One of my best friends, Mark, is from Manhattan. He’s been living in Italy since 2019, and he still hasn’t learned more than “ciao”, “buongiorno”, and “grazie”—which he hilariously pronounces as ”grazi” 
4 Likes
@Roy you simply don’t consider a lot of things. I for one will not validate your “one of many” rhetoric. It may help you sleep to equate Zeus with Jesus, but that isn’t an intellectually serious position.
4 Likes
That was definitely a rhetorical trick - and a very transparent one.
That was another.
I don’t equate Zeus (a fictional deity) with Jesus (a historical figure) and nothing I have said could honestly be interpreted that way.
Your post is symptomatic of the issue this thread is about - failing to even attempt to understand non-Xtian perspectives.
I can get and understand your point. At the same time, it borders on “picking nits”. The statement Atheists, “…lack belief in God…” is still technically correct, if imprecise.
Yes, to be absolutely correct and precise. Atheists reject all religions. But does having to, in your words, repeat that constantly, really help or reinforce the basic argument or issue that is going on here?
3 Likes
This is what I wrote a few days ago. And look what i just found now
Mar 22, 2013 at 5:04 am https://richarddawkins.net/2013/03/what-evidence-would-be-enough/#comment-30323
3mantiger says:
“If Jesus where to come to me right now my first thought wouldn’t be god, but super advanced alien. I’ve seen too many episodes of Star Trek to fall for “god”.
But seriously, you said “if we are rejecting the existence of god solely due to the lack of evidence that could never be found, then, it seems to me, we are not being any more logical than any other religious group” I think you are getting at the diference between athiest/agnostic. Just like Richard Dawkins, I use therm atheist causually, but would really call my self an agnostic because you can’t really prove a negitive. Try proving there is no Easter bunny, tooth fairy, or Santa Clause. Actually, their is much more evidence for Santa Clause than for God: St. Nick was a real person, the north pole exists, raindeer are real(try proving they can’t fly). So, are you being any more logical than a child for rejecting Santa Clasue? Yes, it is not logical to just reject every proposition, but when you balance the claims of a god against everything else you know about the nature then there is ground to have serious doubt.
To answer your original question, if god were truely as powerful and omniscient as it is said to be then it would know what evidence would be enough for me”
-
Mar 22, 2013 at 9:55 am https://richarddawkins.net/2013/03/what-evidence-would-be-enough/#comment-30333
bob_e_s says:
“I’ll take on the unwritten insinuation in your question – what evidence would prove (or at least support) the existence of the Christian god of the bible?
I think there are several parts to this question, all of which would have to be proved before the Christian god hypothesis could be supported.
First, there would need to be proof for the existence of an intelligent deity. The current support for this from deists is that we do not have a robust and conclusive theory to explain the origin of life on this planet, and that we cannot explain what caused the creation of the universe. So, finding conclusive evidence of a creator’s hand in these two processes would support the diest theory (although as has been pointed out by Dawkins among others, it would raise further questions about where this deity came from itself). I have no ideas what form this proof could take.
Secondly, evidence would need to be provided that links this deity with actions it is said to have performed in the bible. Now, the difficulty with this is that for the actions of the god of the bible to be true, much of what we know of the earth, life on earth and the wider universe would have to be proved false. I.e., the age of the earth, the process of evolution of life, the reality of various impossible phenomena…etc.
So what if such a deity manifested itself but no link could be made between its existence and its claimed actions on the past? Rather than proving the Christian hypothesis, it would cast it into more severe doubt.
And to be slightly flippant, I think if such a thing happened I’d be more likely to believe it was the work of aliens than any sort of diety. Or that I’d lost my mind. I think I’d rather that than have to deal with the god of the bible.”
And we go back to Luke 16:31: “they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” Indeed.
Also the part where he says
“the difficulty with this is that for the actions of the god of the bible to be true, much of what we know of the earth, life on earth and the wider universe would have to be proved false. I.e., the age of the earth, the process of evolution of life, the reality of various impossible phenomena”
is exactly the phenomenon I was talking about yesterday: while evolution and the age of the earth aren’t inherently obstacles to the Gospels, they’ve been deliberately and intentionally framed as such to be used as a hammer against Christianity.
This is just not true. The Bible gives no information about the age of the earth, has no position on evolution (though life coming forth from the earth leans towards it), and calling any phenomenon “impossible” is just scientifically ignorant – all science can say is “This would seem to contradict X”.
And that they have been framed as such by some Christians shows that they are not operating from the text of the scriptures.
2 Likes
I know it’s not true. That was a quote from that person. I’ve quoted two atheists from that blog and those were their words, not mine 
Even by many atheists, in order to disprove Christianity
1 Like
I believe the teachings and concepts are the important facts not following some organized assumption of behavior. A good man living a “Christian “ live with zero concept of the organized religion is no less a “Christian “ than a church goer
1 Like
I agree. Societies, as well as their circumstances, change. And their moral codes do with them. Not all features of society or codes change at the same time or rate. We see friction between generations, for example, because of this.
This is largely why I don’t see “morality” as being objective, even if some features of moral codes are very widely held.
I agree that any moral code is not an ultimate authority. But within any society, their moral code functions as if it were ultimate, because the society itself enforces its code. And it does this at every possible level.
Mitchellmckain, did you have something different in mind, when you pointed out that “it is not an ultimate authority?”
This is a good point. There are many examples we could point to of psychological harm caused by societal expectations. However, those were not always seen as harmful by society at large.* I have in mind, for example, societal and religious expectations related to gender norms that have been codified as morality. The changing, wider understanding of non-male humans as normal humans intertwined with our society’s valuing of personal freedom have brought both friction and change in our society as well as our ever-changing moral codes.
There are countless areas where the concept of “acceptable harm” could be exposed, examined and criticized. Many, many have. And many have been considered acceptable by societies - ours included - in spite of measurable damage.
Part of what bothers us, though, is that our society values not causing harm. It’s a moral virtue to us. Yet, as we explore all sorts of outcomes (psychological, socio-economic, etc.) outcomes, we can see that societally, we embrace all sorts of harm and excuse them, attempt to justify them. Which brings me to @T_aquaticus’ point:
Societies have varioius moral ideals, which are not all uniform from group to group. Each group, though, recognizes moral changes as “better” as moral changes come closer to the group’s ideals.
If our society values universal individual freedom, cooperation and human flourishing (as opposed to harm), we will see as better moral changes that maximize those things for the members of our society. According to our subjective understanding of “universal individual freedom”; “cooperation”; and “human flourishing.”
<><><><><>
One of the things I find strange in discussions like this one, and there have been many around this and other fora, is the way discussions of atheism in contrast to Christianity so often turn to discussions about morality.
Why is this?
Do people view Christianity as simply or primarily a matter of moral code? This seems like a lifelessly anemic understanding of it.
<><><><><>
*Foucault’s book “Discipline and Punish” is one that I know of and need to read. It’s history of the concept of punishment throughout “the west” I think would add a lot to this discussion. The idea, for example of “paying one’s debt to society” has nothing to do with harm abatement; it is society’s delberate harm of a person in exchange for the harm the punished perpetrated.
2 Likes
That doesn’t work because we still have to decide which outcomes are preferred, and that is subjective. If you define morality as human well being then it is subjective by definition.
Is drawing a triangle moral? You are making no sense. A sloppily drawn triangle in a surrealist painting can be good. How good or bad a triangle from an artistic point of view is subjective. Drawing a perfect triangle is not always the same as drawing a good triangle.
Think the naturalistic fallacy. We don’t define what is moral by what is natural. Infectious diseases are entirely natural, but no one thinks it is morally good to allow people to die of infectious diseases.
I am saying morality is subjective because it is based on the subjective wants and needs of humans. Morality makes zero sense without our subjective judgements of what is moral.
Yes, it is subjective. Is it good or bad that humans die of starvation? That’s a subjective judgment.
I am saying morality is not arbitrary by appealing to HUMAN NATURE!!!
Fitting our subjective judgment of what is better.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!
I can’t subjectively determine that slavery is bad???
How else but through our subjective judgement of what is moral can we ever say anything about what is good or bad? As you are showing, even when I quote what I would think you would consider an objective standard, what is commanded in the Bible, you balk at it. Why? I think I know why. Because you own subjective determination of morality runs counter to what should be an objective standard, so you reject the objective standard.
3 Likes
The middle ground I have found is God acting as a mentor. God could have given us a subjective sense of morality that he expects us to use as a guide, and God also gives us guidance and lessons on how best to do that.
But if religious scriptures and beliefs are put forward as objective standards of morality, then we quickly run into issues. If a Muslim says that those who refuse to convert to Islam can be killed and points to the Koran as the ultimate objective standard, then how can we say this Muslim is wrong. This is an objectively moral commandment from God who can only order morally good things, so it has to be a morally good commandment, by definition. So why don’t we think this is morally good? Because it conflicts with our subjective sense of morality.
They were following an objective standard of morality, one created by their gods.
How can someone who claims objective moral systems come from deities argue against what the Aztecs did?
Empathy. Are you capable of empathy? Does it shape how you act? Do you not sense unfairness? Are you able to put yourself in the shoes of others and determine what harm your actions will do to others?
Why show empathy? Apathy is surely an equally valid subjective option for everyone.
And I note that chattel slave owners were capable of empathy and I’m sure they were empathetic if slaves revolted at a neighbors plantation leading to damages or loss of life or profit.
Just as an FYI, no one in here has argued that as far as I can tell. So this seems like a red herring or a misunderstanding. Now I will grant you that many Christians do try to claim their interpretation of the Bible is what objective morality looks like. But has anyone in this topic done that? No one here has provided a moral version of robert’s rules of order. It has been argued that morality ultimately stems from God, as does everything, but granting final causality, morality itself if tied into our nature or essence and that means even God’s moral commands cannot be otherwise without serious alteration of our nature and what it means to be human. It was stated that atheists and Christians alike can determine objective morality proximately given our nature and that means without appeal to the Bible or “God says.” Just as atheists and Christians can both work in the lab, they can do the same when it comes to ascertaining what is objectively true morally and what it not. As noted, the latter is more difficult. I’ll respond to your direct response to me at a later time.
I can claim flood geology provides an objectively correct description of reality but that doesn’t make it true.
The Muslim or Christian has to show how his interpretation of scripture is correct and that what is said inside represents a direct statement from God.
Unless you can objectively prove these things you don’t have an objective morality. You have a moral standard you have subjectively chosen to follow.
Vinnie
2 Likes
The Aztecs’ gods demanded human sacrifice. If you believe morality is objective, then how can you say that what they did was wrong?
1 Like
No, I am only thinking about ultimate authorities now you ask the question. Except to say my tendency is to think of authority in the sense of those who earn it by such as research or experience and certainly not the “because I says so” type of authority usually derived from power. In other words, my analysis would be that ultimate authority comes from the truth of what is most effective. To be sure, God is a likely candidate for knowing what that is. Though I think even then some of that is situational (what is effective in the particular circumstances) and God often commanded things on this basis. And because it is situational sometimes it has to be learned in relationship – what works cannot ignore what people accept/want/choose.
And I think morality has all aspects to it: objective, subjective, absolute, and relative. It is objective in the harms we can measure and absolute when there are good reasons. But I don’t think the subjective and relative aspects of morality can be removed either. Sometimes it will always be more important there is some rule or line drawn rather than what it actually is (like what side of the road to drive on) and then we must rely on convention. And sometimes what we feel is important, though this can usually be restricted to a personal moral code like vegetarianism.
Often it is a matter of priorities in what we devote our time and resources to. Survival is usually going to take precedence. I would say the clashes are often caused by the difficulties in changing gears when circumstances change.
1 Like
I have already established why rape is wrong. it is objectively true that sex is unitive and procreative. That is an objective component of what it means to be human. I can assure you that murdering children will be the exact opposite.
Without even getting too philosophical. A heart pumps blood. That is its end or final purpose. If it stops pumping blood it is broken. An eyeball is meant to see. Gouging it out goes against its end.
If you understand what a thing is , you understand what a good version of that thing does.
It’s not difficult to see how murdering a child goes against the intended ends of what constitutes a human: self-preservation, to learn via rational thought, to grow, to reproduce etc. From and A-T perspective, again, granting final causality, “is” and “ought” are not separate. To be a “good” heart is to pump blood. To be a “bad” heart is to fail at it. The aztec’s were 10000000000% wrong and objectively so.
Vinnie
1 Like
Every conversation on that topic goes like this:
V: There is an objective standard of morality.
R: What does your objective standard of morality say about slavery?
V: (Fails to answer, changes the subject, scatters fallacies, disappears in a huff)
Exactly. As a Christian, I believe they were worshipping false gods—demons, in fact—which is why they were ordered to do those things. If you claim morality is subjective and valid as long as it reflects what a society collectively agrees on, why would you criticize them at all?
I answered above.
Yes. I was actually born with less empathy than normal (I think I explained this in other posts), but during my conversion, God healed this issue. Now I’m almost the opposite—at times, I can form a deep connection with others and feel exactly what they feel. This began during my conversion and has remained ever since.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. But if I came to believe again (as i did in the past, before my conversion) that we live in a meaningless universe where, whether I live like Himmler or like Oscar Schindler, I end up the same way (that is, devoured by worms or burned by fire, and that’s it), I would absolutely prioritize my own well-being and my family’s well-being at the expense of others—especially if, as in the example I mentioned in the post you quoted, I could do so without legal repercussions.
Why would I do that? Because I would have no reason not to. It would be highly irrational to place the well-being of strangers above that of myself and my family. If we are merely bags of meat destined for oblivion regardless of our choices, then failing to prioritize our own well-being and that of our loved ones—even at the expense of others, if we can get away with it—would be the very definition of irrationality.
This behavior may serve an evolutionary purpose (as society would otherwise collapse into a Hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes), but as a conscious being, I can choose not to give two flying f**ks about evolutionary purposes—especially when, from an atheist perspective, they amount to nothing more than a cold, senseless, heartless mechanism.
Actually, now that I think about it, I would say that not giving two figs about evolutionary purposes would, in that scenario, more clearly distinguish me from lower animals: namely, the ability to establish my own priorities and even act against the ‘natural order’ when necessary—especially since that natural order would have no inherent value and would not give two figs about me or my loved ones. I would see no inherent value in subjecting myself to such a mechanism. In fact, from a materialist perspective, doing so would bring me closer to lower animals, since they cannot choose not to serve their evolutionary purpose. But I can.
And to be honest, in such a scenario, if I could ensure that my loved ones and I enjoy a great life during the miserably short time that constitutes this brief spark of light between two eternities of utter nothingness—and do so without repercussions—then why the hell not?
Seriously: why the hell not?
1 Corinthians 15:32: “If the dead are not raised, then let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
Ecclesiastes 1:2-8: “ Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.”
Ecclesiastes 1:14: “I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.”
Psalm 39:5: “You have made my days a mere handbreadth; the span of my years is as nothing before you. Everyone is but a breath, even those who seem secure.”
James 4:14: “What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.”
2 Likes
Perfect. 100%
My bad – I recognized that yet failed to show it as a quote. I fixed my original post.
1 Like