Is Atheism Dead ?

@kellyjay said
I agree many things need to change with us, and right now, I think the pendulum is moving in the wrong direction, with lawlessness breaking out in so many cities in the states. Out truths change, truth does not; I don't think I was clear. I believe truths to be absolute; they are not like opinions which we can have to get forced to change; they are not like hypotheses which ...[text shortened]... ld to something authentic, we will find that the more we look at it, the more we confirm its status.

So when a self-evident truth is not echoed by scripture, how do you resolve that?

@avalanchethecat said
So when a self-evident truth is not echoed by scripture, how do you resolve that?

Give me an example. Scripture is 66 books, so the context is limited to those; I'm sure many self-evident truths are not echoed by scripture.

@kellyjay said
Give me an example.

No, that is for you to judge. If you have not encountered this issue for yourself then I do not wish to suggest that what seems a self-evident truth to me should also be for you. My value system and yours may differ, and I do not suggest that any difference should be in my favour.

@avalanchethecat said
No, that is for you to judge. If you have not encountered this issue for yourself then I do not wish to suggest that what seems a self-evident truth to me should also be for you. My value system and yours may differ, and I do not suggest that any difference should be in my favour.

I have given you what I believe to be a self-evident truth; you don't get code written to do complex work without a coder. Code writing isn't in the Bible; if you have something, by all means, share. We may disagree about it, but what is the worst that can happen? At least we would know where the other's head is.

@kellyjay said
I have given you what I believe to be a self-evident truth; you don't get code written to do complex work without a coder. Code writing isn't in the Bible; if you have something, by all means, share. We may disagree about it, but what is the worst that can happen? At least we would know where the other's head is.

No, were I to suggest something which to me seems an evident contradiction in right and wrong you would perforce argue against my suggestion. I'm not interested in doing that, I'm interested in how you would resolve a contradiction between what you think is wrong and what your scripture tells you is right. If there's nothing which does that for you, I have no interest in discussing it further.

@avalanchethecat said
No, were I to suggest something which to me seems an evident contradiction in right and wrong you would perforce argue against my suggestion. I'm not interested in doing that, I'm interested in how you would resolve a contradiction between what you think is wrong and what your scripture tells you is right. If there's nothing which does that for you, I have no interest in discussing it further.

Okay, sure, not sure why you brought it up then.

@kellyjay said
Okay, sure, not sure why you brought it up then.

The fact that you find no conflicts is interesting to me. And, frankly, a bit of a surprise.

@avalanchethecat said
The fact that you find no conflicts is interesting to me. And, frankly, a bit of a surprise.

As I said, there are 66 books and much ground to cover. I believe arguing with God or finding fault with Him is a no-brainer. For me, it would be like eyeballing a line and ignoring the level or holding up one's thumb instead of looking at a plumb line. We are a moving target when it is just us; what we say goes, just because we want what we want, any ole justification that satisfies us at the moment will do.

While looking at just the 10 Commandments alone, they are lines that cannot be crossed regardless of my wants, desires, lusts, justification. Not everything was done in scripture, even if it were done in the name of God, was because He wanted it done that way; we can; as been spoken here earlier, do things because we think they are right and use religion or something to rally around to justify our actions.

@kellyjay said
As I said, there are 66 books and much ground to cover. I believe arguing with God or finding fault with Him is a no-brainer. For me, it would be like eyeballing a line and ignoring the level or holding up one's thumb instead of looking at a plumb line. We are a moving target when it is just us; what we say goes, just because we want what we want, any ole justification that ...[text shortened]... ecause we think they are right and use religion or something to rally around to justify our actions.

And you've never found anything in any of those 66 books (why just those 66 by the way?) which made you think that maybe modern morality is a little bit more refined in comparison?

@avalanchethecat said
So when a self-evident truth is not echoed by scripture, how do you resolve that?

I remember a poster called dj2becker who talked incessantly about how all the things he believed regarding morality were objective, absolute truths [because he believed in God].

When the issue of the morality of eating the flesh of dead fellow passengers in order to survive a plane crash high in The Andes arose, he said he was not sure because the Bible did not talk about that action and would need to be interpreted.

However, having said he would look into it [and although he never did], he then claimed that whatever he interpreted the Bible's stance to be on the issue, it would be another absolute truth to add to all the other Bible-derived ones he believed in.

@fmf said
I remember a poster called dj2becker who talked incessantly about how all the things he believed regarding morality were objective, absolute truths [because he believed in God].

When the issue of the morality of eating the flesh of dead fellow passengers in order to survive a plane crash high in The Andes arose, he said he was not sure because the Bible did not talk about tha ...[text shortened]... issue, it would be another absolute truth to add to all the other Bible-derived ones he believed in.

I've often raised an eyebrow when confronted with the religionist argument that atheists can do whatever they want and can make up their own morality to suit. It's a strange take to believe that the god is the source of morality but that only believers have to follow it.

@avalanchethecat said
I've often raised an eyebrow when confronted with the religionist argument that atheists can do whatever they want and can make up their own morality to suit. It's a strange take to believe that the god is the source of morality but that only believers have to follow it.

Through "nurture" and my socialization, Christian values and my Christian experience form a significant part of the basis of my moral compass as it exists today. Whether a creator being played some part in the "nature" part of the formation of my moral agency... that is a more perplexing and perhaps unanswerable question. Theology certainly doesn't answer it, to my way of thinking.

@avalanchethecat said
And you've never found anything in any of those 66 books (why just those 66 by the way?) which made you think that maybe modern morality is a little bit more refined in comparison?

I didn't say that now did I? There are things I don't like in the 66 books; it doesn't mean that they are not real, that they didn't happen, are not happening, or will not happen. Modern morality isn't refined at all; depending on who you talk to, it is entirely different from that one to the next. This is acceptable here, not there; how is this refined?

I can be called a hypocrite because what I believe is outside of me if I lust, and everyone knows I'm not supposed to, due to scripture. I'm breaking the rules I acknowledge are good and should be followed. If I am my rule maker, what I believe is all that matters, and that can change from one moment to the next, "Well, I believe this, now I believe that." It is a moving target, a little justification here, a little opportunity there, and I can get what I want. If I have no plumb line or level, I set up truth as I see fit.

Modern morals are always in a state of flux; cultural norms are constantly in flux; if you think this is like science as in a good thing like I said, the pendulum swings both ways.

(I'm not the one who said this following first, but I don't recall who did)

An evil person with good intentions can be the worst type of tyrant because regardless of their actions, the consequences of what they are doing, their consciences will not hinder them; they are doing what is good for you even if you hate it. Some think they know what is best for society, and they will run roughshod over everyone, calling those that don't see things the way they do evil, bad, and wicked because they don't see things the way they do.

We can do this using religion too; it is human, our hearts are wicked, and we can deceive ourselves just as easily as others.

@kellyjay said
I didn't say that now did I? There are things I don't like in the 66 books; it doesn't mean that they are not real, that they didn't happen, are not happening, or will not happen. Modern morality isn't refined at all; depending on who you talk to, it is entirely different from that one to the next. This is acceptable here, not there; how is this refined?

I can be called a ...[text shortened]... gion too; it is human, our hearts are wicked, and we can deceive ourselves just as easily as others.

I don't think you need scripture to guide your morals. You say "if I have no plumb line or level, I set up truth as I see fit." I don't think that's correct at all. I don't think anybody, sociopaths perhaps excepted, sets up their truth as they see fit. I think we are all able to consider the options in front of us and decide which is the more morally correct path. Sometimes we may not make the right choice, for convenience' sake or because we capitulated to greed, anger, lust or so on, but I think we always know when we have erred thus, and I don't think we need scripture to tell us. In my experience, that knowledge comes from within.

I think modern morals are generally more refined. I think we now accept - I hope we do - that all people should be granted equality of opportunity, regardless of their gender or race. I think we accept (largely, anyway) that slavery, capital punishment and corporal punishment of minors are all morally questionable at the very least. There is of course the elephant in the room of Corporate amorality, but although this is condoned, it appears to me at least that when the spotlight is shone on such behaviour, people seem to be aware that it is reprehensible and deserving - if not actually earning - of censure and punishment.

I'm not sure I entirely believe that 'evil' people exist. I think it more likely that people can be damaged and have their moral compass upset. I'm not sure on this point though. It's true some people seem to take pleasure in making what I would consider to be obviously morally wrong actions.

@avalanchethecat said
I don't think you need scripture to guide your morals. You say "if I have no plumb line or level, I set up truth as I see fit." I don't think that's correct at all. I don't think anybody, sociopaths perhaps excepted, sets up their truth as they see fit. I think we are all able to consider the options in front of us and decide which is the more morally correct path. So ...[text shortened]... people seem to take pleasure in making what I would consider to be obviously morally wrong actions.

You can not be wrong if everything you do need only to be approved by you. Not much different then your views on truth by definition you decide what is acceptable or not, anything outside of you must meet your standards, or it’s ignored or meaningless.