Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307652957' post='2251767']
Actually I see these things having to do more wisdom of the crowds than any authoritative statement about what is wrong or right. [/quote]

That doesn't really answer anything I asked you. Is wisdom objective? [i]Wisdom of the crowds[/i] is again relative, one society's wisdom is another's nonsense. There are societies in the world today that actually punish woman for being raped and not the man or the man is punished less.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307652957' post='2251767']One question: what about the biblical story of the fall of Sodom?
[/quote]

What do you mean? The crowds that stood outside of Lot's demanding he release the three angels who had visited him so they could rape them?

Also I do not deny atheist have morals I only point out those morals are subjective, relative and have nothing but sand to stand on without the existence of God. Atheistic morals aren't really real they only seem to be real, their nice and they feel good, but without objective truth and objective morality those morals do not actually exist and they are not binding on anyone who does not wish to be bound by them. Lastly, atheism was the propaganda of communism this is an historical fact.

I will allow Lenin to explain,

[quote]It will be seen from the above that a journal that sets out to be a militant materialist organ must be primarily a militant organ, in the sense of unflinchingly exposing and indicting all modern "graduated flunkeys of clericalism", irrespective of whether they act as representatives of official science or as free lances calling themselves "democratic Left or ideologically socialist" publicists.

In the second place, such a journal must be a militant [b]atheist [/b]organ. We have departments, or at least state institutions, which are in charge of this work. But the work is being carried on with extreme apathy and very unsatisfactorily, and is apparently suffering from the general conditions of our truly Russian (even though Soviet) bureaucratic ways. It is therefore highly essential that in addition to the work of these state institutions, and in order to improve and infuse life into that work, a journal which sets out to propagandise militant materialism [color="#FF0000"][b]must carry on [u]untiring atheist propaganda[/u] and an [u]untiring atheist fight[/u].[/b][/color] -- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url][/quote]

...


[quote]Engels long ago advised the contemporary leaders of the proletariat to translate the militant atheist literature of the late eighteenth century for mass distribution among the people. We have not done this up to the present, to our shame be it said (this is one of the numerous proofs that it is much easier to seize power in a revolutionary epoch than to know how to use this power properly). Our apathy, inactivity and incompetence are sometimes excused on all sorts of "lofty" grounds, as, for example, that the old atheist literature of the eighteenth century is antiquated, unscientific, naive, etc. There is nothing worse than such pseudo-scientific sophistry, which serves as a screen either for pedantry or for a complete misunderstanding of Marxism. There is, of course, much that is unscientific and naive in the atheist writings of the eighteenth-century revolutionaries. But nobody prevents the publishers of these writings from abridging them and providing them with brief postscripts pointing out the progress made by mankind in the scientific criticism of religions since the end of the eighteenth century, mentioning the latest writings on the subject, and so forth. It would be the biggest and most grievous mistake a Marxist could make to think that the millions of the people (especially the peasants and artisans), who have been condemned by all modern society to darkness, ignorance and superstitions — can extricate themselves from this darkness only along the straight line of a purely Marxist education. These masses should be supplied with the most varied [b]atheist propaganda material, they should be made familiar with facts from the most diverse spheres of life, they should be approached in every possible way, so as to interest them, rouse them from their religious torpor, stir them front the most varied angles and by the most varied methods, and so forth.[/b]

[b]The keen, vivacious and talented writings of the old eighteenth-century atheists wittily and openly attacked the prevailing clericalism and will very often prove a thousand times more suitable for arousing people from their religious torpor than the dull and dry paraphrases of Marxism[/b], almost completely unillustrated by skillfully selected facts, which predominate in our literature and which (it is no use hiding the fact) frequently distort Marxism. We have translations of all the major works of Marx and Engels. [b]There are absolutely no grounds for fearing that the old atheism and old materialism will remain un-supplemented by the corrections introduced by Marx and Engels.[/b] The most important thing — and it is this that is most frequently overlooked by those of our Communists who are supposedly Marxists, but who in fact mutilate Marxism — [b]is to know how to awaken in the still undeveloped masses an intelligent attitude towards religious questions and an intelligent criticism of religions.[/b] -- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url][/quote]

...

[quote][i]Pod Znamenem Marksizma,[/i] which sets out to be an organ of militant materialism, should devote much of its space to atheist propaganda, to reviews of the literature on the subject and to correcting the immense shortcomings of our governmental work in this field. It is particularly important to utilise books and pamphlets which contain many concrete facts and comparisons showing how the class interests and class organisations of the modern bourgeoisie are connected with the organisations of religious institutions and religious propaganda. -- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url][/quote]

...

[quote]One would like to hope that a journal which sets out to be a militant materialist organ will provide our reading public with reviews of atheist literature, showing for which circle of readers any particular writing might be suitable and in what respect, and mentioning what literature has been published in our country (only decent translations should be given notice, and they are not so many), and what is still to be published. -- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url][/quote]

Edited June 9, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307661745' post='2251824']
That doesn't really answer anything I asked you. Is wisdom objective? [i]Wisdom of the crowds[/i] is again relative, one society's wisdom is another's nonsense. There are societies in the world today that actually punish woman for being raped and not the man or the man is punished less. [/quote]

Is religious wisdom objective? You would have to prove that before you dismiss all the other rigid moral frameworks as subjective.

The way I see it, in order for a system to be moral and society to be stable, there has to be certain premises. Do not murder, do not steal, the golden rule etc. They're the basis for any moral system, but these systems evolve as societies become more complex.

For example: like I told Socrates in an earlier post, what the Muslims are doing today looks very similar to some of the laws described in the Old Testament. Islamic societies are backward compared to ours. Yet Jews don't practice those moral laws that we see as barbarous today, even though it's in their scripture.


[quote]What do you mean? The crowds that stood outside of Lot's demanding he release the three angels who had visited him so they could rape them?[/quote]

Yes, particularly what Lot traded for them instead. Do you think it was a fair trade?

[quote]Also I do not deny atheist have morals I only point out those morals are subjective, relative and have nothing but sand to stand on without the existence of God. Atheistic morals aren't really real they only seem to be real, their nice and they feel good, but without objective truth and objective morality those morals do not actually exist and they are not binding on anyone who does not wish to be bound by them.[u] Lastly, atheism was the propaganda of communism this is an historical fact. [/u]

I will allow Lenin to explain,[/quote]


Let me rephrase that for you: [u]Communism propagated atheism. [/u]


I've highlighted the parts that I find to be significant as to the reasons why the communists wanted to implement atheism in [b][color="#006400"]green[/color][/b]:

***

It will be seen from the above that a journal that sets out to be a militant materialist organ must be primarily a militant organ, in the sense of unflinchingly exposing and indicting all modern "graduated flunkeys of [b][color="#006400"]clericalism[/color][/b]", irrespective of whether they act as representatives of official science or as free lances calling themselves "democratic Left or ideologically socialist" publicists.

In the second place, such a journal must be a militant [b]atheist [/b]organ. We have departments, or at least state institutions, which are in charge of this work. But the work is being carried on with extreme apathy and very unsatisfactorily, and is apparently suffering from the general conditions of our truly Russian (even though Soviet) bureaucratic ways. It is therefore highly essential that in addition to the work of these state institutions, and in order to improve and infuse life into that work, a journal which sets out to propagandise militant materialism [b]must carry on untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheist fight.[/b] -- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url]

***

Engels long ago advised the contemporary leaders of the [b][color="#006400"]proletariat [/color][/b]to translate the militant atheist literature of the late eighteenth century for mass distribution among the people. We have not done this up to the present, to our shame be it said (this is one of the numerous proofs that it is much easier to[b][color="#006400"] seize power in a revolutionary epoch[/color][/b] [b][color="#006400"]than to know how to use this power properly).[/color][/b] Our apathy, inactivity and incompetence are sometimes excused on all sorts of "lofty" grounds, as, for example, that the old atheist literature of the eighteenth century is antiquated, unscientific, naive, etc. There is nothing worse than such pseudo-scientific sophistry, which serves as a screen either for pedantry or for a complete misunderstanding of Marxism. There is, of course, much that is unscientific and naive in the atheist writings of the eighteenth-century [b][color="#006400"]revolutionaries[/color][/b]. But nobody prevents the publishers of these writings from abridging them and providing them with brief postscripts pointing out the progress made by mankind in the scientific criticism of religions since the end of the eighteenth century, mentioning the latest writings on the subject, and so forth. It would be the biggest and most grievous mistake a Marxist could make to think that the millions of the[b][color="#006400"][u] people (especially the peasants and artisans),[/u] who have been condemned by all modern society to darkness, ignorance and superstitions — can extricate themselves from this darkness only along the straight line of a purely Marxist education. [/color][/b] These masses should be supplied with the most varied [b]atheist propaganda material, they should be made familiar with facts from the most diverse spheres of life, they should be approached in every possible way, so as to interest them, rouse them from their religious torpor, stir them front the most varied angles and by the most varied methods, and so forth.[/b]

[b]The keen, vivacious and talented writings of the old eighteenth-century atheists wittily and [color="#006400"]openly attacked the prevailing clericalism [/color]and will very often prove a thousand times more suitable for arousing people from their religious torpor than the dull and dry paraphrases of Marxism[/b], almost completely unillustrated by skillfully selected facts, which predominate in our literature and which (it is no use hiding the fact) frequently distort Marxism. We have translations of all the major works of Marx and Engels. [b]There are absolutely no grounds for fearing that the old atheism and old materialism will remain un-supplemented by the corrections introduced by Marx and Engels.[/b] The most important thing — and it is this that is most frequently overlooked by those of our Communists who are supposedly Marxists, but who in fact mutilate Marxism — [b][color="#006400"]is to know how to awaken in the still undeveloped masses an intelligent attitude towards religious questions and an intelligent criticism of religions[/color].[/b] -- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url]

***

[i]Pod Znamenem Marksizma,[/i] which sets out to be an organ of militant materialism, should devote much of its space to atheist propaganda, to reviews of the literature on the subject and to correcting the immense shortcomings of our governmental work in this field. [size="4"][color="#006400"][u][b]It is particularly important to utilise books and pamphlets which contain many concrete facts and comparisons showing how the class interests and class organisations of the modern bourgeoisie are connected with the organisations of religious institutions and religious propaganda.[/b][/u][/color] [/size]-- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url]
***

Anyone who paid any attention in high school history knows that Russia prior to the Russian Revolution was basically feudal, and that societal structure was based on three parts: the clergy, the nobility and the people (the rest). The clergy validated the nobility and both maintained societal order.

The revolution disposed of the Czar and his heir, it makes perfect sense to see why it would dispose of the clergy as well.

As for Stalin, Mao tse Tung and other atheist dictators with personality cults that revolved around them, atheism is perfect because it offers no competition.

Edited June 10, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307680234' post='2251901']
Is religious wisdom objective? You would have to prove that before you dismiss all the other rigid moral frameworks as subjective.

The way I see it, in order for a system to be moral and society to be stable, there has to be certain premises. Do not murder, do not steal, the golden rule etc. They're the basis for any moral system, but these systems evolve as societies become more complex.[/quote]

This is still not even close to an actual answer to my questions to you. Could you do that please? Yes, religious wisdom does have objectivity to put it simply because the buck stops with God. If wisdom is left up to man it is going to change from man to man, society to society, that's relative, not objective.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307680234' post='2251901']For example: like I told Socrates in an earlier post, what the Muslims are doing today looks very similar to some of the laws described in the Old Testament. Islamic societies are backward compared to ours. Yet Jews don't practice those moral laws that we see as barbarous today, even though it's in their scripture. [/quote]

I missed this conversion with you and Soc, but Christ put an end to things like stoning.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307680234' post='2251901']Yes, particularly what Lot traded for them instead. Do you think it was a fair trade?[/quote]

There was no trade at all. The three angels did not allow the trade. Lot had his offer refused by the angelic beings.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307680234' post='2251901']Let me rephrase that for you: [u]Communism propagated atheism. [/u][/quote]

Again allow me to repeat the correct phrase, Atheism, Positive Atheism, Atheism that is Militant. Deny it till you're blue in the face it changes nothing.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307680234' post='2251901']I've highlighted the parts that I find to be significant as to the reasons why the communists wanted to implement atheism in [b][color="#006400"]green[/color][/b]:

Anyone who paid any attention in high school history knows that Russia prior to the Russian Revolution was basically feudal, and that societal structure was based on three parts: the clergy, the nobility and the people (the rest). The clergy validated the nobility and both maintained societal order.

The revolution disposed of the Czar and his heir, it makes perfect sense to see why it would dispose of the clergy as well.

As for Stalin, Mao tse Tung and other atheist dictators with personality cults that revolved around them, atheism is perfect because it offers no competition.
[/quote]

You're simply grasping at straws trying to escape reality. How and why they wanted to implement atheism, was shaped and formed by atheism. Their fight was Atheism their belief was Atheism. They wanted to get rid of the Czar because he received his power from God, they wanted to be rid of the Church because she got her power from God. They were Atheists and the enforced positive atheism. They used anarchy and chaos to implement positive atheism. Stalin, Mao tse Tung and other Atheists dictators were devote or hard core atheists. They made Atheism the central part of their ideological inspiration and they enforced it with an iron fist.

They believed that since there is no God, man's worth is not measured by his priceless soul, but his worth to society based on [i]intelligence[/i], and his form which I'm sorry to say in a way you have in common with them. You deem that the unborn are not persons because they lack [i]intelligence and human form. [/i]The positive atheists simply expanded on that to include those who believed in God, and people other races based on their view of evolution, they did not have complete human form. They believe the would be truth of Dostoyevsky that "If God is not, everything is permitted."

Interesting related and short read: [b][size="2"][url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0132.htm"]Why Peter Singer makes the New Atheists nervous[/url][/size][/b]

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307686026' post='2251928']
This is still not even close to an actual answer to my questions to you. Could you do that please? Yes, religious wisdom does have objectivity to put it simply because the buck stops with God. If wisdom is left up to man it is going to change from man to man, society to society, that's relative, not objective.[/quote]


[quote]Personal liberty where does that come from? Who or what defines personal liberty? Have you yet defined what a person is outside what the law says a person is? Again if the law decides who and who is not a person, and what liberty is and who is afforded liberty, you just gave yet another subjective answer. If man is an animal why is it wrong to look at the immorality of rape as just a subjective construct of society? Many ape males will take their mates forcefully, but it isn't rape, many other animals will also, as well as kill other animals but it isn't murder. Why is man really that different when if he is just an animal he really isn't that different. Animals feel pain like humans but it is not immoral for one animal to harm another. It's nature.[/quote]

The law just officialises and fiscalises, it doesn't apply anything that is contrary in some form against a group of people. Morality is a [i]complicated[/i] subject, and to every question there is more than one angle making it subject to many more approaches to moral questions that simply what a Church says. Things are judged on their own merits, not because they come from some authoritative source with claims to objective morality (anyone can claim that, in fact, many groups do).

Man is an animal (biological fact) but morality is a social construct that extends within a species. Other animals as far as we know do not have the cognitive capacity to come to that concept, but that still means that social animals don't cooperate to levels of sophistication that are similar to smaller tribes of people. Animals also can't collectively reason using (sometimes) precise language which is important for higher levels of cooperation. They also don't live in cities and complex global societies, which cause an escalation in complications between differences of interests.


[quote]I missed this conversion with you and Soc, but Christ put an end to things like stoning. [/quote]

Yes, so he said. But I was talking about the Jews then and today, who don't follow Christ but still don't put into practice the punishments which we would see as barbarous. Do you see any Jews killing adulterous women?

[quote]There was no trade at all. The three angels did not allow the trade. Lot had his offer refused by the angelic beings.[/quote]

But what do you think of Lot? A righteous man?

[quote]Again allow me to repeat the correct phrase, Atheism, Positive Atheism, Atheism that is Militant. Deny it till you're blue in the face it changes nothing.[/quote]

Atheism (militant, positive, whatever you want to call it) is not communism.

Seriously man, I'm telling you, as an atheist, that there's nothing in militant atheism that leads to communism. You have to look at the historical context in that case. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god, but for a whole country to socially engineer itself like that there are way bigger motives.

Most militant atheists I know are secularists, which is incompatible with atheistic communism. Militant, I said.


[quote]You're simply grasping at straws trying to escape reality. How and why they wanted to implement atheism, was shaped and formed by atheism. Their fight was Atheism their belief was Atheism. They wanted to get rid of the Czar because he received his power from God, they wanted to be rid of the Church because she got her power from God. They were Atheists and the enforced positive atheism. They used anarchy and chaos to implement positive atheism. Stalin, Mao tse Tung and other Atheists dictators were devote or hard core atheists. They made Atheism the central part of their ideological inspiration and they enforced it with an iron fist. [/quote]

No, so far I see my point of view as a more cohesive picture, because it makes no sense to fight against something that you don't believe in, as you seem to think when you said that they opposed the Czar (and later bourgeoisie) and the clergy because they got their power from god. That's a purely theistic line of thinking and since they were not theists, it's nonsensical to want to apply it to them.

"Stalin, Mao tse Tung and other Atheists dictators were devote or hard core atheists. "

I'm assuming they devoutly worshipped...nothing?

When, in your worldview gods don't exist in the first place, you don't fight a religion because it's power comes from god. That would be like fighting the cult of scientology because they get their power from Xenu or the aliens that were fleeing him or whatever. You fight it because you don't like the effect it has on your life, and in the case of the USSR, Russian Revolution and transition from feudalism.

[quote]They believed that since there is no God, man's worth is not measured by his priceless soul, but his worth to society based on [i]intelligence[/i], and his form which I'm sorry to say in a way you have in common with them. You deem that the unborn are not persons because they lack [i]intelligence and human form. [/i]The positive atheists simply expanded on that to include those who believed in God, and people other races based on their view of evolution, they did not have complete human form. They believe the would be truth of Dostoyevsky that "If God is not, everything is permitted."

Interesting related and short read: [b][size="2"][url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0132.htm"]Why Peter Singer makes the New Atheists nervous[/url][/size][/b]
[/quote]

"If God is not, everything is permitted." You can have anybody from any religion say that...

And that article you posted was written by [b]Dinesh D'Souza[/b] who is viewed by the atheist community at large as a illiterate on what atheism is, and with good reason. As for Singer, his views are singular, and certainly not humanistic, so I reject those too.

I don't know how good his apologetics are though, but he looks to be second class, right up there with Ken Hovind.

Edited June 10, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']
The law just officialises and fiscalises, it doesn't apply anything that is contrary in some form against a group of people. Morality is a [i]complicated[/i] subject, and to every question there is more than one angle making it subject to many more approaches to moral questions that simply what a Church says. Things are judged on their own merits, not because they come from some authoritative source with claims to objective morality (anyone can claim that, in fact, many groups do).

Man is an animal (biological fact) but morality is a social construct that extends within a species. Other animals as far as we know do not have the cognitive capacity to come to that concept, but that still means that social animals don't cooperate to levels of sophistication that are similar to smaller tribes of people. Animals also can't collectively reason using (sometimes) precise language which is important for higher levels of cooperation. They also don't live in cities and complex global societies, which cause an escalation in complications between differences of interests. [/quote]

I'm sorry but these are just more relativistic answers. None are actual reasons why rape is [u]always[/u] (absolute) wrong. Without God all that is left to judge the merits is man. Certain individuals or societies will say it is wrong, others will say it's ok. If God does not exist then each individual or society is the judge of the merits of morality.

So either back up your objective absolute claim with something absolute and objective or take back your absolute claim.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']Yes, so he said. But I was talking about the Jews then and today, who don't follow Christ but still don't put into practice the punishments which we would see as barbarous. Do you see any Jews killing adulterous women? [/quote]

Again with man (humans) as the highest authority killing adulterous women in one society is true and good for that society because that is the truth of that society. That society judges the merits of morality.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']But what do you think of Lot? A righteous man? [/quote]

Righteous man does not equal prefect man. Plus do remember he had a crazy mob outside of his house a crazy mob he knew was homosexual (sodomites) and attempted to quell the mob by offering his two virgin daughters suspecting that because the mod were homosexuals they would refuse his daughters, they did refuse his daughters, and again the angelic beings refused Lot's request too.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']Atheism (militant, positive, whatever you want to call it) is not communism.

Seriously man, I'm telling you, as an atheist, that there's nothing in militant atheism that leads to communism. You have to look at the historical context in that case. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god, but for a whole country to socially engineer itself like that there are way bigger motives.

Most militant atheists I know are secularists, which is incompatible with atheistic communism. Militant, I said. [/quote]

Not all positive atheism is Communism, but many forms of communism are positive atheism. They would tell you as atheists, that there is much in militant atheism that leads to communism. For goodness sakes they come right out and say atheism is their fight their purpose their doctrine. You're simply in denial.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']No, so far I see my point of view as a more cohesive picture, because it makes no sense to fight against something that you don't believe in, as you seem to think when you said that they opposed the Czar (and later bourgeoisie) and the clergy because they got their power from god. That's a purely theistic line of thinking. [/quote]

More relative opinion, they had a different opinion. They believed their fight was for atheism in the name of atheism. They viewed belief in God as a decease a infection on society, a mental disorder and positive atheism was the cure.



[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']I'm assuming they devoutly worshipped...nothing?[/quote]

If you don't like devote use hard core. In the end they were atheists and their policies where positive atheism.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']"If God is not, everything is permitted." You can have anybody from any religion say that...[/quote]

So what? Without God there's no objective truth no objective morality all there is is relative opinion, so someone can say without God everything is permitted. All you have to object to that opinion is just more opinion.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']And that article you posted was written by [b]Dinesh D'Souza[/b] who is viewed by the atheist community at large as a illiterate on what atheism is, and with good reason. As for Singer, his views are singular, and certainly not humanistic, so I reject those too. [/quote]

Too bad you reject objective truth then all that might actually matter, doesn't matter what the atheist community views him as it's just their opinion verses his opinion.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']I don't know how good his apologetics are though, but he looks to be second class, right up there with Ken Hovind.
[/quote]

Again oh so sorry but with no objective truth his opinions are just as equal as anyone else.

Edited June 10, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

"[i]God[/i]" arbitrarily dictating true or false, right or wrong, good or bad seems subjective and nihilistic to me personally. Unless there is a testable method that "[i]god[/i]" uses, in which case "[i]god[/i]" is no longer needed in this method. Even more subjective, nihilistic and arbitrary when we rely on supposed human intermediaries, whom can be incoherent and contradictory. Between different religions and even within the same religions, there are differences in both what is perceived and practiced making religious morality relative to that religion, place, time, and people.

The problem I suspect is that the notion of "[i]divine command[/i]" is being presented as a valid contender in the realm of ethics, its not. Even if it was, who can get "[i]god[/i]" ([u][i]not man[/i][/u]) to clarify these matters for us? Someone please tell "[i]god[/i]" to join this discussion?

[b]Though this would be a great place for a prank from dust...[/b] this discussion will continue between humans, we are the ones who will decide, hopefully we will be honest enough to admit that.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[xSilverPhinx]

KnightofChrist, now we're back to what is objective truth and reality, and sorry, but your claims to it as also just your opinion, though an opinion shared by many. I think so far Stevil put it best with his Relativity example, if there is a god, then only god would be in a position to know, and since the religious can't prove there is a god and that their opinions are his, then they're also just one more I bunch with other subjective opinions, which have a validity because they are opinions, though not all opinions are equal. I have no reason to accept religious morality over my own because it claims that it's backed by the creator of the universe. In fact, I find some of the rigid ideas to be shallow, and fail when it comes to specific contexts. But that's just my opinion, though a opinion that has thus far not found any good reason to change. I still find relativistic morality to be superior, and do think that many opinions have value (though I really respect a limited few and from few people) just as you respect your Church's.

As for communism, I still think you're missing the forest for the trees, but I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I simply don't think you know what you're talking about. You keep insisting that atheism is a structured ideology, when it's not and so make your own weird conclusions as to why someone would socially engineer a country to something that only describes a lack of belief in god. Communism is a set of beliefs and athiesm is compatible with it. It was a perfect foundation to destroy the prevailing notions at the time and transition to another way of life and thinking. Especially because religion is also part of the feudal class struggle that Marx kept going on about.

If you feel it's okay to dismiss whatever I say that you don't like as just my opinion, even in subjects that I clearly know more than you such as D'Souza being an ignorant, then we have nothing to talk about. All I get from you is 'it's just your opinion and just as valid as others'. I think you might have a problem with uncertainties and this conversation is going nowhere.
I also find your put downs of my opinions just because since I don't believe in any god to not be tied into any objective truth (as if you have to be a believer to know facts on any subject) disconcerting and off the mark. By now I'm convinced that you're only going to stop throwing the same old tired arguments at me when I say that objective morality exists, and since you believe that yours it is, you're going to insist that I adopt your own moral framework.

1+1=2 (not an opinion) whether you believe in gods or not and after revising my own, I just don't see morality to be based on such clear cut facts.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Edited June 10, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

All I'm saying is that claiming that there is an objective morality and that it's yours is not good enough.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307704956' post='2251955']
KnightofChrist, now we're back to what is objective truth and reality, and sorry, but your claims to it as also just your opinion, though an opinion shared by many. I think so far Stevil put it best with his Relativity example, if there is a god, then only god would be in a position to know, and since the religious can't prove there is a god and that their opinions are his, then they're also just one more I bunch with other subjective opinions, which have a validity because they are opinions, though not all opinions are equal. I have no reason to accept religious morality over my own because it claims that it's backed by the creator of the universe. In fact, I find some of the rigid ideas to be shallow, and fail when it comes to specific contexts. But that's just my opinion, though a opinion that has thus far not found any good reason to change. I still find relativistic morality to be superior, and do think that many opinions have value (though I really respect a limited few and from few people) just as you respect your Church's. [/quote]

You're still avoiding direct questions asked of you. You're the one that said rape is always wrong you made an absolute. Answer my questions or take back the claim and admit you don't know if it is always wrong because you don't believe in moral absolutes.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307704956' post='2251955']As for communism, I still think you're missing the forest for the trees, but I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I simply don't think you know what you're talking about. You keep insisting that atheism is a structured ideology, when it's not and so make your own weird conclusions as to why someone would socially engineer a country to something that only describes a lack of belief in god. Communism is a set of beliefs and athiesm is compatible with it. It was a perfect foundation to destroy the prevailing notions at the time and transition to another way of life and thinking. Especially because religion is also part of the feudal class struggle that Marx kept going on about. [/quote]

You're just in denial and buying into New Atheism talking points which is a vain and quite lame attempt to dodge the crimes of positive atheism. If you don't want to accept the black and white proof of the words of positive atheists themselves well live in ignorance.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307704956' post='2251955']If you feel it's okay to dismiss whatever I say that you don't like as just my opinion, even in subjects that I clearly know more than you such as D'Souza being an ignorant, then we have nothing to talk about. All I get from you is 'it's just your opinion and just as valid as others'. I think you might have a problem with uncertainties and this conversation is going nowhere.
I also find your put downs of my opinions just because since I don't believe in any god to not be tied into any objective truth (as if you have to be a believer to know facts on any subject) disconcerting and off the mark. By now I'm convinced that you're only going to stop throwing the same old tired arguments at me when I say that objective morality exists, and since you believe that yours it is, you're going to insist that I adopt your own moral framework. [/quote]

You don't get it do you? You contradict yourself right and left. One minute you act as though there is objective truth the next you act as if there is only subjective truth. I don't outright dismiss your opinions, I only state the truth of relativism, which is that your opinions aren't facts and that all opinions are equal. Each person opinion is true for that person. You say atheism is only a lack of belief, well that's fine and dandy, positive atheists have another view. Reject objective and moral truth and both opinions are equal. Sorry.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307704956' post='2251955']1+1=2 (not an opinion) whether you believe in gods or not and after revising my own, I just don't see morality to be based on such clear cut facts. [/quote]

Yes you do or you did you've stated rape is [i]always[/i] wrong, basically stating it's a clear cut fact it's wrong. But you give no absolute reasoning as to why it is absolutely wrong. God is real = God is (not an opinion) and I'm still waiting for you to show how 1=1 is obvious. Did I miss that answer by chance?


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307704956' post='2251955']We're just going to have to agree to disagree.
[/quote]

Irrelevant, most of your opinions are incorrect your arguments are not sound or logical, or within reason, they are contradictory and relative.

Edited June 10, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307728425' post='2252065']
You're still avoiding direct questions asked of you. You're the one that said rape is always wrong you made an absolute. Answer my questions or take back the claim and admit you don't know if it is always wrong because you don't believe in moral absolutes.[/quote]

I do say that rape is always wrong, but in the sense that it is never justified, not that it's a moral absolute that comes from an objective source. That's clearer than the case of killing/murder, where people can still bend and twist the meaning of 'innocence' to justify it.

Killing is not always wrong. Killing a mass murderer would be justified.

[quote]You're just in denial and buying into New Atheism talking points which is a vain and quite lame attempt to dodge the crimes of positive atheism. If you don't want to accept the black and white proof of the words of positive atheists themselves well live in ignorance.[/quote]

I'm in denial about what? That Stalin was an atheist? No, I just don't buy that they killed all those people for atheism as the goal.

It makes just as much sense as killing people because they believe in the flying spaghetti monster and all of its followers because they get their power from the his noodliness.


[quote]You don't get it do you? You contradict yourself right and left. One minute you act as though there is objective truth the next you act as if there is only subjective truth. I don't outright dismiss your opinions, I only state the truth of relativism, which is that your opinions aren't facts and that all opinions are equal. Each person opinion is true for that person. You say atheism is only a lack of belief, well that's fine and dandy, positive atheist have another view. Reject objective and moral truth, both opinions are equal.[/quote]

I'm saying that there is subjective truth, and objective truth, but that all morality is subjective, and not Truth. You keep confusing objective facts with subjective strongly held opinions.

And I don't think that consistency is necessarily a strength, in some cases things just don't apply.


[quote]Yes you do or you did you've stated rape is [i]always[/i] wrong, basically stating it's a clear cut fact it's wrong. But you give no absolute reasoning as to why it is absolutely wrong. God is God = God is (not an opinion) and I'm still waiting for you to show how 1=1 is obvious. Did I miss that answer by chance?[/quote]

It's just my opinion, though there are people who would try and justify it for the greater good (though I think such people need god) and others through their own selfishness (I also think they need a constant watcher.)

I doubt those people would want to be themselves raped. I would ask them after they go through that if they think it's wrong. I doubt any would say no. If they themselves as perpetuators don't think it's good or right, then they can't morally justify it.

1=1 is self evident, though not proved. And if you want logical proof for 1+1=2, then look up the more than 100 pages that Bertrand Russell devoted to it in his Principia Mathematica.

1 also has clear objects in the objective empirical world, it's not a word or concept that can be used to explain more than it is. 'God', however, is fuzzy, and varies from person to person. You won't find people disputing what 1 represents in the real world as often as you find people disputing how they see 'god'.

[quote]Irrelevant, most of your opinions are incorrect your arguments are not sound or logical, or within reason, they are contradictory and relative.[/quote]

They are inconsistent and relative, because there's no absolute moral truth for some situations.

Here'a a link on [url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/"]moral skepticism[/url] and another on [url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/"]moral relativism[/url] from a purely philosophical non religious source.

Edited June 10, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

How do you go about determining the moral rightness of issues that are not described in the bible?

Hypothetical situation: supposing mankind were to create an advanced form of artifical intelligence in the future, who is just as concious as we are, how should they be treated?

If they're capable of feeling pain, then what? Would it be moral to pull the plug?

What about future cases of transhumanism, when we add technology to our organic brains, will such people be less human?

Edited June 10, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307734082' post='2252117']
How do you go about determining the moral rightness of issues that are not described in the bible?

Hypothetical situation: supposing mankind were to create an advanced form of artifical intelligence in the future, who is just as concious as we are, how should they be treated?

If they're capable of feeling pain, then what? Would it be moral to pull the plug?

What about future cases of transhumanism, when we add technology to our organic brains, will such people be less human?
[/quote]

Catholicism is based on the Church, Scriptures and Tradition. Scripture points out that the [color="#4169E1"]Church[/color] is the pillar and foundation and we are to listen to the teachings passed on from Jesus and the Apostles. So if a new issue, such as cloning, creating artificial intelligence came up, we look to the Church to determine the morals of the situation. While an issue is being debated, people can have legitimately different opinions until the church issues a definitive statement on the topic, and then the topic is withdrawn from circulation. An example is women's ordination to the priesthood: when the church issued the statement that the Church has no authority to ordain women the topic is closed. Some people foolishly keep thinking the Church will change its mind, but that is not a possibility. Its like telling the church to change its mind on gay marriage or abortion - just not happening this side of hell freezing over.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1307759960' post='2252254']
Catholicism is based on the Church, Scriptures and Tradition. Scripture points out that the [color="#4169E1"]Church[/color] is the pillar and foundation and we are to listen to the teachings passed on from Jesus and the Apostles. So if a new issue, such as cloning, creating artificial intelligence came up, we look to the Church to determine the morals of the situation. While an issue is being debated, people can have legitimately different opinions until the church issues a definitive statement on the topic, and then the topic is withdrawn from circulation. An example is women's ordination to the priesthood: when the church issued the statement that the Church has no authority to ordain women the topic is closed. Some people foolishly keep thinking the Church will change its mind, but that is not a possibility. Its like telling the church to change its mind on gay marriage or abortion - just not happening this side of hell freezing over.
[/quote]

I see.

What do you think the Church's postion on those issues will be? Or what are yours?

[cmotherofpirl]

This is my opinion at this point, since I haven't read any definitive statements from the Church. When the Church decides, it will be after long deliberate and exhaustive study by men and women who have given their lives studying this stuff, so at that point I will bow to their expertise, authority and wisdom.
When an egg is fertilized it in its essence is entirely new human being, even identical twins are not really identical. At that point it is gifted with a soul by God. Even if we perfectly clone a human body, it will never be identical to the original, it will be unique and still a child of God.
If we develop an artificial intelligence, it will be a manmade invention, not something created by God, and not endowed with a soul or human rights: humanity's history of its treatment of those designated as other has never been pretty, and human nature doesn't change. The concept of human rights as applied to "other" than your local neighbors came from the work of Spanish theologians after the contact with New World by explorers and missionaries.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307729265' post='2252074']
I do say that rape is always wrong, but in the sense that it is never justified, not that it's a moral absolute that comes from an objective source. [/quote]

If it is always wrong, if it is never justified that is a moral absolute which needs an objective source on which such a claim must be based. You doubt God so where do you get this moral absolute? This btw is a perfect example of your contradictions.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307729265' post='2252074']That's clearer than the case of killing/murder, where people can still bend and twist the meaning of 'innocence' to justify it.

Killing is not always wrong. Killing a mass murderer would be justified. [/quote]

Murder is the intentional killing of a innocent person. Murder is unjust because it is an act against Justice itself God, rather than simply against the justice of man. Murder is always wrong. Killing someone to defend your family because or to protect society (capital punishment or war) is self defense.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307729265' post='2252074'][b]No, I just don't buy that they killed all those people for atheism as the goal.[/b][/quote]

That's the denial they came right out and said it was their cause and you still deny it.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307729265' post='2252074']It makes just as much sense as killing people because they believe in the flying spaghetti monster and all of its followers because they get their power from the his noodliness. [/quote]

I'm sure they would have no problem killing anyone that did not accept Atheism.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307729265' post='2252074']I'm saying that there is subjective truth, and objective truth, but that all morality is subjective, and not Truth. You keep confusing objective facts with subjective strongly held opinions. And I don't think that consistency is necessarily a strength, in some cases things just don't apply. [/quote]

Again another contradiction. At the beginning of your post you state a moral absolute that rape is always wrong. Now you state all morality is subjective (which btw is a moral absolute). I'm not the one confused I'm not the one in contradiction.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307729265' post='2252074']It's just my opinion, though there are people who would try and justify it for the greater good (though I think such people need god) and others through their own selfishness (I also think they need a constant watcher.)

I doubt those people would want to be themselves raped. I would ask them after they go through that if they think it's wrong. I doubt any would say no. If they themselves as perpetuators don't think it's good or right, then they can't morally justify it. [/quote]

So now you do admit it's just your opinion so we can dismiss your previous claim in this same post that it is always wrong? And better state it as you think it is always wrong but maybe not? Also looking at the world from a purely naturalistic pov the theory of the survival of the fittest would give evidence that the idea that any rape being wrong is just a moral construct of the human imagination.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307729265' post='2252074']1=1 is self evident, though not proved. And if you want logical proof for 1+1=2, then look up the more than 100 pages that Bertrand Russell devoted to it in his Principia Mathematica.

1 also has clear objects in the objective empirical world, it's not a word or concept that can be used to explain more than it is. 'God', however, is fuzzy, and varies from person to person. You won't find people disputing what 1 represents in the real world as often as you find people disputing how they see 'god'.[/quote]

So it is an Axiom? Sorry I thought you would try this argument and I was ready, Axioms are assumptions they require [i]'faith'[/i] to believe in there existence. *1 & *2. One is assumed to equal one, it is not self-evident, a book hundreds of pages long that doesn't even come close to completing its subject means its subject is at least somewhat fuzzy. I can easily and soundly dispute that what appears to be just 'one' object is in fact many objects. Breaking an object from what can be seen with the human eye down to just the atomic level we can see what appears to be '[i]one[/i]' object is any given number of smaller [i]objects. [/i]That is true for something as small as a marble.[i]
[/i]
*1 "Axioms are not self-evident truths in any sort of rational system, they are unprovable assumptions whose truth or falsehood should always be mentally prefaced with an implicit ``If we assume that...''. … They are really just assertions or propositions to which we give a special primal status and exempt from the necessity of independent proof." [Source: [url="http://www.phy.duke.edu/%7Ergb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node27.html"]http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/ axioms/axioms/node27.html[/url]]

Also check out this

*2 "The mathematical axiom has suffered a long fall from its ancient eyrie. Nearly 24 centuries ago it was held to be a self-evident truth, a statement that was absolutely beyond any suspicion that it could be false. Today mathematicians tell non-mathematicians that an axiom is only a premise or rule in a game, a starting point. In the more official language of Nelson's Dictionary of Mathematics (2nd ed.), an axiom is
a well-formed formula that is stipulated rather than proved to be so through the application of rules of inference. The axioms and the rules of inference jointly provide a basis for proving all other theorems. As different sets of axioms may generate the same set of theorems, there may be many alternative axiomatizations of the formal system." [Source: [url="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mrc.uidaho.edu%2F%7Erwells%2FCritical%2520Philosophy%2520and%2520Mind%2FChapter%252023.pdf&rct=j&q=Self%20evident%20truth%20is%20an%20illusion.%201%2B1%3D2%20is%20not%20self%20evident%20in%20any%20logic%20or%20mathematics.%20It%EF%BB%BF%20took%20Russell%20and%20Whitehead%20more%20that%20700%20pages%20of%20logic%20&ei=Z_ryTeLvEo-3tgf8iPnnBg&usg=AFQjCNGSnR__fpcC_bsgAJHAXfy5-pSE9Q&sig2=W8WdBjeRDxLOUNig-UWCdg&cad=rja"]Mathematics and Mathematical Axioms[/url] [color="#696969"][i]Note this link is to a pdf and will download on your computer[/i][/color]]


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307729265' post='2252074'T]hey are inconsistent and relative, because there's no absolute moral truth for some situations.

Here'a a link on [url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/"]moral skepticism[/url] and another on [url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/"]moral relativism[/url] from a purely philosophical non religious source.
[/quote]

Thanks for more subjective relative opinion but it's equal to all others opinions and no one is bound to obey the subjective opinions of others.

Edited June 11, 2011 by KnightofChrist