re: "I refuse to be a slave to religion!"

quote:

---

You seem to think it's fine to live an existence where reality is kept at arm's length just because we can somewhat function in ignorance in certain respects.

---

I'm making no value judgement on whether I think it's fine or not. I'm simply making observations.

There's a species of hyperintelligent primates that left the forests, built cities, and as a general rule, are slowly developing their own subjective moral codes over time that are helping move their societies towards greater well-being and longer lives.

Sure, I cannot objectively say those are "good" goals, but those are the goals we as a species are moving towards and the vast majority of us, despite having disagreements about what exactly is the best way to accomplish those goals, are content with those being our goals.

quote:

---

When it comes to truth claims--which are made all the time--and competing value systems, there needs to be good reasons for why one should be preferred to another.

---

It's not that complicated.

If I see a lion running at me, I don't need to sit down and naval gaze, wondering whether death is better than life. The pain of being eaten is enough to convince me to run. Over time, human's desire for pleasure and aversion to pain has, through lots of trial and error, helped us create the moral codes we see today. They're not objectively good moral codes, nor are they objectively bad moral codes. We've just picked a direction (life over death, pleasure over pain, etc.) and started moving in that direction.

It took humanity so long to abolish slavery because we didn't have God with the objective moral cheat codes telling us what to do and what not to do from the start. We had to figure that out that our society is actually better off without it.

quote:

---

Who is commanding and why should anyone listen? Is it our own bodies that are doing the commanding? If so, each person has its own unique law-giver. Which one is the "right" one to listen to as a whole? The law-giver that commands a person to rape and murder? The one that commands a person to steal? The one that commands a person to live an entirely selfish life? There are plenty of law-givers that command such things.

---

Yeah, and those "law givers" who "command such things" tend not to create sustainable societies. Just like with evolution, the more altruistic societies are more sustainable and, over time, outlast the societies who value subjective moral codes that don't focus on life over death, and pleasure over pain.

quote:

---

How do you, as an Atheist, address the issue of evil?

---

Evil doesn't objectively exist, it's a word we generally use to describe things that go against our biological imperatives (life over death, pleasure over pain, etc.). That's it.

quote:

---

And this is why I view religion with disdain. It will never matter what is ever shown to you. You're going to believe it. Damn knowledge and damn anything that goes against what you were brainwashed into.

---

You speak as though you are an arbiter of perfect truth, with no bias, no ulterior motives, and no flaws in your own thinking. You make it seem like man is perfectly neutral and can perfectly reason, otherwise you wouldn't say something like this.

The truth is man is not neutral. Neutrality is a myth. I speak of "worldviews" often because it is an extremely important concept that touches on everything we find important and everything we think about. Everyone has a worldview, and worldview shapes how even facts and evidences are interpreted. Evidence isn't brute, but must be interpreted, and you seem to find it uniquely odd that some people don't interpret the same evidence the way you do.

Perhaps you are the one brainwashed. Perhaps you are the one with the flawed thinking on these matters. Perhaps you don't have all the facts, knowledge, evidence, or even the right thinking, yet you believe that you have enough to have certainty (or at least confidence) in what you believe compared to what others like myself believe.

Your epistemology seems to be based on empiricism. You'll believe what can be shown to be true according to your senses, at least in principle, and that which is naturalistic in its nature. However, the epistemological method you employ cannot, itself, be proven true based solely on our sense perception. The basis for how you interpret reality as true is flawed from the beginning, yet you evaluate what others believes with "disdain".

I believe what I believe because I put my trust in God, who is all-knowing and the originator of all truth, not in myself, yet I've been called "arrogant" for having such confidence in someone else. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that you are the arbiter of truth, and that your senses are trustworthy in totality, and your mind is perfectly rational and unbiased. You seem to think that you can actually interpret reality rightly while those who disagree are simply "brainwashed", in your own estimation. You are your own god. If that isn't arrogance, I don't know what true arrogance actually is.

quote:

---

It's really the perfect con. The only time anyone could ever prove you wrong with any finality is when you're dead and, by then, it isn't your problem anymore. Toss in a couple of convenient catchphrases like "who are we to question" and keep things open to interpretation, and there you go.

---

The Atheist has the same problem. There are many evidences for what the Christian believes, yet you won't entertain them because they aren't the kind of evidences you will accept. Even so, there are philosophical problems with your own worldview that you refuse to acknowledge or allow to reshape what you believe, because you are convinced that what you believe about reality is true.

Your worldview must result in Nihilism if you are to be consistent with it. There is no real meaning in this life, and all is vanity.

quote:

---

Jesus wasn't a fan of 'religion' either.

---

In what way? He obeyed the religious laws of Judaism, including the commanded feasts and celebrations. He lectured the religious leaders on their understanding of the religion that they claimed to follow, not as a skeptic who shunned religion, but as the the object of true religion.

Jesus respected the religious institutions (the worship, the laws, the prophets, etc.) and taught others to do the same. His condemnation of "religion" was of false religion; man-made religion. True religion comes from God and goes to God, for His glory and honor.

On top of that, Jesus' disciples taught the Christian religion. They planted churches with organization and order, structure, rules, and liturgy. They gave directions and requirements for leaders, directions on what should be taught, directions for discipline, and correct teachings/doctrine.

Let's not forget that Christianity is a religion. We shouldn't divorce "religion" from truth just because man can and does pervert it. It's why we should follow what Christ taught, both in His ministry and through His Apostles as recorded in the Scriptures.

quote:

---

I'm making no value judgement on whether I think it's fine or not. I'm simply making observations.

There's a species of hyperintelligent primates that left the forests, built cities, and as a general rule, are slowly developing their own subjective moral codes over time that are helping move their societies towards greater well-being and longer lives.

Sure, I cannot objectively say those are "good" goals, but those are the goals we as a species are moving towards and the vast majority of us, despite having disagreements about what exactly is the best way to accomplish those goals, are content with those being our goals.

---

And yet, this has been my point all along. It's entirely irrational. You have no solid foundation for why the goals that particular societies pursue are better or worse than others. All you have is that those are the goals. And that is the correct conclusion of such a worldview. There is no good, bad, better, or best; there is only what is. The logical conclusion is that there is no objective place for meaningful condemnation or praise from the perspective of morality, because all moral reasoning is subjective, and ultimately arbitrary.

And this brings me back to my original statement: it is the Atheist who has a problem with the existence of evil. Evil can't actually exist in his worldview, even though he sees "evil" every day.

quote:

---

It's not that complicated.

---

Oh, but it is, if you want to be rational.

quote:

---

If I see a lion running at me, I don't need to sit down and naval gaze, wondering whether death is better than life. The pain of being eaten is enough to convince me to run. Over time, human's desire for pleasure and aversion to pain has, through lots of trial and error, helped us create the moral codes we see today. They're not objectively good moral codes, nor are they objectively bad moral codes. We've just picked a direction (life over death, pleasure over pain, etc.) and started moving in that direction.

---

Again, you're talking about what is, not what should be, and yet when we engage with each other about moral issues, we use language of "should", "must", and "ought". "Should not", "must not", and "ought not". We come up with all sorts of imperatives that we expect others to recognize and agree with, as if such moral statues are "obvious". We talk about morality as if it's objective, and what I am trying to point out is that without the Christian God, morality isn't objective, and therefore making forcible statements about moral imperatives is irrational in an Atheistic context.

It warms my heart to see you getting on board with that concept. Now if you and others could only live consistently with that line of thinking

quote:

---

It took humanity so long to abolish slavery because we didn't have God with the objective moral cheat codes telling us what to do and what not to do from the start. We had to figure that out that our society is actually better off without it.

---

Again, you say "figure that out", as if there was a better way that we had to find. Slavery existed because it has benefited societies in some ways, especially when you get those slaves from the worst of the population, or from an entirely different group of people not part of your society. Southern slavery abolition was fought against, at least in one respect, because it was a benefit to the Southern economy. Slavery exists in other parts of the world today because there are practical societal benefits to it. You could even make an evolutionary argument for the positive benefits of chattel slavery. What you cannot do is reject objective morality and then use terms like "better" when it comes to moral actions.

quote:

---

Yeah, and those "law givers" who "command such things" tend not to create sustainable societies. Just like with evolution, the more altruistic societies are more sustainable and, over time, outlast the societies who value subjective moral codes that don't focus on life over death, and pleasure over pain

---

Perhaps that's true, but that doesn't negate the temporary benefits to some that come from such "laws", nor do they deny the selective benefits gained from those things in other contexts.

There are benefits in slaughtering your competitors. There are benefits to subjugation of your enemies. There are benefits to choosing the most beautiful, smartest, and healthiest women to force into sexual slavery for your own pleasure and satisfaction and also for procreation. There are benefits to stealing from others to line your own pockets. Some of these behaviors are utilized even in our "sophisticated" society today, but in less obvious ways. These types of practices have been utilized successfully in societies across the world throughout all time, so it's hardly fair to say that we've "moved on" or "advanced" by rejecting those practices if the goal is successful and thriving societies. Those societies existed for hundreds of years at a time.

My point is that, as you have concluded, in your worldview, there is no objective standard to compare actions to in order to say "that is wrong" or "that is good". All you have is individual opinion, or collectivized individual opinion that is based on irrational and arbitrary whims and desires and that can be forced on dissenters through coercion. And, if a particular society finds that theft, rape, and murder are just fine for them, who are we to say otherwise? We have no rational basis for condemnation in that paradigm.

quote:

---

Evil doesn't objectively exist, it's a word we generally use to describe things that go against our biological imperatives (life over death, pleasure over pain, etc.). That's it.

---

There are no biological imperatives. There are just biological impulses. An imperative is a command, and biological "commands" aren't the same types of commands that persons make. I think you're talking about biological responses, not commands, and biological responses can't always be helped or controlled, and they certainly don't dictate what is morally right. The lion has a biological response called hunger. He sees something that looks like food--something that will satiate that biological response of hunger--and he attacks it, kills it, and eats it. There is no moral imperative in this because there is no morality for lions. There is no what should be, there is just what is. Removing the possibility of objective moral reasoning makes humans nothing but mere animals. There is no "should", there just "is" in an objective sense.

To repeat, I'm glad you admit that evil doesn't objectively exist in your worldview. This is the very problem that I'm trying to call attention to.

Many people claim to have rejected Christianity and the Judeo/Christian notion of God because of "the problem of evil", but then they move to a position that can't even recognize the evil they claim exists and has driven them away from God in the first place. The rejection of God in these cases starts with an acceptance of the existence of objective evil, and then rejects the notion of a good and all-powerful God that allows such evil to exist. In a move of irony (in my opinion), these people reject God and embrace a position that cannot account for the evil they recognize as existing. It is entirely an irrational move, especially given that the Christian position has an answer for the "problem of evil", and it is an answer that should be more satisfactory to most people than denying evil exists at all.

If you accept that evil doesn't exist, I hope you live consistently with that by never making objective statements of condemnation against "evil" practices as if such statements are meaningful.

quote:

---

You'd run from a lion even if there wasn't a God to lay out objective morality and how some states of existence are better/worse than others.

---

No, life is not not "fair." Not "equal." And not "just."

But whose world does God himself say this world belongs to? That's right -- SATAN'S (along with his demons) ALL corruption, sin, and suffering is *his* doing. (And yes, that necessarily means there IS a Spiritual Realm and well as Physical Realm to consider.)

Did you prefer God control all of mankind and program them like robots? Or rather live life freely, making all your OWN decisions based on your own Free Will?

God allows for Free Will, chance, randomness, and the instinct of self-preservation. Yet, you are irate at him for NOT making this Realm "Paradise," with ZERO pain, ZERO death, and ZERO repercussions from Sin? I get your frustration, but its misguided.

The Heavenly Realm you demand and expect in *this* Realm is the NEXT Realm. ALL of it -- plus Un-Imagined Glory and Joy. FOREVER.

That is IF one passes the test, aka HIS Rules, HIS Laws, HIS Directions for a holy life. And Free Gift of the Gospel.

ALL must die. (because ALL are sinners.) But not if any sinner accept Free Gift of Eternal Life. You want to call "Obedience to God" "strings," then so be it.

CONTEXT: This mortal coil is but a wisp of smoke compared to Eternity. Invest in the Truth. Reject the whispers of, "God's fault!" This is The Lie of the Serpent."

quote:

---

Jesus wasn't a fan of 'religion' either.

---

quote:

---

In what way?

---

I believe the poster's context was "religion" in the sense legalism's required rites, rituals, ceremonies and piety-based "echelon" (see the Pharisees.)

Your response is spot on FWIW.

quote:

---

We don't agree about the "soul." The construct that religion created and called a soul is just brain activity. We now know better.

---

Whomever "we" is who "knows better" is wrong-o, Kemosabe.

quote:

---

So, what happens when my cells no longer support life? Well, brain activity ceases and I'm exactly where I was before I was born. I think that means nothingness.

---

There is a "Ghost in the Machine"; our "Spirit" operates outside the body/brain. THIS is proven.

The "Soul" is our essence. "DisplacedBuckeye" exists in the flesh/bio-shell for now. Once his "cells no longer support life," and he expires, his Soul will go on existing forever....in a much different realm. (you really need to re-think this out)

Simple example of a non-Physical/non-Material Realm that already exists:

DREAM-STATE.

We do not, cannot discern nor separate the Dream-State non-material Realm from the Material Realm/"Reality", can we? Yet...we believe it is "real" while in that state of consciousness.

quote:

---

More than 30 years of research and study.

---

So you're saying no "Supernatural" anything is proven to exist -- based on your own 30 years of "research and study"? OR, Scientific "scholarship"?

Simple Question, Counselour:

Who or what material force universally hard-wired all of mankind's consciousness to "know" Right from Wrong? Beauty from Ugliness? Guilt? Virtuous from Wickedness (all independent of human mentors?)

Don’t compare the pagans to leftists, they’re nothing alike.

This is a surprisingly intelligent thread. I have found that an agreement never comes with this conversation.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not an atheist or super Christian. I find it interesting that both side feel so strongly about it.
I try to stay good in Gods eyes. If there is one or not. This is having good morales in your life. Both sides should try for that. Beliefs should not matter.