Fear of Atheism

[Sammy Jankis]

This is a topic an atheist moral relativist like you can really sink your teeth into:

Can Evolution Account for Morality?​

Evolution fundamentally is about survival of the fittest​

Chemistry, molecules, and molecular biology are not moral agents.

Evolution is descriptive not prescriptive, and describes what does survive, not what ought to survive. Why should humans survive?

Should we murder the weak to help others survive?

Should we cull the gene pool by eliminating the disabled and help the fit survive?

Why "cooperate" when not cooperating often helps you to survive?

Should we rape to survive and propagate our genes?

Since evolution is a process of change, then morals must change. Will rape one day be "good"?

cooperation is a pro survival strategy.


yes, superior force is a temporary strategy, but the cooperation is actually more evolved than the brute force ethics.

 

[Into the Night]

You know, this is interesting.

I lived in the DC area for quite some time, and the first time my nephew came to visit, I took him to see all the monuments, museums, for a Capitol tour led by my Congressman, etc. The whole touristy deal. There was an event going on at the Reflecting Pool, and of course, because there was an event there were tons of protestors.

I remember passing a young woman in a Hijab, who was being harassed by a group of people. Christians with a little pop-up truck stand, with posters and stickers all over it, each proclaiming love for Jesus, and faith, crosses and cartoon images of the bible everywhere.

They were screaming so much that their faces were red, and they were literally shooting bits of spittle in actual rage, telling this young woman she was going to burn in Hell, and how she needed to get out of the US.

She handled it in the funniest way possible by turning her back to them and taking selfies with her phone, giving it the thumbs up and clearly enjoying their hate-filled screeds. But that wasn't really what I thought about the most.

It made me think about my own experiences. I'm traditionally, though not religiously, Jewish. My grandparents were Orthodox Jews, my father was a religious Jew. I'm an atheist, but follow certain traditions out of respect for my family and let's face it, tradition. Tradition is tradition. A billion dead people can't be wrong, right?

So there ARE times that I wear a yarmulke, or go to Temple. And there are times when I've been identifiably Jewish (because of the kippa) that I've been told that I'm wrong, that I'm going to Hell, that I've been screamed at, and that I've been told I'm - to put it mildly - a bad person.

And EVERY single time that's happened, it's been Christians that have done it. From some Christian person standing on a box on a corner, raising a bible high into the air and using it to spread hatred toward non-Christians to simply going home after an event like a Bar Mitzvah or from Temple, it's ALWAYS Christians who have, yes, aggressively proselytized their faith.

So fanatics who are shrill and demanding? Rude and obnoxious? That's your lot.

I guess you would rather try to ignore the Islamic people attacking Israel.

 

[Into the Night]

So why do YOU think slavery is bad? God seems to be OK with it. Who are you to disagree with God????

Exodus 21 2-11
“When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave declares, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person,’ 6 then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him for life.

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.

Ephesians 6:5-9
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ, 6 not with a slavery performed merely for looks, to please people, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the soul.

1 Timothy 6:1-2
Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.

Titus 2:9
Urge slaves to be submissive to their masters in everything, to be pleasing, not talking back, 10 not stealing, but showing complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the teaching of God our Savior.

Slavery appears in the Bible because of Man's practices, not God. Presentism fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Science/scientists tend to avoid making moral judgements at nearly any cost. They want to explain why things are how they are, but won't tell you how things should be.

That doesn't mean that science CAN'T answer questions about human values and morality, it just means that scientists don't WANT to address the topic.

Science has no such theory.

 

[Into the Night]

Meaning and purpose are different than morality. I'm talking about morality.

I'm not saying science is the only source of truth and knowledge. I'm saying that science CAN give moral direction, but scientists choose not to do so.

Science is not 'truth' or 'knowledge'. Science is not 'morals'.

 

[Into the Night]

I've never associated Christianity with being anti-slavery. The Bible doesn't even take a stand against slavery and the South, which was very Christian, fought to keep slavery.

The collections of protons, electrons, etc somehow equate to consciousness. In a world where there is consciousness, and external events that impact conscious creatures, there's an awareness of what does or doesn't contribute to the well-being of those creatures.

Right. Ancient civilization did a lot of things that are unacceptable by today's standards. Early Christians used to hold trials for animals and execute them in some cases. The existence of past bad ideas isn't really relevant to the question of science and morality.

Science isn't a question. Science isn't morality.

 

[Into the Night]

Okay, I think we just have modestly different perspectives on a lot of things.

My biggest disagreement with you is that science is a source of morality.

Nothing about the scientific experimental method, or a universe of only consisting of blind, pitiless physical forces points me towards any kind of objective moral truth or ultimate meaning.

Science is not a method nor an experiment.

 

[gmark77]

But that's what I mean. It's just the generic title of a category of academic discipline. It doesn't have any specific explanatory power for what this thread was discussing in the past few days.

It means that I recognize in you the same kind of mental states that I can experience. Which means that I am more prone to do to you that which I would would like in return.

I recognize you value being respected, so I show you respect in hopes that it will make you happy and which I can expect in return.

It's the core of why the "Golden Rule" cuts across almost all societies. We recognize in each other the same type of experience we have.

 

[gmark77]

Slavery appears in the Bible because of Man's practices, not God. Presentism fallacy.

So why doesn't the Bible clearly state that slavery is wrong, full stop?

 

[Into the Night]

So why doesn't the Bible clearly state that slavery is wrong, full stop?

Go read the teachings of Jesus Christ, Gunky.

 

[gmark77]

Go read the teachings of Jesus Christ, Gunky.

I have. Where does Jesus clearly state slavery is wrong? And more importantly why didn't Paul know that Jesus disapproved of slavery?

 

[Cypress]

cooperation is a pro survival strategy.

That's not good enough. It's only good enough for the self-interested and the cynical.

That is a strategy based on self-interest and self-preservation. Even animals follow Darwinian principles of mutually advantageous cooperation within their family, pack, or colony.

The morality taught in the Bible is not based on self-interest and mutual advantage.

Even the most cursory reading of the parable of the good Samaritan makes this obvious.

The New Testament ethos is based on the idea of extending universal love and self-sacrifice on behalf of others, even if it includes strangers, rivals, foreigners, competitors, and without any expectation of reciprocity or mutual advantage. And that is ultimately based on the belief that all human beings everywhere have an innate value because they are made in the image of God.

 

[gmark77]

That's not good enough. It's only good enough for the self-interested and the cynical.

Are you of the opinion that humans don't naturally go toward pro-social behaviors? That there is no moral instinct? That all moral behavior is taught?

 

[Cypress]

Is there? That one quote stands on its own, Cypress. It was emphatic. Either he meant that completely...or he lied.

You're free to believe Jesus was teaching and emphasizing Mosaic ritual laws like ritual sacrifice, ritual cleanliness, and work on Sabbath.

I think any fair reading of the New Testament makes that supposition laughable.

If Jesus was teaching, following, and emphasizing the Mosaic ritual laws and civil laws instead of focusing on the moral law, the Pharasees would not have been following him around and complaining.

You decide which you suppose it to be.


Either he meant what was quoted there in Matthew...or he lied.

It was too emphatic to be something else.

You decide which you suppose it to be.


That is a bromide. Save it for a tee shirt or a bumper sticker.



Asians do grow up in Asia...and suppose their methods of determining culture and morals are fine. Whether you or I do or do not is neither here nor there in this context.



Neither do I. But they arrived at their morals and culture without the kind of impact Christianity has had on us. That was my point.



Correct. But your point?


The notion that monotheism is superior in some way to polytheism or atheism makes no sense to me. A chief god among many lesser gods works as rationally as a single god.

In any case, people who blindly guess there is a god or gods with a "law-giver" reward/punishment clause...is in no way superior to atheism and its idea that animals (including humans when we came along) are clearly able to see what is advantageous to proscribe or encourage.

As a person with agnostic sensibilities...I have no idea of which is the reality. To insist it is one or the other just seems to me to be arguing about whether a decision essentially made by a coin toss...is correct.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with Asian culture.

I said that you would probably be unpleasantly surprised if you got transported to an alternate universe western world where the western monotheistic traditions never existed. Primarily because experimental science, skeptical inquiry, formal logic, art, and philosophy are inextricably bound up with western monotheism and uniquely took root in the west.

Buddhists don't even believe in a rational creator God. Hinduism and Buddhism are focused on impermanence and consider reality a type of illusion we have to see past. The folk religions of China considered Tian or the Tao a totally impersonal and diffuse type creative force. It's not a personal, rational monotheistic diety. Taoism is in some very real sense an exploration of the irrational and subjective.

Western natural philosophers went looking for scientific natural laws, and expected to find them, because they believed in a personal, rational, and omnipotent law-giver. At least that's a big reason for it.

Don't take my word for it. That is what Isaac Newton said .

I think that's a very strong case for why experimental science and formal logic developed uniquely in the West, and nowhere else on the planet.

 

[gmark77]

You're free to believe Jesus was teaching and emphasizing Mosaic ritual laws like ritual sacrifice,

Whether Jesus taught it or not, his sacrifice is largely considered to be the ultimate sacrifice. That, indeed, God chose to atone man to himself by merit of a human sacrifice.

Hence the rending of the temple veil in Luke 22. The ultimate removal of any barriers between God and his people.

And it's arguable that this is critical to Christianity. Salvation comes from acceptance of this sacrifice on our behalf.

 

[Into the Night]

I have.

Blatant lie.

Where does Jesus clearly state slavery is wrong? And more importantly why didn't Paul know that Jesus disapproved of slavery?

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

That's not good enough. It's only good enough for the self-interested and the cynical.

That is a strategy based on self-interest and self-preservation. Even animals follow Darwinian principles of mutually advantageous cooperation within their family, pack, or colony.

The morality taught in the Bible is not based on self-interest and mutual advantage.

Even the most cursory reading of the parable of the good Samaritan makes this obvious.

The New Testament ethos is based on the idea of extending universal love and self-sacrifice on behalf of others, even if it includes strangers, rivals, foreigners, competitors, and without any expectation of reciprocity or mutual advantage. And that is ultimately based on the belief that all human beings everywhere have an innate value because they are made in the image of God.

There is no absolute morality. The morals taught are good morals for anyone, but not everyone shares those morals.
You are bullshitting again.

His argument that cooperation can be based on morals is valid.

 

[Into the Night]

Are you of the opinion that humans don't naturally go toward pro-social behaviors? That there is no moral instinct? That all moral behavior is taught?

Morality is not instinct.

Each person develops his own morals throughout his life.

 

[Cypress]

Whether Jesus taught it or not, his sacrifice is largely considered to be the ultimate sacrifice. That, indeed, God chose to atone man to himself by merit of a human sacrifice.

Hence the rending of the temple veil in Luke 22. The ultimate removal of any barriers between God and his people.

And it's arguable that this is critical to Christianity. Salvation comes from acceptance of this sacrifice on our behalf.

One thing I've realized over the past 8 years is that if the vocal minority on the left keeps preaching that Christianity is fundamentally flawed, perhaps even evil, and the West would have been better off without it, my party is going to keep losing the Midwestern and Appalachian states we used to routinely win.

Because while those states are economically left of center, they are culturally right of center. And people don't just vote on policies.

 

[Cypress]

There is no absolute morality.

^^ So you are a moral relativist, which is to be expected because of your secular atheist worldview.