Christians and Their Homework!

[chimp3]

Why don't you look it up?  I'm not your fucking secretary.

You made the claim; I'm asking you to justify it. You can't claim that two things are the same and then attack the idea without justification. What if what I find online about the FSM contradicts the presuppositions in your head about the FSM you don't believe in? What if your concept of the FSM differs from the Christian God in such a way that certain deductive and inductive arguments favor one over the other? Things are rarely quite as simple as they seem.

The FSM is a version of Russell's Teapot. A response to "You can not prove there is no god!" "You can not prove there is not a tea pot in orbit on the other side of the sun". 

Currently, The Church of the FSM is a parody of religion and funny as hell.

[Succubus]

...That's a fair point. But consider this: our five senses are obviously quite limited compared to those of other animals. Similarly, all quantitative, empirical measurements must be based on a limited number of significant figures because our scientific instruments are only accurate to a certain mathematical degree. There's no problem with going in favor of evidence, but our "evidence" is based on our extremely limited means of perceiving reality. To believe in spiritual reality is simply to believe that something exists that transcends our ability to perceive it by natural means. Sure, that's not a proof in itself, but you could argue that it's likely...

This is nothing more than a cleaver rewording of the old 'science has yet to catch up' canard, and it's still wrong.
If the supernatural were to exist then the force by which it operates will be all pervasive, it would permeate the entire universe and we would detect it using one or more of these: 

1. Gravitational Force.
   
2. Weak Nuclear Force.
   
3. Electromagnetic Force.
   
4. Strong Nuclear Force.
   

These are the forces of nature. Not three five seven or nine, just four. If another force were to exist then it must interact with one or more of the above and would be trivially easy to detect. We detect no such thing, that's because there is no such thing as the supernatural.

[Silver]

That's a fair point. But consider this: our five senses are obviously quite limited compared to those of other animals. Similarly, all quantitative, empirical measurements must be based on a limited number of significant figures because our scientific instruments are only accurate to a certain mathematical degree. There's no problem with going in favor of evidence, but our "evidence" is based on our extremely limited means of perceiving reality. To believe in spiritual reality is simply to believe that something exists that transcends our ability to perceive it by natural means. Sure, that's not a proof in itself, but you could argue that it's likely.

Certainly, anything can be likely. Yet, to place faith or belief in a liklihood rather than what we rationally perceive as reality is merely a sign of intellectual laziness; i.e., filling in the gaps of knowledge with outlandish, illogical concepts.

[Fireball]

A Christian who kudosed my post about annilingus......... how can THAT be a true Christian?! Lol.

Eats in the same cafeteria as you, evidently.   I don't recall anything in the buybull that prohibits it.

[Whateverist]

It's simply the final paper of a course I am taking called "Understanding Cultures and Worldviews." The goal is to accurately understand the worldviews of atheists and agnostics in terms of social structures, ontology, epistemology, and axiology (ethics) and describe said worldviews in their own words. My undergraduate degree is in philosophy (with an anthropology minor) from the University of South Carolina. My master's paper will be an exegetical project on the book of Hebrews.

Atheism is not a culture.

I agree and yet, from the point of view of someone who lives with a supernatural hole in their reality, our worldview must seem very alien.

---

I regard that as just as much bullshittery as the:  "I was an atheist until jesus ( or allah ) grabbed my cock," routine.

Not only are they full of shit but they are also terribly unoriginal.

I was an atheist until...

Wait!  I still am!

And I don't have s cock for Jesus/Allah to grab. (Is that why religions seem to fear women?)

Well obviously you can't serve in the god place if you have no god handle.

---

Jesusism is dying out. 

Would you like fries with that?

---

A Christian who kudosed my post about annilingus......... how can THAT be a true Christian?! Lol.

I call POE!

---

Boy Hammy, you've been deep undercover for a very long time.

---

---

Most don't assume there is no god, we just go with what the evidence tells us.

Since nothing supernatural has ever been proven to exist then anything that requires the supernatural to be a thing is a t best unproven but more likely complete hogwash.

That's a fair point. But consider this: our five senses are obviously quite limited compared to those of other animals. Similarly, all quantitative, empirical measurements must be based on a limited number of significant figures because our scientific instruments are only accurate to a certain mathematical degree. There's no problem with going in favor of evidence, but our "evidence" is based on our extremely limited means of perceiving reality. To believe in spiritual reality is simply to believe that something exists that transcends our ability to perceive it by natural means. Sure, that's not a proof in itself, but you could argue that it's likely.

*My bold*

But to use the possibility that there is more to reality than our sensory/cognitive arrays can sift out .. to justify believing in just one outlandish thing in particular out of all the outlandish things people have ever believed. That seems like some pretty reckless believing, no disrespect intended. Then to decide -with your still limited sensory/cognitive arrays- that a particular book carries an important message from that very outlandish thing, complete with marching orders for how to live your life. Boy, for a guy as smart as you that must be difficult to swallow.

[stretch3172]

I find ethics to be fairly easy to justify. It is clear what human well being is in terms of physical and mental health, including satisfying interactions with others. Ethics is the promotion of human well being.

A good person is one that attempts to increase human well being through their own actions. This requires knowledge of the consequences of ones actions as well as caring enough for others to modify actions based on their effects. Now, it is quite possible (and even true) that actions that are beneficial in one situation are detrimental in another. So, the good person is one that is aware of their situation and those of others. While I believe in situational ethics to some extent, it is also clear that murdering someone does NOT promote human well being. The vast majority of real, day to day, ethics is pretty straightforward. The dilemmas philosophers like to discuss rarely come up in practice. The one place that is less true is in medicine, where resource limitations and other issues make for pressing ethical questions. But even there, the standard of human well being is and should be central.

Two things are important. Thinking without caring or caring without thinking both cause innumerable problems. BOTH are required to be good. Having a good heart and acting foolishly does help anyone. 

On the other hand, I have never understood why having a deity helps in resolving moral issues. First, it is far from clear that simply being the creator of a universe makes one a moral authority. Second even if someone *is* a moral authority, if their goals are not those of human well being, they should be dismissed as bad. And yes, this is as true of deities as it is for people. Third, the whole idea of moral submission is, to me, a dereliction of our duty to think for ourselves. So even if there is a deity that is good, I would see the viewpoint of such a deity as a *recommendation* and not a requirement for moral behavior. In a sense, I consider religious faith to be a moral bad.

"A good person is one that attempts to increase human well being through their own actions."

What about "increasing human well-being" makes it "good"? This is a real question because if there is no real, objective moral standard, then that's an entirely unfounded presupposition on which a great deal of your view of ethics rests. 

"it is also clear that murdering someone does NOT promote human well being."

There are a million possible hypothetical scenarios in which murder could indeed promote human well being, especially when you consider well-being both qualitatively and quantitatively. While you are correct that such cases can be very rare, the fundamental issue remains. For instance, if you could somehow save a whole room full of dying patients with the organs of one innocent, healthy patient, should you? If not, why? It seems that your ethical philosophy is ultimately subjective because the very concept of "well being" is subjective. There is no real underlying reason to say that anything is right or wrong except the ones we invent for ourselves. 

First, it is far from clear that simply being the creator of a universe makes one a moral authority. Second even if someone *is* a moral authority, if their goals are not those of human well being, they should be dismissed as bad."

This is a good question. It is related to the question of whether or not morality is ultimately objective or subjective. If it is truly objective, then any god(s) in existence must abide by it to be considered "good." However, if morality is ultimately subjective (as many atheists tend to claim), then it seems logical that God decides what is moral and what is not, since He is the sovereign Creator of reality. I personally believe that morality is objective in and of itself, and God simply recognizes this standard perfectly and reveals it to the hearts of people. Other Christians will disagree and argue that God Himself invents morality as a sovereign act of His will, but I find that logically inconsistent. Either way, since God is perfect He is the chief moral authority of creation.

[Seraphina]

Is your assignment part of a course you are taking or a task you were assigned as part of a research study?  Also, what is the goal of the study?

and if you still feel like answering questions.....  What is your undergraduate major and subject of masters thesis?

thanks

It's simply the final paper of a course I am taking called "Understanding Cultures and Worldviews." The goal is to accurately understand the worldviews of atheists and agnostics in terms of social structures, ontology, epistemology, and axiology (ethics) and describe said worldviews in their own words. My undergraduate degree is in philosophy (with an anthropology minor) from the University of South Carolina. My master's paper will be an exegetical project on the book of Hebrews.

Having been both a researcher and a study participant, I'll say that I don't mind being asked and answering questions about myself but I wouldn't answer personal questions on a website that can be viewed by anyone and everyone. That may be why you've gotten some pushback.
You've been unfailingly polite and I'll give you points for that.
You seem intelligent and articulate (so what's with this belief in imaginary beings? ).
Good luck with your research.

-Teresa

[stretch3172]

It's simply the final paper of a course I am taking called "Understanding Cultures and Worldviews." The goal is to accurately understand the worldviews of atheists and agnostics in terms of social structures, ontology, epistemology, and axiology (ethics) and describe said worldviews in their own words. My undergraduate degree is in philosophy (with an anthropology minor) from the University of South Carolina. My master's paper will be an exegetical project on the book of Hebrews.

Having been both a researcher and a study participant, I'll say that I don't mind being asked and answering questions about myself but I wouldn't answer personal questions on a website that can be viewed by anyone and everyone. That may be why you've gotten some pushback.
You've been unfailingly polite and I'll give you points for that.
You seem intelligent and articulate (so what's with this belief in imaginary beings? ).
Good luck with your research.

-Teresa

Thanks!

[brewer]

stretch: Humans have more that 5 senses and you can't argue a god into existence.

[polymath257]

I find ethics to be fairly easy to justify. It is clear what human well being is in terms of physical and mental health, including satisfying interactions with others. Ethics is the promotion of human well being.

A good person is one that attempts to increase human well being through their own actions. This requires knowledge of the consequences of ones actions as well as caring enough for others to modify actions based on their effects. Now, it is quite possible (and even true) that actions that are beneficial in one situation are detrimental in another. So, the good person is one that is aware of their situation and those of others. While I believe in situational ethics to some extent, it is also clear that murdering someone does NOT promote human well being. The vast majority of real, day to day, ethics is pretty straightforward. The dilemmas philosophers like to discuss rarely come up in practice. The one place that is less true is in medicine, where resource limitations and other issues make for pressing ethical questions. But even there, the standard of human well being is and should be central.

Two things are important. Thinking without caring or caring without thinking both cause innumerable problems. BOTH are required to be good. Having a good heart and acting foolishly does help anyone. 

On the other hand, I have never understood why having a deity helps in resolving moral issues. First, it is far from clear that simply being the creator of a universe makes one a moral authority. Second even if someone *is* a moral authority, if their goals are not those of human well being, they should be dismissed as bad. And yes, this is as true of deities as it is for people. Third, the whole idea of moral submission is, to me, a dereliction of our duty to think for ourselves. So even if there is a deity that is good, I would see the viewpoint of such a deity as a *recommendation* and not a requirement for moral behavior. In a sense, I consider religious faith to be a moral bad.

"A good person is one that attempts to increase human well being through their own actions."

What about "increasing human well-being" makes it "good"? This is a real question because if there is no real, objective moral standard, then that's an entirely unfounded presupposition on which a great deal of your view of ethics rests. 

"it is also clear that murdering someone does NOT promote human well being."

There are a million possible hypothetical scenarios in which murder could indeed promote human well being, especially when you consider well-being both qualitatively and quantitatively. While you are correct that such cases can be very rare, the fundamental issue remains. For instance, if you could somehow save a whole room full of dying patients with the organs of one innocent, healthy patient, should you? If not, why? It seems that your ethical philosophy is ultimately subjective because the very concept of "well being" is subjective. There is no real underlying reason to say that anything is right or wrong except the ones we invent for ourselves. 

First, it is far from clear that simply being the creator of a universe makes one a moral authority. Second even if someone *is* a moral authority, if their goals are not those of human well being, they should be dismissed as bad."

This is a good question. It is related to the question of whether or not morality is ultimately objective or subjective. If it is truly objective, then any god(s) in existence must abide by it to be considered "good." However, if morality is ultimately subjective (as many atheists tend to claim), then it seems logical that God decides what is moral and what is not, since He is the sovereign Creator of reality. I personally believe that morality is objective in and of itself, and God simply recognizes this standard perfectly and reveals it to the hearts of people. Other Christians will disagree and argue that God Himself invents morality as a sovereign act of His will, but I find that logically inconsistent. Either way, since God is perfect He is the chief moral authority of creation.

Human well being is good precisely because it is humans that are the moral agents here. It is our society that we want to organize and our judgements about well being that are controlling.

Since right and wrong is all about how humans interact with each other, it seems quite reasonable that we are the ones that get to decide the issue. Tp push it off on another, even a deity, is to deny our ability to think and care enough to figure it out. To the extent it is subjective, there will be disagreements and discussions. I don't see that as a bad thing. To the extent that everyone agrees even where most agree), there is no issue.

As for deities being good. If they exist and their goal is human well being, then they can supply a viewpoint to be discussed. But they (it, he, she) is not the ones for whom the morality is created: we create morality for human societies because we are human.

And no, simply creating the universe would not convey moral authority. Where the creator;s goals are different from human goals, we as humans are the ones making the decisions about for our morality. Again, even a good, 'perfect' deity would still only provide advisory information, not deciding authority. That comes from us.