God Creation

[honorentheos]

"2+2=4" is a construct we invented whose truth value isn't purely independent of human mind nor external conditions. It isn't a bad analog for morality in a sense. If one has a thing along with another thing with common properties we can group into a set, and then further combine with a similar set of things with the properties needed to belong to the same set, it's much easier to be able to describe that mathematically. But neither "2" nor "4" exist independent of human minds even if the things being organized do. Those definitions typically assert what properties matter when organizing the set and what properties don't.

[Gunnar]

Speaking of mathematical reality, there are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary arithmetic and those who don't.

[Some Schmo]

Speaking of mathematical reality, there are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary arithmetic and those who don't.

When I hear things like this, sometimes I turn on a bit, sometimes I turn off a bit.

[Hawkeye]

You don't get your morals from God. You get them from a collection of things written and spoken by other humans.

I think personal experience effects what a person views as moral or perhaps what rules their parents lay down than what an ancient text says. And as you pointed out in another thread on the state of the economy, experience is subjective based on the beliefs you come into it with.

To me God must have had his hand in the creation because the probability of it all happening by chance is too small. And 2+2 still equals 4, even if I manage to convince myself otherwise.

I'm completely agnostic on the subject of free will. Subjectly, I experience making choices. But I have no idea whether I am or that the experience of free choice is just a story my brain is telling me. Currently, I'm satisfied with a variation of Pascal's wager. If I don't really have free will, acting as if I do does not harm, because I cannot choose otherwise. If I do, then acting as if I do mirrors reality and forces me to think about and accept the consequences of my own choices. So, for me, it's a no brainer: assume that I have free will.

As an atheist what motivates you to choose things that work against your own self interest?

I don't believe in an objective morality. Yet, you and I can have a conversation and agree on certain ideas that would be a good foundation for a moral code or system. You mentioned one: every human has intrinsic worth. Another could be the Golden Rule. Another could be "first, do no harm." And then we could start from that basic agreement and create an entire moral code or system. But the foundation is some kind of agreement.

That's pretty deep. I'm not sure it's really possible to have functioning society where there is no objective morality. It seems like it would deteriorate to war pretty quickly.

[Res Ipsa]

Let's deconstruct that a little. I would suggest that the vast majority of POF in the U.S. don't try to be good because they fear hellfire and damnation. I suggest they try to be good for the same reason as you – they want to be good people.

Maybe.

You can characterize this as an aspiration to be a good person or a fear of being a bad person. For example, I could say that you do good things only because you fear being a bad person. Which would mean you aren't "truly moral" either. You are drawing an artificial and superficial distinction between you and POF that leads you to "other" them. That othering is what enables bigotry.

Not quite.

First of all, I'm not sure why you jump to the conclusion that I want to "other" them. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in the human race being functional, which requires criticism where it's not working. The first person I criticized in this thread was me for having succumb to making up my own god rather than being skeptical out of the gate. I know I'm susceptible to human imperfections. I also know that if I can be reasoned out of bad thinking, so can others.

I'm not saying that you "want" to other them. I'm saying that the distinctions you are drawing between yourself and POF is othering, whether othering is your intent or not. I'm specifically referring to statements like this:

It's obvious to me that religion is for people who can't face life on life's terms. They have to lie about the reality of things to simply cope. Religion is for people who haven't grown up yet.

Functionally, it's no different than any other kind of othering.

And no, I don't agree that trying to be a good person is out of fear of being a bad person, and if you suggested that for real, I would criticize it. If I feared being a bad person, I wouldn't get up in the morning.

I am suggesting it for real. "I want to be a good person" and "I don't want to be a bad person" are two sides of the same coin. Given that we are all capable of goodness and badness, why shouldn't we both want to be a good person and not want to be a bad person. I'm skeptical that any individual person is capable of separating out those two sides of the coin when it comes to their own motivations. Again, in my opinion, you're using a superficial and perhaps incoherent distinction to claim that you are different from and better than those people. That's othering.

It's pretty easy to deconstruct the whole idea of "true morality." For every good dead or moral act, I can argue that the actor is getting something out of the action -- even if what they get is that nice feeling you get when you've done the right thing. So, you do the act because you get something out of it. What's the difference between "it makes me feel good" and "I stay out of hellfire" or "God wants me to"? Isn't it all at some level selfish.

While you could potentially argue that, you wouldn't be accounting for the degrees of selfishness any given act might take. Some acts are clearly more selfish than others.

Are they? Do we have a measurement scale? Even if they were, are you so well informed as to what actually motivates you (as opposed to the story your brain is telling you) and what actually motivates a POF (as opposed to the story your brain is telling you) that you can reliably conclude that you are different than them in some important way?

in my opinion, the distinctions you're drawing have only a single function: to paint your fellow humans as somehow worthy of contempt. It's no difference than racial, sexual or any other form of bigotry. And, in my opinion, it's madness.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. It's not an accurate reflection of my thoughts, but you can think whatever you want.

Of course.

You accusing me of bigotry has only a single function: to paint me as somehow worthy of contempt. Does that strike you as your true motivation?

I am rubber, you are glue can be a fun game. But here's where I think you're wrong. I don't hold you in contempt. I have never suggested that you are worthy of contempt. Go back and read your own words where you talk about POF. Then come back and quote where I have spoken about you in comparable terms.

Bigotry is a thing that people do, and no one is exempt from it. I'm not trying to distinguish between you and me in terms that make you a bad person or inferior or worthy of contempt. I see you as a fellow human that is engaging in the kind of corrosive behavior that is at dangerous levels in our country right now. But that doesn't make you different as a person from me in any meaningful way. I'm perfectly capable of engaging in bigotry and other harmful conduct -- just like you. I try to start from the recognition that you, just like me, are a human being trying do the best he can to make his way through the world. That's why I keep talking about conduct and how it functions -- not who you are or what motivates you.

As to my "true" motivation, I suspect it's unknowable. I can give you my perception of my motivation. But I have no reliable way of telling whether that perception is a genuine representation of why I posted in this thread as opposed to a rationalization created by my brain to fit with my existing self image. My perception of my motivation is my increasing concern that the US is on the road to Rwanda. I saw an interesting survey before I posted in this thread. It asked Rs and Ds whether they viewed their political opponents as "enemies." It showed that, at the first date some time ago, Rs were much more likely to consider Ds their enemies. But that's changed over a fairly short period of time. Now Ds are at least as likely as Rs to consider their political opponents as enemies. Our extreme political polarization is morphing into an existential conflict that I think will almost certainly end in tragic bloodshed. And, to me, the stuff you posted looks exactly like the kind of discourse that has driven our political differences into dangerous territory. The only way I can think of to try and avoid tragedy is to point out the conduct when I see it. And that's what I've done.

[Some Schmo]

"2+2=4" is a construct we invented whose truth value isn't purely independent of human mind nor external conditions. It isn't a bad analog for morality in a sense.

I agree. Math is a tool humans use for communication and to make predictions, among other things. Morality is a tool to guide behavior, but neither tool exists independent of conscious beings thinking about them.

I don't believe their is a "true morality" because the full body of what it means to be moral is unsettled. Mathematical proofs exist, whereas moral proofs are not ready to be nailed down. That's because we all agree on the fundamental premises of mathematics, but are not even close to agreement on the fundamental premises of morality.

Mathematics is a good teacher for that reason. We know what we have to do first in any subject before we can advance it, and that is to come to an agreement on the fundamental premises. If that seems impossible, I'd chalk that up to underdeveloped brains (from an evolutionary perspective).

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm not sure it's really possible to have functioning society where there is no objective morality. It seems like it would deteriorate to war pretty quickly.

-_-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _conflicts

60+ ‘non-objective morality’ wars and conflicts this year alone.

I swear to god Xanax is drunk when he farts out a thought.

- Doc

[Jersey Girl]

No one is forcing you to think about this crap again. You are choosing to think about it, dwell on it, until you want to pop off which is fine by me. Lord knows I do my fair share of popping off though not much lately.

You're right. I could totally bury my head in the sand and let the freaks do what they want unchallenged. Given that I have a daughter, however, I would suck as a father if I didn't care about her future and speak up.

Yeah but...yeah but I also stated this to you and I'll bold what I'm referring to:

No one is forcing you to think about this crap again. You are choosing to think about it, dwell on it, until you want to pop off which is fine by me. Lord knows I do my fair share of popping off though not much lately.

The BS being dealt out by the the Supreme Court effects us all in some way. Just look at what I think as the unconstitutional ruling on Roe v. Wade. The all knowing the Supreme Court has opened up a can of worms and without forethought and cause chaos to reign in this country until the states sort it out and even when the states sort it out, there will be even more chaos in female lives and oppression.

Do you really think that Clarence Thomas is going to push to address interracial marriage? Not on your life! (Unless wifey incriminates herself and starts to drag him down the hole to the Jan 6th committee then maybe.) That's NOT because he's a God believer.

It's because he's a rip roaring misogynist control freak hypocrite.

You are missing the forest for the trees here. You aren't a helpless victim of the the Supreme Court. You do have a vote. You do have the opportunity to actively involve yourself in politics if you want to.

It's not about God. It's about hypocrites USING God to forward their agenda. If you don't like it then push back in a real life way.

So what I am getting at is that it's not primarily about religious belief at all. It's about hypocritical control freaks who sometimes function under the guise of Christianity. Remember how Trump sidled up to the religious Far Right? At the time the religious Far Right essentially made a deal with him. He wanted to use their endorsement for political gain. And they wanted to use him to forward their religion-based political agenda. Remember how he stood on the street and held the Bible up without saying a word as if it meant something in that context? Now I don't know the inner workings of Donald Trump's heart. I doubt seriously that the man has the capacity to engage in self reflection to begin with. What I am saying, once again, that the stuff that pisses you off isn't based on religion. It's based on hypocrisy for personal gain and status.

They don't want to spread what we call the Good News. They want power and control, and money--all three of which are squarely against any principles presented in the Bible and that's how I would go about discerning the difference between what they say and what they do and what is really going on with them.

And frankly, I see this as a bigger issue than just abortion rights. This is a move toward authoritarianism, and I'm going to fight that damned nonsense till the day I die. Certain people (and you know who they are) are trying to use their religion to control everyone else; that is going to make me mercilessly criticize the god freaks and their idiot ideas.

I share the same exact concerns. If you really want to get over on them, use Biblical principles. You can rant until you wear your fingers down to bloody nubs but nothing could possibly get over on them like applying Biblical principles to what they are doing and saying.

Listen. I have their number. If you have their number, then pick them apart based on what they claim is the foundation of their arguments.

That's exactly why last evening, I asked canpakes if they could post a series of perhaps 4 quotes made by politicians where they make claims about the God of Christianity. I can pick those apart like nobody's business and that should be the focus of criticisms leveled towards them.

You get them based on the very foundation of their claims which is the Bible and I guess, American History and the Constitution that they pledged an oath to.

And then...the harder part is that you've got a bunch of nameless undereducated civilians who jump on the bandwagon, who don't have a good foundation in the Bible, who are easily led to do the Lord's work...God is on our side!...who are like some of the folks in church who during the service passively nod their head during the sermon yet hardly invest the time to actually break open a Bible familiarize themselves with it.

Now. If I heard someone in my family regurgitating nonsense, I could deal one:one with them and show them that what they are being led to think is not Biblical. It's harder to go after the teeming masses so I say, go one:one after the identifiable public servants and demonstrate how what they are saying isn't true.

Like put it everywhere you can...in real life, on social media, here on the board, wherever. The whole thing is that I know the game is rigged. I've known it instinctively for most of my adult life which is why I never took an interest in politics until Trump came on the scene. Bit by little bit, I asked questions on this board about what I didn't know about or understand until I think I can now make at least an attempt to engage in political discussion here. And that is thanks only to you guys' willingness to share with me even the most elementary aspects that you yourselves have known for all your adult lives. That's been both a blessing and a curse!

In any case, instead of non-specifying attacks on God believers, you go after the groups who are actually misappropriating God belief to forward their political agendas. You can't hit the bullseye if you don't aim the gun on it.

ETA: I briefly saw in scrolling, your post about indoctrination. I'll come back to that one next when I have a break over here.

[Gunnar]

Speaking of mathematical reality, there are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary arithmetic and those who don't.

When I hear things like this, sometimes I turn on a bit, sometimes I turn off a bit.

Obviously, you are one of the first type, of which I never had any doubt.

[canpakes]

I'm not sure it's really possible to have functioning society where there is no objective morality. It seems like it would deteriorate to war pretty quickly.

-_-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _conflicts

60+ ‘non-objective morality’ wars and conflicts this year alone.

I swear to god Xanax is drunk when he farts out a thought.

- Doc

Sometimes folks get tired of trying to kill each other for every single meal, and figure out that a more cooperative approach makes a whole lot more sense. No God needed to figure that one out.

I’m not sure why this point is lost on the people who are making ajax’s argument.