischief, and airbrushes away the much more significant atheistic mischief. Have you watched the recent debate between Hitchens and D'Souza? D'Souza makes the point that the Spanish Inquisition during 300 years has killed as many people as Pol Pot in one afternoon. I know that atheists counter that Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and so on were not primarily motivated by atheism but a) I think that's a little naive because certainly atheism played an important role in their belief system and as Sam Harris insists one's belief system affects one's actions, and b) if one can explain away atheists' crimes by arguing that atheism was not the prime motivator, by the same measure and quite easily one can explain away theists' crimes by arguing that theism was not the prime motivator either. So, unless one wants to keep one's eyes tightly shut, the fact that most crimes against humanity in recent history were organized by atheist leaders, and that most great ethical advances in recent history (from the abolition of slavery to the non-violent liberation of India) have been spearheaded by religious leaders and have obviously been inspired by religious teaching – that fact is clear and present historical evidence that theism is ethically superior to atheism. As is evidenced too by the various scientific studies. This state of affairs may say nothing about whether theism is closer to ontological truth than atheism, but it does say something important about atheism's dangerousness as well as, conversely, about religions's attractiveness.

But perhaps new atheism's argument is more subtle: that religion is immoral because it teaches people to be unreasonable. I think that's true in general because people on average hardly learn any science, or formal logic, or critical thought at school. Whether theists are on average less reasonable than atheists I don't know. It may well be so; I suppose theism can easily degenerate into superstition.

Anyway I am happy with the New Atheism phenomenon: By being so shrill and combative it pushes the issues to the surface, and thus forces both theists and atheists to take a better look at the failing of their respective worldviews – conceptually and in the praxis. I think in the end atheists will discover that atheism is not such an obviously superior worldview (not the least after observing that atheists do not clearly win their debates with theists, to put it mildly), will slowly discover the great conceptual problems of their worldview, and also will have to think about the issue of atheism's logical path towards immorality. And theists will have to deal with the clearly unreasonable/immoral aspects of some of their dogmatic beliefs as well as with the behavior influenced by these beliefs, including – and I wish new atheists would point this more strongly – their policies in respect to contraception which are having a very negative impact in the Third World, particularly in Catholic countries.

It's only "deeply meaningful" because human societies have, over thousands of years, evolved certain norms of behavior that have become the "right thing".

It's true that ethical behavior and beliefs can be justified on evolutionary grounds; but to suggest that that's all there is to ethics is wrong on two grounds: a) It doesn't really say anything whatsoever about what we actually should do, in other words to lean how ethical beliefs and behavior evolved teaches us zero about ethics, and b) it can justify ideas that can only be called fascistic. Take for example the famous scientist and famous atheist James Watson who recently opined that blacks are less intelligent than whites (see: http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3070583.ece ). Now suppose it were true, or even better, suppose science one day proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Chinese race is genetically significantly superior than all other races both in intelligence and morality. Suppose further that an atheist would then suggest that in order to maximize human happiness (which according to Sam Harris in his "The End of Faith" is the goal of realist ethics) one should enact laws that prohibit Chinese people to marry people of other races, and prohibit people from other races to have more than one child – in order that one day Earth is inhabited exclusively by that genetically superior race and hence happiness be maximized. It's quite logical, isn't it? You see where I am pointing at? Ethics without some transcendental ground in a religious worldview is apt to go seriously wrong.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

523. Comment #82935 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 28, 2007 at 9:52 am

Irate_atheist (post 503, or #82372):

Theism is an entirely different way to understand reality, one that postulates that reality at bottom is not physical and governed by mechanical laws, but rather is spiritual and governed by personal will. And it turns out that the latter way to understand reality works much better than the former.

WTF? Are you serious?

Yes, very serious. When you read popular books (such as TGD) you get the impression that a) atheism and science are practically synonymous, and b) that theism is practically what the Bible says. But it isn't so. And if you study and compare the best theistic worldviews (which are philosophical and non-dogmatic) with the dominant atheist worldview (naturalism, or more specifically, the so-called "scientific realism") using the same set of criteria you'll be surprised to find that in all cases theism works much better than atheism. There has been a very long discussion about this in the debate between Dawkins in McGrath thread (starting with post #48459 there, see:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews,page7#48459 )

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

524. Comment #82938 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 28, 2007 at 9:58 am

Epeeist (post 506, or #82387):

I really want to know how you can dismiss the gods of one bronze age people for that of another bronze age people.

The god concept that interests me is not the one believed by ancient peoples, but the one that best explains the whole of my experience of life.

By the way, given your Greek background I am amazed that you are not aware of the matriarchal society and its mythos that preceded Zeus and his pantheon.

Not all Greeks are experts in ancient Greek mythology, sorry.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

525. Comment #82940 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 28, 2007 at 10:03 am

Epeeist (post 507, or #82395):

Or let's take a less inflammatory and more realistic case. Suppose you own a company and your accountant proposes to use a perfectly legal loophole in order to avoid paying taxes. I think you'll agree that to do so is immoral, because even if it's not against the letter of law, it feels clearly wrong to avoid paying one's fair share in society.

A little bit of equivocation here - you are conflating avoidance and evasion. Avoidance is legal, evasion is illegal.

I expressively talked of a legal loophole, so I am not sure what equivocation you mean here.

But yes, one should pay one's fair share towards building a civic society since man is by nature a political animal.

Right. So my question remains: On what logical grounds would an atheist do the right thing in this case?

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

526. Comment #82941 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 28, 2007 at 10:08 am

SRWB (post 508, or #82404):

So, again, on what logical grounds would an atheist decide to pay their fair share in society even if they can get away with not paying it?

What possible connection do you see between those of us who are atheists and not paying our fair share in society?

I never claimed any such connection at least as far as taxes is concerned. I only claimed that there is no logical path that would lead an atheist to pay their fair share if they can get away without paying it. If you or anybody here can see a logical reason for an atheist to do the right thing in this case I would very much like to know about it.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

527. Comment #82943 by epeeist on October 28, 2007 at 10:16 am

Comment #82940 by Dianelos Georgoudis

But yes, one should pay one's fair share towards building a civic society since man is by nature a political animal.

Right. So my question remains: On what logical grounds would an atheist do the right thing in this case?

I gave you one - right there in the open, but you missed it.

Other Comments by epeeist

528. Comment #82946 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 28, 2007 at 10:27 am

Lauregon (post 509, or #82453):

Those people eventually become admirers of Bishop Spong, and abandon the concept of theism altogether,

Well, yes, I know of that language, but it's quite misleading because Spong is not an atheist; in fact he believes in the existence and presence of God and calls himself a Christian.

Nor have I heard that the Pope or the Archibishop of Canterbury have abandoned creedal beliefs.

I was not speaking about what the Pope or this or that archbishop believes or teaches, but only pointing out that a significant percentage of Christians are liberal (and hence openly non-dogmatic) and that in fact there are very few Christians who really believe that every word in the Bible is true. The contrary view is one sold by new atheists to shore up their Christian straw-bogeyman.

If the creeds are strawmen, Christian belief is what's frail.

If the creeds are wrong then indeed dogmatic Christian belief is frail. And I think it is. Obviously, Spong agrees, but in my view he goes way too far and throws away the baby with the bathwater.

If it ever happens the Pope, the A of C, and the prelates of Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., announce to their congregations that the creeds are obsolete, and that the resurrection will not celebrated any longer, maybe we can revisit this discussion.

:-) So you think that the truth of theism is contingent on what the Pope et al say?

The substance of John 13:34-35 is that Jesus is about to offer himself as scapegoat in a blood sacrifice. And what's a scapegoat for?

Well, unfortunately we read the gospels very differently. For me the substance of John 13:34-35 is clearly and explicitly about how we should live our lives.

Unfortunately, the idea that "God" is "perfect" is a dogma that has no means of being proven or even observed.

Neither has the idea that electrons exist any means of being proven or observed. But many atheists believe electrons exist.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

529. Comment #82951 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 28, 2007 at 10:42 am

Alovrin (post 517, or #82540):

What is the meaning of life?
This has to be the most pointless question ever asked.

Well, I disagree, and would like to point out that those who see no point in that question are normally called "nihilists". But I wonder, do you really believe that your life has no meaning?

A "hideous picture of reality" sez you dyke boy.

Well, actually I took that expression from something Dawkins said in his debate with Lennox.

religions "free of paradox's" since when?

Since one seriously studies them I suppose. (And to be precise what I claim is that idealistic theism is free of paradoxes, especially in comparison with scientific realism.)

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

530. Comment #82953 by BMMcArdle on October 28, 2007 at 10:47 am

I choose to believe things that work best to support my delusion.
It makes no sense to me to believe things that do not support my delusion.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

531. Comment #82954 by epeeist on October 28, 2007 at 10:51 am

Comment #82938 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Epeeist (post 506, or #82387):

I really want to know how you can dismiss the gods of one bronze age people for that of another bronze age people.

The god concept that interests me is not the one believed by ancient peoples, but the one that best explains the whole of my experience of life.

So you aren't dismissing the beliefs of ancient peoples, you accept that they are as valid as your own.

Other Comments by epeeist

532. Comment #82967 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 28, 2007 at 11:28 am

Phil Rimmer (post 518, or #82546):

You miss that an atheist may love his children, care for their happiness, which will in turn possibly depend on children of their own. Bringing children into an unsafe world is a great motivator for self-sacrifice. (The childless, too, may well invest emotionally in adopted, fostered or otherwise related kids.)

Not at all; I am quite aware of course the atheists love their children and other people as fully as any religious person; most of my friends are atheists after all. And understand this very well because I believe that we are all made in the image of God and hence have access, if you will, to objective transcendental truth, including the value of love and the meaning of ethics. Moreover I am confident that there is naturalistic explanation of the same. So I have absolutely no problem with atheists behaving morally as a matter of fact.

My problem is that I cannot see what logical sense the ethical precept "love your enemies" can make to an atheist. I believe, and in fact it is required by my own worldview, that atheists too intuitively realize that there is some deep truth in that precept. (For example Dawkins in his article "Atheists for Jesus" speaks with admiration about Jesus's ethics.) What I fail to see is what logical (as contrasted with intuitive or emotional) sense can that precept make to an atheist. You argue that if people followed that precept we would create a better world for our children. I agree, but not on logical grounds I can see. Logic appears to tell me that if (whether few or many it doesn't matter) people started really loving their enemies the world would become a more dangerous place as other people would take advantage of that kind of behavior which they will perceive as weakness. In my own life, when I was actually nicer to people than the call of duty as it were, the results were ambiguous at best.

Perhaps we should clarify our terminology here. "Love your enemies" does not mean "avoid hating your enemies too much", or "avoid taking revenge on your enemies", or "avoid hitting back except when absolutely necessary" – or any of these things. It's a much more radical idea, which says that one should actually empathize and try to help one's enemies out of love and, as love always is, without any expectation of getting something in return from them.

Further, you completely fail to acknowledge that I gave two rational reasons why, if one's enemy becomes the mad-axeman, the more moral action (given the issue of time and the number of others at risk) may be to kill him.

Oh I see. Well, in that case we were talking past each other, for in my mind to kill the attacker even fails the "return no evil" precept, never mind the "love your enemies" precept. So, you see? It seems these ethical precepts make no sense in an atheistic worldview after all.

I think you just stubbed your toe on the uncomfortable fact that an atheist (a Pod Person, for chrissakes!) had a fully logical reason to hold moral convictions you thought only possible for a Christian.

But it seems you don't really hold the same moral convictions. When you mentioned the mad-axeman example, I thought you were talking of Hitchens's thinking, but now I see you were talking of yours too. The ethical precept is not "return no evil except in the following cases: a) if brutally attacked, b) if by killing somebody you save several lives, c) etc. etc). Neither is it "love your enemies, or at least their children after you eliminate their parents".

So let me restate my answer to Hitchens's challenge: "The ethical statement that no atheist can reasonably make is that we should - literally, truly, and without exception - selflessly love our enemies and act on it."

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

533. Comment #82969 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 28, 2007 at 11:38 am

Goldy (post 521, or #82584):

You said "fact". No "observational" or anything else. Just "fact". And you didn't mention "maybe" or "might" or "it is my belief". Just "fact".

Well, I think I used "observational fact" quite often, and I thought this meaning was clear. But anyway, what's your point? Virtually all (if not absolutely all) facts I know of are observational facts. Do you know of facts that are not observational facts? If so, which? But if you don't know of any facts that are non-observational, then what difference does it make if I wrote somewhere "fact" alone, and not "observational fact"?

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

534. Comment #82971 by SRWB on October 28, 2007 at 11:48 am

DG

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse?

I meant consequences to the one who makes these actions

So did I, but I meant in this life, not in the hereafter sitting around God's throne!

atheism offers no logical path away from immoral behavior where such immoral behavior is to one's advantage.

How about these? Immoral behavior might gain someone temporary advantage in the short term, but in the long run they usually end up paying for it. Anyone (sometimes even their families) who behaves unethically will suffer loss of reputation, respect and dislike by those who know him/her, resulting in shame and embarassment. The need to be liked, respected and to belong are very strong human emotions, and the kind of behaviours you describe erodes respect and admiration for those who decide not to cooperate and participate in the societies humans have developed.

my examples are indeed pertinent in the case of modern civilizations. And if theism (or rather religion in general) is true, ethics is pertinent always and in all cases, because objective reality is such that our actions always have consequences.

I still don't understand your point about how studying and looking before crossing the street are pertinent to a debate about ethics and morality. They are just actions we perform to get ahead (survive) in a modern lifestyle. Dawkins's point about fearing punishment by God or else desiring reward by God in order to be good merely points out how this belief is simply negative reinforcement. His real point is to be good for goodness sake – that's all.

I never claimed any such connection at least as far as taxes is concerned. I only claimed that there is no logical path that would lead an atheist to pay their fair share if they can get away without paying it. If you or anybody here can see a logical reason for an atheist to do the right thing in this case I would very much like to know about it.

You didn't claim it in so many words, but the inference of your original question is that there is a connection between unethical behaviour and being an atheist. Epeeist already answered it and so did I in #508!

Other Comments by SRWB

535. Comment #82972 by steveroot on October 28, 2007 at 11:50 am

454. Comment #81608 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 25, 2007 at 12:58 am
It turns out that religious people donate more than nonreligious people even to secular charities. They donate more of their blood. And so on.

I am a 7 (seven) gallon blood donor and have done platelet pheresis about 25 times. I am registered with the bone marrow bank and will be a donor should the opportunity arise. Even if it is a fundamentalist who has been abandoned by god and needs my help! Just think of all those atheist humors being transfused into the faithful... is it any wonder they begin to question? How satisfying! ;-)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

536. Comment #82977 by SRWB on October 28, 2007 at 12:09 pm

So let me restate my answer to Hitchens's challenge: "The ethical statement that no atheist can reasonably make is that we should - literally, truly, and without exception - selflessly love our enemies and act on it."

As I asked in #334, is "love your enemies" really an ethical statement? You never did answer. Enemies, by definition, hate us and seek to harm us. Is it really ethical to accept that kind of attitude from someone who has proclaimed him/herself your enemy and intends to harm you and your family? Not to put too fine a point on it, but what exactly is ethical about allowing someone, probably a complete stranger, to threaten and harm you and yours and only respond by saying "I love you" and acting on it? What does that mean? Should I give him a hug and a gift, maybe a freshly baked pie? More importantly, does it work?

Other Comments by SRWB

537. Comment #82985 by BMMcArdle on October 28, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Santa Claus is watching you!

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

538. Comment #82987 by Diacanu on October 28, 2007 at 12:45 pm

SRWB-

DG

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse?

Of course he is.
He has to, that's the droned out state of mind one has to be in to swallow that theology sewage.

Heartbreaking. As precious a thing as a whole human brain, and it's ruined, absolutely ruined.

I mean, people can have bad ideas, or sloppily formed philosophies, but theology and apologetics, it's so nutty, it damages the very fabric of the process of thinking.
A brain isn't even performing its function anymore at that point.
It's like using a heart to siphon gasoline.



Other Comments by Diacanu

539. Comment #82996 by SRWB on October 28, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Diacanu,

'Twas only a rhetorical question, but I agree with you that a mind is terrible thing to waste!

Other Comments by SRWB

540. Comment #83008 by phil rimmer on October 28, 2007 at 1:51 pm

534. Comment #82967 by Dianelos Georgoudis

My problem is that I cannot see what logical sense the ethical precept "love your enemies" can make to an atheist.

But you never unpick my arguments. Saying you fail to see the logic of my arguments is a cop-out. Where precisely does the logic fail? That I want my kids to be happy? That I don't want to bequeath my enemies to them? That the strongest solution I can conceive is to unmake my enemies as enemies if I can? That to stand the best chance, I wish to engage with them as brethren with the same concerns as me for their loved ones? That the only way I know how to do this is to earnestly strive to love them? (When face to face, you can't fake it.) Just where?

Does the logic fail simply because of the results of your experience?

Logic appears to tell me that if (whether few or many it doesn't matter) people started really loving their enemies the world would become a more dangerous place as other people would take advantage of that kind of behavior which they will perceive as weakness. In my own life, when I was actually nicer to people than the call of duty as it were, the results were ambiguous at best.

I'm deeply sorry to hear this. They must have been quite formative experiences for you to mention them here. As I explained in an earlier post, I was lucky enough (it would seem) to have enemies turn to friends. Why might it have worked out well for me? Perhaps because we recognized each other and the mirror image of our situations. Maybe our mirror neurons did the trick? Maybe, being greeted one day by an unexpected and genuine smile or a heartfelt comment about their kids, just kicked off a whole reinforcing process?

Can you love someone and then kill them? You sure can. It could be someone in horrific agony. Someone whose humanity has disappeared, a father on a life-support machine, or a spouse turned mad axe-man, or a brother with dynamite strapped to his chest looking for the nearest busy market. A betraying lover or would-be lover...

Can you love them at the moment of killing them? Sometimes. (I hasten to add, my ex-lovers are all alive and well.)

The ethical precept is not "return no evil except in the following cases: a) if brutally attacked, b) if by killing somebody you save several lives, c) etc. etc). Neither is it "love your enemies, or at least their children after you eliminate their parents".

We agree. The ethical precept is "Love your Enemy". I reject out of hand all your proffered weasel-worded alternatives.

We surely agree, that other ethical precepts are in play also? It is the simple fact of the existence of these that subverts the first precept from being simply a Pacifist's charter. I WILL fight and kill for the greater good. But I know I will also have my heart broken.

Can we love the dead? Sure. Look after their kids and make them proud of their parents. Is this logical? Wonderfully pragmatic!

Other Comments by phil rimmer

541. Comment #83012 by steve99 on October 28, 2007 at 2:02 pm

The ethical precept is "Love your Enemy".

Just a point of information you may find useful here. The Buddha also said "love your enemies" centuries before Jesus. Although highly spritual in nature, early Buddhism was certainly atheistic by any modern definition. So, I am afraid that even this phrase, whatever you think of its value, fails Hitchens' test.

Other Comments by steve99

542. Comment #83029 by Dr Benway on October 28, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Hi mates,

I might or might not disappear for a time - having a hysterectomy tomorrow morning.

Yes, some assumed I was male and I never bothered to straighten things out. A sin of omission I'm correcting now.

Cheers!


Other Comments by Dr Benway

543. Comment #83031 by Corylus on October 28, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Break a leg Dr B.

Hope the hysterectomy leaves your enormous cock intact. The world would be a lesser place without it :-)

Love, Hazel.



Other Comments by Corylus

544. Comment #83032 by Dr Benway on October 28, 2007 at 4:23 pm

My perfect cock will survive.

I've got 36 minutes, give or take, to drink myself silly. Then no food or drink allowed.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

545. Comment #83036 by Bonzai on October 28, 2007 at 4:33 pm

steve99,

Ihe Buddha also said "love your enemies" centuries before Jesus. Although highly spritual in nature, early Buddhism was certainly atheistic by any modern definition

There is a Buddhist fable that goes like this. One day a wolf and a rabbit came to the Buddha. The wolf wanted to eat the rabbit and the rabbit asked the Buddha to intervene. The Buddha chastised the wolf and told him to leave the rabbit alone. "But", the wolf protested, "if I don't eat the rabbit I will starve to death, why is the rabbit's life more precious than mine?" The Buddha saw that the wolf did have a point. He thought very hard for a while but still couldn't find a way to resolve the conflict. Finally the Buddha said to the wolf, "OK, you can eat me instead and leave the rabbit alone."

You probably have heard of this before. If "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek" are indeed virtuous doctrines to emulate the Buddha was way ahead of Jesus.

Other Comments by Bonzai

546. Comment #83038 by bluebird on October 28, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Doc B, if I'd known you were leaving I'd've baked a blueberry pie ;)

Take care!!!


Other Comments by bluebird

547. Comment #83039 by phil rimmer on October 28, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Cheers, Doc, and bonne chance.

Love, Philomena

Other Comments by phil rimmer

548. Comment #83040 by Lauregon on October 28, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Well, yes, I know of that language, but it's quite misleading because Spong is not an atheist; in fact he believes in the existence and presence of God and calls himself a Christian. - Dianelos

I didn't say Spong was atheist, but he does refer to himself as non-theist, of theism as dying, and he does call for a new, non-theist understanding of both Jesus and Christianity; he completely rejects theism's supernatural doctrines. And, as I said earlier, people who come to reject those supernatural doctrines do find their way to Spong and his new vision of a "religionless Christianity." See his latest book for verification, "Jesus For the Non-Religious." In it he writes, "Theism isn't God; it is rather, a human coping mechanism."

I was not speaking about what the Pope or this or that archbishop believes or teaches, but only pointing out that a significant percentage of Christians are liberal (and hence openly non-dogmatic) and that in fact there are very few Christians who really believe that every word in the Bible is true. The contrary view is one sold by new atheists to shore up their Christian straw-bogeyman.- Dianelos

You're confusing fundamentalist biblical inerrancy with the doctrines and creeds of tradition and orthodoxy. They're not the same thing. You and other theists insist that non-theists are knocking down "strawmen" in their deconstructing and rejection of the tenets of orthodoxy, but as long as theists continue to recite orthodox creeds, retain belief in miracles and other biblical supernatural phenomena, and celebrate the resurrection from the dead of Jesus, what's being knocked down isn't strawmen.

If the creeds are wrong then indeed dogmatic Christian belief is frail. And I think it is. Obviously, Spong agrees, but in my view he goes way too far and throws away the baby with the bathwater. - Dianelos

It appears to me the reason you think he's gone way too far is that you fear that leaving behind the Cop In The Sky could lead to "unforeseen consequences." I see that as the monster-fly-in- the-ointment of your bland and so-far amorphous neo-theism. All your scienc-y argumentation doesn't conceal what's really eating you about non-theism: You're really worried about rampant immorality breaking out in the absence of a Supreme Law-Giver/Enforcer/Punisher.

:-) So you think that the truth of theism is contingent on what the Pope et al say? - Dianelos

Theist leaders do indeed define what theism involves and requires of its adherents. You spoke of "liberal" believers, listing orthodox beliefs you claim they no longer hold, to which I replied that such liberals end up aligning with Spong, who for his courageous efforts is subjected to angry sometimes virulent denunciations from traditional, orthodox believers---including so-called liberal ones---and even death threats. It's not at all clear exactly who or what it is you imagine yourself speaking for when you refer to "liberals" who reject the resurrection, the trinity, the incarnation, etc., if they are other than those who who end up embracing Spong's non-theism. (And, by the way, when it comes to someone having actual and wide knowledge of what believers believe or don't believe, I see no reason to accept your claims over Spong's).

Well, unfortunately we read the gospels very differently. For me the substance of John 13:34-35 is clearly and explicitly about how we should live our lives. - Dianelos

What's clear is that you read the gospels as cherry-picked proof-texts. The passage speaks of a command to Jesus' disciples to love one another as Jesus has loved them. The command is neither clear nor explicit, can be and is interpreted in myriad and often contradictory ways, and does indeed, as I said, reside within the context of his impending sacrificial death as a redemptive scapegoat which sacrifice you've claimed isn't the substance of Christian theology. In any case, our differences in gospel interpretation clearly illustrate the utter folly of people claiming that God's own truth can be found in a written text.

Unfortunately, the idea that "God" is "perfect" is a dogma that has no means of being proven or even observed. - Lauregon

Neither has the idea that electrons exist any means of being proven or observed. But many atheists believe electrons exist. - Dianelos

As far as I'm aware, there have been no bloody wars fought over disputes concerning the existence or nature of electrons, or dogmatic claims of there being only One Perfect Electron. Belief in electrons has no huge religious congregations gathering to worship them as the proper duty of human life, is not used to coerce or discourage certain social behaviors, and has not been used to terrorize people into anxiety about possible eternal torture in an after-life. The dogma of the existence of a "perfect God," on the other hand, has been used for centuries as a means of authoritarian control of impressionable and vulnerable human beings. For that reason, the existence and perfection of such a "God" person should, as a moral imperative, be supported by clear unambiguous proof, rather than merely being an assertion of cultish theists whose tortured ontology requires that assertion.

Other Comments by Lauregon

549. Comment #83045 by Quine on October 28, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Dr Benway, best wishes on a speedy recovery.




Other Comments by Quine

550. Comment #83046 by Lauregon on October 28, 2007 at 5:34 pm

You see where I am pointing at? Ethics without some transcendental ground in a religious worldview is apt to go seriously wrong. - Dianelos

Yes, I see. What you're saying, Dianelos, is that, whether a "God" person actually exists or not, the "God" person must be made to appear to be a fact---and a scientific fact at that---which renders your entire argumentation utterly UNBELIEVABLE. Given your premise that belief in "God" must continue for the sake of social order, you will to argue ad nauseum, as you are doing and have been doing, using whatever dodgy tactics are useful in the moment, any tactic at all, anything to keep "God" belief alive. You've argued your way deep into into a corner here from which you can never extricate yourself. You can, of course, argue on and on and on, but you'll possess zero credibility. You aren't arguing for truth, or for "God." You're arguing for social control, plain and simple. What you're arguing for is neo-con bullshittery.

Other Comments by Lauregon