201. Comment #85655 by walk on November 6, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Wow, this God guy sounds cool! Where do I sign up?

Other Comments by walk

202. Comment #85672 by Dr Benway on November 6, 2007 at 7:27 pm

Tina:

...the oppressive effects of a debate dominated by the opinions of a small clique of white English-speaking men staging a mock battle about rationality and God, which fails to address the most significant humanitarian questions of our time.

Ok, I'm gonna have to call time out on the vagina monologues. Turn off that Indigo Girls CD. Put away the aromatherapy. Look out your window. See those white dudes in dreds? See them? They are the voice of our Mother Earth crying out to us in pain.

I have seen the freezer of the Goddess. It is filled, top to bottom, with Ben & Jerry's "Yummy Yin New Age Cat Lady".

There she stands, door open, unmoving, sighing. She is feeling bloated. And sad. That boring old flava just ain't kickin' it no mo.

Channel surfing past the late late show she caught a glimpse of something interesting. Was it James Bond crushing out a cigarette? Gregory Peck looking scowlish? The Rainmaker smiling and charming his heavy hands into Kate Hepburn's tiny tiny pants?

Momma's itchin' for Old School. Nothing battery powered will satisfy. She wants a man. A mighty mighty good man.

Tina, when you're ready, Reverend X gonna show you the way home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkACsmRHJx4

Other Comments by Dr Benway

203. Comment #85700 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 6, 2007 at 10:26 pm

Epeeist (post 170, or #85505)

In post 168, or #85501) I wrote:

Any way you look at it atheism renders morality arbitrary, and indeed renders all evaluative or normative thought incoherent.

to which you now respond:

So tell us whether allowing the mother of a pair of new born twins to die because she refuses blood is coherent, tell us whether valuing a woman as only of the worth of half a man is coherent.

It's not. I claimed that atheism does not allow for a coherent ethical thought, and implied that theism does allow it. But this claim does not imply that every single theist's ethical thought is coherent, or correct, o reasonable, or whatever.

Tell us why slavery was proclaimed as god given by the Christians

That's a question for sociobiology to answer. I suppose many bad things were claimed to be God-given or God-approved precisely in order to numb peoples' moral sense.

Tell us why making assertions time after time after time without any observational evidence is coherent.

To do so is coherent when one discusses aspects of the human condition that are not amenable to objective evidence, such as when one discusses how it is like to be human. I dare say by far the most important and relevant aspects of the human condition are not amenable to observational evidence. On the other hand ontological beliefs clearly do affect objectively observed behavior, the latter is amenable to objective observations, and, as I have pointed out to you in this post, there is already significant (if not necessarily conclusive) objective evidence that religious worldviews are more conducive to moral behavior than non-religious worldviews. Certainly more scientific research is needed in the area.

Give us some evidence for your "objective morality" and how we would recognise it.

If by "evidence" you mean "argument" then this is a very broad question that can only be answered within the context of showing why theism (which entails objective morality) works better than naturalism when compared one to one under all criteria one can think of, an argument I made in the very long McGrath thread and which I am sure nobody wishes me to repeat here. If by "evidence" you mean "objective evidence" then I would say that the fact that the moral Zeitgeist is improving evidences that there is an objective standard towards which it is moving, or which it is approximating.

Give us some evidence that your idealistic theism provides better (whatever that means) morality than that put forward by the likes of Aristotle or Spinoza.

Neither Aristotle nor Spinoza were atheists so I don't quite see the relevance of this question to my claim that atheism renders moral thought incoherent. But I found the wording of your question interesting: you had to insert the "whatever that means" clause. But I think you do know what "better morality" means, all normal humans know that. The problem for atheism is that that knowledge cannot be grounded in a naturalistic worldview. As Dawkins wrote in his "River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life", there is no good and evil. But if there is no good and evil, how can one decide or even discuss that to let that mother die was evil? You see? It's incoherent.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

204. Comment #85707 by Dr Benway on November 6, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Dianelos: If by "evidence" you mean "objective evidence" then I would say that the fact that the moral Zeitgeist is improving evidences that there is an objective standard towards which it is moving, or which it is approximating.

Orgasms are good. But you are neither moving me toward, nor are you approximating, my orgasm.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

205. Comment #85708 by BMMcArdle on November 6, 2007 at 11:01 pm

DG #204

I claimed that atheism does not allow for a coherent ethical thought, and implied that theism does allow it. But this claim does not imply that every single theist's ethical thought is coherent, or correct, o reasonable, or whatever.

Once upon a time, a little girl from Kansas was wondering which road to take and a scrarecrow (strawman) started talking.
Scarecrow: You could go this way... or you could go that way... of course some people go both ways.
Dorothy: Can't you make up your mind?
Scarecrow: That's the trouble, I can't make up my mind, I haven't got a brain, only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know, but some people without any brains do an awful-lot of talking, don't they?
Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

206. Comment #85725 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 7, 2007 at 12:25 am

Dr Benway (post 183, or #85540)

This sounds fine, but it seems atheism does not offer any standards for deciding which way is up in the first place.

No a priori standards doesn't mean no standards at all. Humans still can negotiate behavioral standards and can set mutual goals for the future.

I see two problems with what you say: 1) Even in order to negotiate one needs some a priori standards, unless it's the type of negotiation governed by "might makes right" kind of maxim, which is probably the very antithesis of morality. 2) Many if not most ethical questions are not related to behavior towards other humans. For example how one should behave towards animals, or towards nature, or, most importantly, towards oneself. Come to think of it, even when the question is how one should behave towards other people the moral behavior is one of self-transcendence, of going beyond what may be previously negotiated.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

207. Comment #85728 by Goldy on November 7, 2007 at 12:41 am

Many if not most ethical questions are not related to behavior towards other humans. For example how one should behave towards animals, or towards nature, or, most importantly, towards oneself.

How utterly bizzare!
OK, DG, how does theism answer this question? What does God say about the treatment of animals? Or indeed nature (though the Flood story gives a rather large clue to these...) Then compare to athiesm.

*edit*

Come to think of it, even when the question is how one should behave towards other people the moral behavior is one of self-transcendence, of going beyond what may be previously negotiated.

What sort of people do you hang around with? I ask this only because you appear to equate athiesm with blind indifference, with automation, with a mindless stimulus/response behaviour. In fact, you appear to equate athiesm with how we view theism...



Other Comments by Goldy

208. Comment #85730 by Goldy on November 7, 2007 at 12:48 am

That's a question for sociobiology to answer. I suppose many bad things were claimed to be God-given or God-approved precisely in order to numb peoples' moral sense.

Aaaah, the good old "But that's not MY God" line. Yeah, that's a good answer. It's theism until I don't agree, then it's athiesm.

Other Comments by Goldy

209. Comment #85732 by Goldy on November 7, 2007 at 12:50 am

an argument I made in the very long McGrath thread and which I am sure nobody wishes me to repeat here.

This would be the argument no one believed, I guess. And I see you are still making claims without any substantiation except what's in your head. Your opinion is so important it must be fact, eh, DG. The thought you might be wrong or even only partially correct is completely not in your mindset, is it?

Other Comments by Goldy

210. Comment #85735 by Goldy on November 7, 2007 at 1:01 am

Finally

But I think you do know what "better morality" means, all normal humans know that

All humans? Even athiests?

The problem for atheism is that that knowledge cannot be grounded in a naturalistic worldview. As Dawkins wrote in his "River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life", there is no good and evil. But if there is no good and evil, how can one decide or even discuss that to let that mother die was evil? You see? It's incoherent.

Again, this athiesm is a robotic mindless concept. Except, of course, it isn't. Now, in nature, there is no good or evil. Actions are just that. We give them the labels - us.
Using your example, the mother dying is "evil" because she left 2 orphans. She did not have to die - her death was an incoherent (to use your word) action because of faith. Does Nature care? No - it is not good or evil - stupid, yes, but naturalistically neither. To humans, it is evil (and still stupid) because of the consequences. Gods have nothing to do with these feelings - indeed, they are probably there to explain why these to simpler minds who can't think out of the box and who view life robotically.
That's the trouble with life - it is in full colour, not monochrome. Nature does not care for man's labels, only man does. Man is but only a small part of nature.

Other Comments by Goldy

211. Comment #85738 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 7, 2007 at 1:12 am

Clodhopper (post 184, or #85549)

will you please answer the old Euthyphro dilemma: Is what is commanded by God moral because it is commanded by God, or is it commanded by God because it is moral?

It is commanded by God because it's moral. Obviously.

Incidentally, it's actually misguiding to think that God "commands" us to be moral, and it's unfortunate that the naive paradigm of God as a King who wishes allegiance, commands this and that, punishes those who disobey etc, has survived up to the Gospels not to mention much of Christian discourse today. I think the right way to think about ethics is this: Objective reality is at its most fundamental perfectly good, and we, who are part of objective reality, live in an experiential environment which contains a pointer towards that perfect goodness. So it's in our very nature to become better persons. (According to theism objective goodness is realized in God's character, i.e. is how God is, and we are meant to become better persons and hence come closer to God because we are created in God's image - but that knowledge is not necessary for coherent ethical thought.[1]) Now we are free of course not to move along that pointer towards goodness; on the other hand to act in ways that do not improve oneself is not particularly smart, to put it mildly. All of this has nothing to do with commands and punishments, it's just a matter of recognizing how reality is. And of course, one freedom we don't have is to change the fundamental structure of reality :-) So it's in that sense, and in that sense alone, that to say we are "commanded" to be good makes any sense.

[1] So it's not strictly speaking correct to say that atheism renders morality incoherent, but rather that scientific naturalism renders morality incoherent. In this thread I am using "atheism" and "scientific naturalism" interchangeably, because most self-declared atheists in the West are in fact scientific naturalists (certainly Dawkins is) – not to mention because a certain member of this forum gets annoyed when I use the more precise "naturalist" instead of "atheist".

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

212. Comment #85743 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 1:30 am

I think the right way to think about ethics is this: Objective reality is at its most fundamental perfectly good, and we, who are part of objective reality, live in an experiential environment which contains a pointer towards that perfect goodness.

Well folks, this is anther golden oldie as we say in the UK. Of course, it is nonsense as I can make two equivalent statements:

Number one:

"I think the right way to think about ethics is this: Objective reality is at its most fundamental perfectly evil, and we, who are part of objective reality, live in an experiential environment which contains a pointer towards that perfect evil."

There is nothing to indicate to anyone that this statement is any less true or false that that of Dianelos. I mean, someone deciding between Dianelosity and Satanism can't have a 'universal morality meter' to find out which one is true.

Actually, I think either perfect goodness or perfect evil are just so unlikely. This suggests far too much fine-tuning of the supernatural. So, I propose an alternative:

This is my favourite, as it actually matches reality far more accurately: I shall call it the Catherine Tate principle, from an English comediene who has a catch phrase "I can't be bothered":

"I think the right way to think about ethics is this: Objective reality is at its most fundamental perfectly apathetic, and we, who are part of objective reality, live in an experiential environment which contains a pointer towards that perfect apathy."

Considering our experience of the world, my second statement matches things FAR more accurately than the Dianelos principle, don't you think, people?

Hey - I have an idea. If I can get enough people to believe that MY favourite statement is correct, then according to the principles of Dianelosity, it then automatically becomes true!

Other Comments by steve99

213. Comment #85745 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 7, 2007 at 2:05 am

Timnea (post 185, or #85551)

Are you suggesting the bible (gods word), is the moral compass that led us to today's ethical values. Better read the bible again Dianelos because it looks more like a moral "hand break" than a compass. I think its clear we have our morality today despite of the bible, and religion in general, not because of it.

I agree that we don't get our morality from the Bible because, obviously, we are able to distinguish the good bits in the Bible from the bad ones. I completely agree with Dawkins on this point. On the other hand some people argue that the Bible played an important role in guiding the evolution the moral Zeitgeist, and I find this plausible too. Whatever the place is we take morality from, it's clear that it's not easy to find. I suppose some people in history were better able to reach that place, and what they taught found its way to the written records of the great religions (as well as of some philosophers; the "do not return evil" is found in Plato). It's important to understand that scripture has evolved too; the primitive "one eye for an eye" we find in the Old Testament was actually an improvement over the moral Zeitgeist in which it was written. And, arguably, nobody has written a more splendid moral code than Christian ethics as recorded in the Gospels two thousand years ago, and I think today's moral Zeitgeist is still catching up.

There are some pretty low ethical standards required by god in the bible. (I'm being kind there). Assuming, and hopefully, your moral values are better than those, how do you manage to transcend them?

I am not sure how you mean this question. The Bible is a sprawling collection of texts, some sublime, some mythological, some absurd. Like it's the case with all books one should read the Bible critically too. As for me managing to transcend the ethics as recorded in the Bible, I must say that far from transcending I don't even come close to realizing the most developed version of it, namely Christian ethics. I even have trouble imagining myself seriously thinking about the possibility of realizing that kind of ethics in my life :-(

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

214. Comment #85746 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 7, 2007 at 2:06 am

BMMcArdle (post 201, or #85654)

[God] lays down numerous often primitive and arbitrary moral and ceremonial laws, then gets involved in inner tribal politics and land disputes, inciting acts of brutality, war crimes, genocide, and rape along the way.

:-P

Do you really think I believe that? In fact do you really think you would find one Christian who would agree with what you write above?

This reminds me of something that Lennox told Dawkins in their recent debate: That atheists get all annoyed when a theist tells them that he or she too does not believe in the kind of god that they don't believe.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

215. Comment #85747 by Timnea on November 7, 2007 at 2:11 am

Dianelos

If you don't stone adulterers you've transcended gods command. How did you do it?

Other Comments by Timnea

216. Comment #85748 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 2:13 am

And, arguably, nobody has written a more splendid moral code than Christian ethics as recorded in the Gospels two thousand years ago

A serious suggestion - take a look at the ethics of Buddhism. You will find just about all the good bits of what Jesus said, but with what I consider some important changes: far more pragmatism, less dogma (no historical Old Testament baggage that Jesus was ambiguous about changing) and no need for a God to back it all up.

Take a look - what harm can it do? I think you will be pleasantly surprised, and it might lessen your focus on Christianity.

No matter what your belief in the supernatural, and I am not a Buddhist myself, what was written centuries before Christ was far more elegant, more practical, and more respectful of human nature - certainly more splendid in my view.

Other Comments by steve99

217. Comment #85755 by steve99 on November 7, 2007 at 2:39 am

[God] lays down numerous often primitive and arbitrary moral and ceremonial laws, then gets involved in inner tribal politics and land disputes, inciting acts of brutality, war crimes, genocide, and rape along the way.

In fact do you really think you would find one Christian who would agree with what you write above?

Well, Mormons believe something pretty close - just look up the history of the Lamanites and the Nephites. And you really have to read some of what Jerry Falwell wrote.

And we have our dear old Bishop of Glasgow claiming that God was directly interfering with our land in the UK, flooding us because of pro-gay legislation.

Some of you theists are either naive, or just plain in denial about what people really believe.

Other Comments by steve99

218. Comment #85761 by Timnea on November 7, 2007 at 3:02 am

Ok Dianelos. I didn't read your post properly. Thanks for that.

The question still stands (#216) if you want to have a crack at it.

Other Comments by Timnea

219. Comment #85763 by clodhopper on November 7, 2007 at 3:10 am

DG:

It is commanded by God because it's moral. Obviously.

So morality is independant of God and he is bound by it, or morality is intrinsic to God's nature.

From whence comes this knowledge about the nature of God?

Other Comments by clodhopper

220. Comment #85776 by clodhopper on November 7, 2007 at 4:43 am

From whence is probably like saying Tuna followed by fish.

.....der

Other Comments by clodhopper

221. Comment #85784 by Dr Benway on November 7, 2007 at 5:27 am

Dianelos: 1) Even in order to negotiate one needs some a priori standards, unless it's the type of negotiation governed by "might makes right" kind of maxim, which is probably the very antithesis of morality. 2) Many if not most ethical questions are not related to behavior towards other humans.

This is an example of concrete thinking.

Young children go through a "concrete operational" period when they can compare things according to some variable, but can't appreciate all the relevant variables for a proper comparison. Example: water from a cup is poured into a tall cylinder. The kid thinks there's more water because it's taller, failing to appreciate width.

Dianelos sees aspects of comments that give him a foothold for response, but loses the big picture. He seems too smart to be making these kinds of mistakes, suggesting "liar for Jesus" or "self-deluded fool" rather than head injury.

Back to #1: Negotiation works like this: I say what I want, you say what you want. Where we're in conflict, we look for compromises. "Might make right" means you do what I say. No negotiation necessary.

#2: We can negotiate our concerns regarding animals or the environment just like anything else.

Come to think of it, even when the question is how one should behave towards other people the moral behavior is one of self-transcendence, of going beyond what may be previously negotiated.

That's called "renegotiation."

This may come as a shock: there are other people in the world who are not Dianelos. They matter!

Timnea's question in 216 is a fair one.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

222. Comment #85965 by BMMcArdle on November 7, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Dianelos 215 "That's Not My God"
Is the Bible the basis for your Christian worldview?
Do you not come to this site and posit your brand of wishy-washy feel-goodiness with claims that it "works better" than rational reasoning?
I offered that biblical narrative to counter your assertion that you don't like reality and your idealistic theism is a much more attractive and less dangerous worldview.
You can believe anything under the sun, but don't be suprised if when you try to feed your illusion to rationally reasoning people, they gag on it.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

223. Comment #85969 by Goldy on November 7, 2007 at 4:09 pm

In fact do you really think you would find one Christian who would agree with what you write above?

Further to BMMcArdle comment above (223), I do believe the answer to this is yes. You may recall mentioning her in passing in your comment number 204. Just in case you forgot, you wrote

I claimed that atheism does not allow for a coherent ethical thought, and implied that theism does allow it. But this claim does not imply that every single theist's ethical thought is coherent, or correct, o reasonable, or whatever.

If these don't convince you, have a gander at http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,657,Memo-Stop-teaching-evolution,Robert-T-Garrett-The-Dallas-Morning-News,page2#85967 and check out some of the sites mentioned.

Other Comments by Goldy

224. Comment #85976 by monkey2 on November 7, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Steve99

And we have our dear old Bishop of Glasgow claiming that God was directly interfering with our land in the UK, flooding us because of pro-gay legislation.

Bishop of Carlisle I believe. Please correct me if you have evidence that they agree with each other.

Other Comments by monkey2

225. Comment #86119 by clodhopper on November 8, 2007 at 7:42 am

the rightrev Graham Dow bish of carlisle...but not the only one obviously.

read it and weep

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

Other Comments by clodhopper

226. Comment #86151 by walk on November 8, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Clodhopper,

I can't stop vomitting long enough to weep! Revs Carlisle and Jones have got to be kidding! And Jones is a possible future Archbihop! The RC church should really try to muzzle these fools. (I guess it's good for us they don't!)

Other Comments by walk

227. Comment #86154 by Bonzai on November 8, 2007 at 12:27 pm

DG wrote,

In fact do you really think you would find one Christian who would agree with what you write above?

Yes, for example revcort.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1647,Do-you-have-to-read-up-on-leprechology-before-disbelieving-in-them,Richard-Dawkins-The-Independent

Other Comments by Bonzai

228. Comment #86160 by phil rimmer on November 8, 2007 at 1:05 pm

167. Comment #85501 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Don't know how I missed this one. Disagree.

In post 96 I describe how moral progress is made, from, for instance, a particular moral precept, concern over causing harm to others. Progress is made by extending the definition of harmable others. No new precepts are required. No other standards need be referenced. (And the precautionary principle of over inclusion is not immoral per se.)

Your concept of TRANSCENDING standards is, as ever, a meaningless hurdle thrown in the way of the atheist. Moral standards evolve.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

229. Comment #86373 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 9, 2007 at 5:22 am

Goldy (post 208, or #85728):

What does God say about the treatment of animals? Or indeed nature

As far as ethics is concerned this is not the right question. Why not? Because, to put it mildly, the vast majority of people do not hear God speak, so the vast majority of people must find a different way to know what the right thing to do is. The right question then is: What behavior towards animals and towards nature would bring me closer to God, in the sense of changing my character to be more similar to God's character? This process of interior improvement (which Christians call "salvation" and Buddhists "illumination") is the very meaning of life. But the question remains: How do we know what kind of actions make our character more similar to God's? Well the answer is this: We are all, theists and non-theists alike, made in the image of God. In the same way that a seed is similar to the tree it can grow to be. We are meant to grow towards God, it's in the very structure of our human condition. So the answer to that question is: by studying ourselves, by studying how we are built, by studying our humanity. (So ultimately there is not really any difference between religious and humanist ethics.)

Now in history there were people who managed to do this much better than others around them, and taught some basic principles of ethics. These are people like Socrates, or Buddha, or Jesus. And how do we know that what they taught was right? Because it kind of resonates with how we ourselves are built. So even though we have some trouble hearing the music inside (what Quakers call the small still voice), when we listen to others playing the right music we recognize it. Reading for example the ethics of Jesus one can't help recognizing its truth; even Dawkins in his article "Atheists for Jesus" evidences that common experience. So, we are not completely alone in our discovery of objective ethics, but can count on the help of the insight of other people. Which is good: the road to salvation need not be a solitary one.

Having clarified how I think about all that, what is the best answer I can specifically give to your question? Well, the right way to behave towards animals and towards nature in general is one of respect, for they are all part of God's creation. Very certainly they are not to be exploited. I personally think that to eat animals (especially mammals) is wrong, as it is to exploit nature purely for our own comfort marring the beauty of the Earth in the process. Nature can be used but is not to be violated. I think one thing we should definitely be doing is to limit our numbers and leave space for other species to thrive. I don't think Earth's ecosystem can support more than about one billion humans, and we are already seven.

What sort of people do you hang around with?

Mostly atheists I think. I am not a "religious" religious person in the sense of regularly going to church, keeping all the rules (fasting etc), preach to others trying to save their souls, and so on, so many of my acquaintances are not aware how deeply religious I am. And it's sometimes funny how embarrassed they get (for my sake) when I happen to mention that I believe in God. But I am really interested in understanding the mindset of the convinced atheist, and I find that discussing with acquaintances about religion is far less efficient for that than participating in a forum like this one.

I ask this only because you appear to equate atheism with blind indifference, with automation, with a mindless stimulus/response behaviour.

No, and I hope I have never given that impression. I only argued that atheism when allowed to dominate one's ethical reasoning will tend to push people towards indifference for others. In the vast majority of cases though I think atheists allow their ethical intuitions (or feelings if you like) to dominate their ethical reasoning. Sometimes though, as in the case of Hitchens, I think atheism's ethical logic raises its ugly head and comes to the surface. I have found it painful to watch how he apparently feels the need to justify why he donates blood, pointing out that it makes him feel good and that furthermore he is not really losing anything because the donated blood is quickly replenished.

Which is not to say that there isn't some ugly theistic ethical logic too. I was flabbergasted to recently read an article by well-known apologist William Craig where he tries to justify God's supposed command to kill all Canaanites arguing thus: "So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged?".
(see http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767 )

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

230. Comment #86375 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 9, 2007 at 5:36 am

Timnea (post 216, or #85747):

If you don't stone adulterers you've transcended gods command. How did you do it?

That's a strange question to ask a Christian. After all there is in the gospels the story with the adulteress whose stoning was stopped by Jesus who pointed out that we should not punish people for their errors, and, of course, at the same time made clear that we should not follow the Old Testament's commands just because they are written there.

Also, as far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as "God's commands", see about this post 212 or #85738 in this very page.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

231. Comment #86376 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 5:36 am

The problem for atheism is that that knowledge cannot be grounded in a naturalistic worldview.

That is just plain Creationist talk, and, of course, there are plenty of atheists who believe in the supernatural:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/11/28/buddhism-and-atheism.htm

"Lots of people in the West misunderstand Buddhism, especially it's general lack of any divine figures. They don't realize that, for many, Buddhism is essentially an atheistic religion. People in the West are accustomed to religions all being theistic, so the idea of an atheistic religion is almost incomprehensible."

(But, I guess, as usual, you will claim to know more than the Buddhists themselves, and declare them not atheists).

As Dawkins wrote in his "River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life", there is no good and evil. But if there is no good and evil, how can one decide or even discuss that to let that mother die was evil? You see? It's incoherent.

All this means is that there is no external good or evil intrinsic in the Universe. It does not mean that we can't judge things as good or evil by our own standards.

It is incoherent to claim that there is some objective standard without giving evidence for that standard.

Other Comments by steve99

232. Comment #86378 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 9, 2007 at 5:38 am

Clodhopper (post 220, or #85763):

So morality is independent of God and he is bound by it, or morality is intrinsic to God's nature. From whence comes this knowledge about the nature of God?

See post 230, or #86373 in this very page.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

233. Comment #86381 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 9, 2007 at 5:46 am

Dr Benway (post 222, or #85784):

Back to #1: Negotiation works like this: I say what I want, you say what you want. Where we're in conflict, we look for compromises. "Might make right" means you do what I say. No negotiation necessary.

I think you are imagining some ideal world, but not the world in which live. Reality is that in many cases one party does have the might over the other. So should that party negotiate with the weaker party and take into account its wishes or not? If not then it's about might and not about right, so we don't have any ethics. But if you think that the strong party ought to negotiate with the weaker party even though it doesn't need to, then on what standards do you base this ethical precept?

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

234. Comment #86382 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 5:51 am

See post 230, or #86373 in this very page.

Nope, sorry, that doesn't work. It is the same argument used by Satanists: Satan is the standard by which we should be measured, and we should all work to fulfill Satan's plan.

Unless you have some measuring tool to indicate whether the most powerful being is good or evil, it is ridiculous to claim that God instantiates goodness.

Please point to this measuring tool that allows you do distinguish between God being perfectly good, perfectly evil, or perfectly neutral. And, 'it is obvious' is not good enough.

Other Comments by steve99

235. Comment #86385 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 9, 2007 at 5:56 am

BMMcArdle (post 223, or #85965):

Is the Bible the basis for your Christian worldview?

No. The human condition, or in other words how it is like to be a human being, is the basis for my theistic worldview. Which worldview, incidentally, I also call Christian mainly because its ethics is Christian. The specific ontological claims about the nature of Jesus of Nazareth are secondary for me.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

236. Comment #86388 by epeeist on November 9, 2007 at 6:02 am

Comment #86381 by Dianelos Georgoudis

I think you are imagining some ideal world, but not the world in which live. Reality is that in many cases one party does have the might over the other.

There are many domains of discourse, forte main is only one of them. Others include quarrels, debate, persuasion, negotiation and critical discussion.

Other Comments by epeeist

237. Comment #86454 by BMMcArdle on November 9, 2007 at 9:13 am

Dear Dianelos,
Have you been Baptised?
Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior?
Do you believe in the Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost?

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

238. Comment #86461 by Dr Benway on November 9, 2007 at 9:58 am

Dianelos: But if you think that the strong party ought to negotiate with the weaker party even though it doesn't need to, then on what standards do you base this ethical precept?

Moral behavior supports the social and environmental conditions necessary for relationship between independent, informed, consenting agents.

Coercive interventions in one relationship can be justified by appeals to the future of that relationship or by appeals to other relationships. Parents force children to do many things in service to their development toward independence. Communities force criminals off the streets to limit their destructive influence upon others.

Dianelos, you value your relationship to God above your relationship to me. You'd rather ask God how you ought to behave toward me, rather than ask me how to behave toward me. We doctors call this "wanking."

Other Comments by Dr Benway

239. Comment #86472 by Lauregon on November 9, 2007 at 11:02 am

And, arguably, nobody has written a more splendid moral code than Christian ethics as recorded in the Gospels two thousand years ago...- Dianelos

The "moral code of the gospels" route again, eh, Dianelos? The previously-discussed avaricious and murderous "Parable of the Talents" rushes to mind. We know from that earlier discussion on another thread that you invent your own gospel reality, ignoring what's actually written on the page in favor of the context-free banality you choose to see instead. More, you've proudly admitted to cherry-picking the Bible, selecting passages that suit you, and discarding others, but somehow, despite the utter subjectivity of your method, you insist this process leads you to knowledge of an objective morality? Totally bogus crapcakes, Dianelos. Fakersome bullshittery.

Other Comments by Lauregon

240. Comment #86565 by clodhopper on November 9, 2007 at 4:09 pm

DG:

(So ultimately there is not really any difference between religious and humanist ethics.)

exactly so. both are man made. thankyou.

Other Comments by clodhopper

241. Comment #86575 by Diacanu on November 9, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Hey, DG, didja forget about the "transcendental argument", thread?

Or...is ya fraidy scared?
B-)

Other Comments by Diacanu

242. Comment #88304 by clearthinker on November 15, 2007 at 10:57 pm

Has anyone done a comparison on the various 'flea' books and 'anti-flea books'? It was interesting to read the views of Daniel O;Hara former president of the National Secular Society in the Free Church's Monthly Record - see http://www.freechurch.org/magazines/monthlyrecord.htm for November.

Other Comments by clearthinker