Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

[ringo747]

You're committing the same fallacy with purpose as you do with morality.

It's only a 'fallacy' because it doesn't happen to be the same view you hold!

You believe that there's some supra-human plane upon which these grand standards are set, and then we are judged against them. You cannot conceive of something like morality or purpose having a humanistic, or natural grounding, and it's very sad to behold.

You are correct that I don't see any grounds for objective morality outside of this 'plane' you mention.

I accept that we as humans are capable of displaying socially acceptable behaviour.

The huge problem with your view is that you can't seem to admit that in all possible societies raping a child is totally wrong.

The whole beauty of there being no such abstract plane, and no such standard is that there is no grand purpose. But what does that actually mean on a human level? It means that everybody's life is what they make of it. We can assign purpose to our own lives, and make them to be about whatever we want. Any notion of grand purpose, the idea that we were 'created' with a purpose, is of course illusory, but that's a beautiful thing. It's beautiful because it allows the possibility of up to seven billion different purposes to life.

You seem so certain that no such plane exists. How can you be so sure? Are you ruling out the possibility of it actually existing?

 

[estebanrey]

Christians have used scripture to show that slavery is unethical, as I explained in previous threads, mainly derived from the same Pauline Epistiles that some tried to use to support it.

And other Christians used it to condone slavery.

So the bit you quoted of mine that says the Bible doesn't 'absolutely and unequivocally condone slavery' was correct.

If something (in the case the Bible) both condones and condemns then it neither absolutely condones or condemns.

By arguing against this notion you are doing nothing but promoting cherry picking scripture.

I don't think he mentioned a secular society, only an atheist viewpoint based on relative morality....secularism is simply the separation of church and state, nothing more.

You're right he didn't mention it. He said "atheists" but it was clear he didn't specifically mean atheists but non-religious people in general.

And no the word secular doesn't specifically mean the separation of church and state, it means "not connected with religious or spiritual matters" and that is sense in which I was using it.

 

[estebanrey]

If the universe has no purpose then we don't either.

Sorry I don't follow that logic.

 

[zenf]

However, both De-Waal and King admit moral behaviour in animals is not homologous to that of human morality. Which is what I have been saying all along and shown why objective conclusions cannot be drawn particularly in light of the criticisms inherent in Evolutionary Psychology, as I linked to earlier.

I never said it was homologous, just that I don't think it's correct to say that no comparison can be made at all considering intelligent animals have been shown to be self-aware, have complex social interactions, show empathy etc.

The huge problem with your view is that you can't seem to admit that in all possible societies raping a child is totally wrong.

But even people who follow the objective morality which you believe in aren't always deterred, as we can see with the recent example of the Catholic church. So what good is this idea of an objective morality?

You seem so certain that no such plane exists. How can you be so sure? Are you ruling out the possibility of it actually existing?

I don't see any reason to believe that it does exist, personally.

 

[ringo747]

Sorry I don't follow that logic.

We are further down the same 'by-chance' process that brought about the universe.

But even people who follow the objective morality which you believe in aren't always deterred, as we can see with the recent example of the Catholic church. So what good is this idea of an objective morality?

The existence of an objective moral code has absolutely no bearing on whether it will be obeyed or not.

The good idea of it is presumably so that we can determine what is really right or really wrong.

I don't see any reason to believe that it does exist, personally.

Which forces you to admit that you can't categorically state that rape, child abuse or persecution of homosexuals is wrong.

 

[zenf]

The existence of an objective moral code has absolutely no bearing on whether it will be obeyed or not.

But if those who subscribe to it don't even obey it, and so many interpret it differently, can it be said to exist?

The good idea of it is presumably so that we can determine what is really right or really wrong.

It doesn't help to do that though as it's always open to interpretation.

Which forces you to admit that you can't categorically state that rape, child abuse or persecution of homosexuals is wrong.

I can indeed categorically state that many things are wrong through my own reasoning and justification. I don't dispute that other people may not reach the same conclusions, but that's no different than following a supposedly objective moral code which will always be interpreted subjectively.

 

[estebanrey]

We are further down the same 'by-chance' process that brought about the universe.

But just because the Universe has no purpose, it doesn't mean you have no purpose in life.

Besides if your thinking is our purpose is to "worship God" then what kind of existence is that? Being created by someone simply so we can be subjugated by him?

Personally I think the no intrinsic purpose ideology is preferable.

Oh, and because you have put "by chance" between single-quotes it makes me want to ask you if you know the difference between chance and luck?

 

[ringo747]

But if those who subscribe to it don't even obey it, and so many interpret it differently, can it be said to exist?

Of course it can exist, even if nobody believes in it.

I can indeed categorically state that many things are wrong through my own reasoning and justification. I don't dispute that other people may not reach the same conclusions, but that's no different than following a supposedly objective moral code which will always be interpreted subjectively.

I don't believe you can. If you don't believe that objective moral values even exist then you have no concept of something being objectively wrong at all. At best you can say that a given act is socially unacceptable.

But just because the Universe has no purpose, it doesn't mean you have no purpose in life.

No, it just means that any concept of purpose in life is illusory.

Besides if your thinking is our purpose is to "worship God" then what kind of existence is that? Being created by someone simply so we can be subjugated by him?

Personally I think the no intrinsic purpose ideology is preferable.

Oh, and because you have put "by chance" between single-quotes it makes me want to ask you if you know the difference between chance and luck?

Are chance and luck the only options?

 

[zenf]

Of course it can exist, even if nobody believes in it.

How? In what capacity? And if it's always going to interpreted subjectively, what's the point?

I don't believe you can. If you don't believe that objective moral values even exist then you have no concept of something being objectively wrong at all. At best you can say that a given act is socially unacceptable.

Just because I don't believe objective moral values exist, doesn't mean that I can't make judgements for myself and try to find a consensus with my fellow man.

No, it just means that any concept of purpose in life is illusory.

No it doesn't, it means that we create our own purpose.

 

[ringo747]

How? In what capacity? And if it's always going to interpreted subjectively, what's the point?

If something is to be wrong regardless of human opinion then there has to be a global standard that exists outside of the realm whereby moral evolves due to social conditioning. My point is that unless "God" exists, then objective moral values and duties don't exist.

Just because I don't believe objective moral values exist, doesn't mean that I can't make judgements for myself and try to find a consensus with my fellow man.

Nor did I say you couldn't make such judgements yourself.

No it doesn't, it means that we create our own purpose.

That isn't really purpose though. It's only an illusion of purpose.

 

[Castiel]

And other Christians used it to condone slavery.

So the bit you quoted of mine that says the Bible doesn't 'absolutely and unequivocally condone slavery' was correct.

If something (in the case the Bible) both condones and condemns then it neither absolutely condones or condemns.

By arguing against this notion you are doing nothing but promoting cherry picking scripture.

You cant even remember what you said...you stated that Christianity advocates slavery...it doesnt.

You're right he didn't mention it. He said "atheists" but it was clear he didn't specifically mean atheists but non-religious people in general.

And no the word secular doesn't specifically mean the separation of church and state, it means "not connected with religious or spiritual matters" and that is sense in which I was using it.

The irony is amusing, however you stated a secular society and the context therefore is clear...

I find it amusing how you accuse me of semantics yet invariably it is you that is forced to defend your position using it...

 

[zenf]

If something is to be wrong regardless of human opinion then there has to be a global standard that exists outside of the realm whereby moral evolves due to social conditioning. My point is that unless "God" exists, then objective moral values and duties don't exist.

I don't believe that objective moral values do exist... How do you determine something to be wrong, regardless of human opinion? As far as I'm aware, it's not thought that God communicated this objective moral code directly unless you're talking about the 10 commandments, but they're a poor moral code by today's standards.

That isn't really purpose though. It's only an illusion of purpose.

I believe the complete opposite is true, in that being created purely to serve an inconceivable being is illusory.

 

[ringo747]

I don't believe that objective moral values do exist... How do you determine something to be wrong, regardless of human opinion? As far as I'm aware, it's not thought that God communicated this objective moral code directly unless you're talking about the 10 commandments, but they're a poor moral code by today's standards.

We are talking here about the existence of objective moral values, how we determine them is another question entirely.

Let's take the Holocaust as an example. Do you believe it was objectively wrong?

To say it is objectively wrong means that it was wrong despite the fact that the Nazis thought it was the right thing to do. If the Nazis had taken over the world and convinced everyone that the Holocaust was the right thing to do then it still would have been wrong.

I believe the complete opposite is true.

So you would disagree with Dawkins then...

We are machines for propagating DNA...It is every living object’s sole reason for living

 

[zenf]

We are talking here about the existence of objective moral values, how we determine them is another question entirely.

That's my point; if we can't determine them, how can they exist in any practical sense?

Let's take the Holocaust as an example. Do you believe it was objectively wrong?

I don't believe in objective moral values but I believe that the holocaust was morally wrong and I don't think there would be much trouble finding a consensus in that.

To say it is objectively wrong means that it was wrong despite the fact that the Nazis thought it was the right thing to do. If the Nazis had taken over the world and convinced everyone that the Holocaust was the right thing to do then it still would have been wrong.

You've pretty much made my point there. If the Nazis had taken over the world and convinced everyone that the Holocaust was the right thing to do, there wouldn't be anyone to judge it as morally wrong, so how could objective moral values possibly exist? On some supernatural plane that would have no influence and make absolutely no difference? What is the point?

So you would disagree with Dawkins then...

Not at all; there's no reason why we can't find purpose in our lives even if we are ultimately just living for the sake of living.

 

[ringo747]

That's my point; if we can't determine them, how can they exist in any practical sense?

I haven't said that we can't determine them.

I don't believe in objective moral values but I believe that the holocaust was morally wrong and I don't think there would be much trouble finding a consensus in that.

That is contradictory. If you don't believe in objective moral values then you can't say that something is really wrong You can only say it is socially unacceptable or harmful to humanity.

You've pretty much made my point there. If the Nazis had taken over the world and convinced everyone that the Holocaust was the right thing to do, there wouldn't be anyone to judge it as morally wrong, so how could objective moral values possibly exist? On some supernatural plane that would have no influence and make absolutely no difference? What is the point?

So you think if everyone believed that the Holocaust was fine that then it must be fine? If so, that is most disturbing.

I believe that the Holocaust was wrong regardless of what human opinion suggests.

Not at all; there's no reason why we can't find purpose in our lives even if we are ultimately just living for the sake of living.

Making up or convincing ourselves that we have a purpose doesn't mean that we really do.

 

[m4rk84]

So you would disagree with Dawkins then...

Bleh selective quoting at it's finest. Dawkins is a massive advocate of life having a purpose in the eye of the beholder, watch just about any interview with him and that much is obvious, check out the Dawkins and Gervais interview I posted a few pages back which makes as much obvious.

You seem so certain that no such plane exists. How can you be so sure? Are you ruling out the possibility of it actually existing?

Please stop saying this rubbish, you have repeated this several times throughout the thread. How many times do Atheists need to explain to you that lack of belief in something is not equal to declaring it impossible.

 

[ringo747]

Bleh selective quoting at it's finest. Dawkins is a massive advocate of life having a purpose in the eye of the beholder, watch just about any interview with him and that much is obvious, check out the Dawkins and Gervais interview I posted a few pages back which makes as much obvious.

Sounds a bit contradictory to me given the statement I quoted.

Please stop saying this rubbish, you have repeated this several times throughout the thread. How many times do Atheists need to explain to you that lack of belief in something is not equal to declaring it impossible.

It's only rubbish because it happens to be an opposing view to yours. It's a discussion, I'm perfectly at will to ask someone with an opposing view for an explanation of how they come to hold their belief/opinion, especially when they state it as if it were proven fact.

 

[estebanrey]

Are chance and luck the only options?

Eh? I simply asking whether you know the difference between the two terms.

A lot of creationists sarcastically say things like "Do you really believe we came about just by chance" and because you used the inverted commas I read it as that kind of argument.

Problem is what they are actually implying is luck. Chance is simply a statistical term and can be nigh on zero through to nigh on 100%

Luck however is when someone 'beats the odds' as it were and does something unlikely.

So when people say the universe came about through chance that does not mean it was 'lucky' to have happened as is often implied when theist use the expression 'by chance'.

 

[ringo747]

Eh? I simply asking whether you know the difference between the two terms.

A lot of creationists sarcastically say things like "Do you really believe we came about just by chance" and because you used the inverted commas I read it as that kind of argument.

Problem is what they are actually implying is luck. Chance is simply a statistical term and can be nigh on zero through to nigh on 100%

Luck however is when someone 'beats the odds' as it were and does something unlikely.

So when people say the universe came about through chance that does not mean it was 'lucky' to have happened as is often implied when theist use the expression 'by chance'.

Yes I was meaning chance as opposed to luck.

 

[zenf]

I haven't said that we can't determine them.

I'm saying that we can't determine them, and therefore, they can't exist. How do you think we can determine objective moral values?

That is contradictory. If you don't believe in objective moral values then you can't say that something is really wrong You can only say it is socially unacceptable or harmful to humanity.

Not at all. Not believing in objective values doesn't rule out subjective moral values, and subjective moral values would indeed be influenced by whether something is socially unacceptable or harmful to humanity.

So you think if everyone believed that the Holocaust was fine that then it must be fine? If so, that is most disturbing.

That's not what I said. If the Nazis had taken over the world and convinced everyone that the Holocaust was the right thing to do, there wouldn't be anyone to judge it as morally wrong, so how could objective moral values possibly exist? On some supernatural plane that would have no influence and make absolutely no difference? What is the point?

I believe that the Holocaust was wrong regardless of what human opinion suggests.

As do I, but that doesn't mean it's anything more our subjective opinions.

Making up or convincing ourselves that we have a purpose doesn't mean that we really do.

I find that rather ironic. It's not making up a purpose or convincing ourselves, but truly finding what we want to achieve and what makes us happy, and how best to live our lives.