h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A few points:

I don't think a general consensus is good enough to decide right from wrong. Humans DON'T intuitively know right from wrong. I could bring up how Hitler was elected by a landslide, but that would just be mean. Instead I'll point out that according to your own argument, you're completely in the wrong because the vast majority of people are religious and I think this probably constitutes a general consensus.

There do exist religious people who teach their children tolerance. I don't see any reason to assume that Atheists are more or less prone to do so.

Hypothetically, what if there's REASON to be afraid? It's possible. Playing Christ's advocate the demons are supposedly in hell because they actually prefer toturing themselves over having to repent. If they DID repent, they'd be redeemed. (Of course, this raises the paradoxes about free will in a universe where God knows what your're going to do before you do. I don't care to get into that now, suffice to say an omnipotent being could grant you free will, logic be damned.) My point is that in this system, saying you'll go to hell if you do this or that isn't judgemental, any more than telling you you'll fall if you walk off a cliff interferes with your freedom of movement. If you want to risk hell, go ahead.
This can be presumptuous, or monstrously unethical and paranoid if you actually start suppressing people, but It's not immoral in and of itself.

You say you don't believe that there's only one truth. But you're not afraid to say that the ethics of this generation would be more honourable if we got rid of God. There's a fine, non-sweeping generalisation if ever I've ever heard one. You do cover yourself by saying that you're preaching doctrine, but there's still a contradiction there. At risk of getting personal, I'm still not sure why the rest of us should care what you think is honourable so the point is moot.
(And no, saying that we DON'T have to care about your concept of honour doesn't let anybody off the hook. Your argument seems to rest on the idea that atheists are less prone to irrationality and intolerance than theists, so you have to prove your thesis before you you can say that.)

Finally, I'd like to remind everybody that I'm not actually arguing in favour of any particular religion myself. I thought I made clear that I'm just arguing against the idea that religion is the root of all evil. Go back to Bilge's original post. (I'm going to get slight ly personal again.) Saying "God is an antidepressant" as if this was news to anybody who's taken a basic religion course. (Secular humanism is an antidepressant too, to deal with the gnawing terror that you might NOT be responsible for your life, you might not get any say in the matter. But you knew that.) acting like a hotshot, more-rational-than-thou, hinting that those superstitious Christians can't deal with the angst and irony of life as well as you smart Atheists can. Oh the existential dread of it all! (before you judge this paragraph, try to read the first two posts in this forum from the point of view of a fairly intelligent believer. Ask yourself if it doesn't sound at least a teeny bit condescending. I could be completely wrong and making a mountain out of a molehill, but I doubt it.) If you actually BELIEVE all that, then humanism is well on it's way to becoming one more dogma and most of the arguments you make against religion can be boomeranged back on you.

Gotta go. It sounds irresponsible, but I have to write exams. I'l back later this month to see if I've been banned from the
forums for starting pointless arguments.

To be fair, Hitler was elected, to a large degree, because of electoral irregularities, and fear of communism. This isn't a problem with people's views of morality - this is a problem with using dumb electoral systems. How little things change.

It really does depend on the actual religion. My experience with fundamentalist Christians leads me to the conclusion that they *ARE* much less tollerant and open-minded than anyone else I know. I suppose the same might be true for fundamentalists of other religious persuasions as well. In fact, I would go so far as to hypothesis a sort of "fundamentalist atheist" who would be just as intollerant. I just don't happen to know any people like that. The point is, the broader the viewpoint, the more room there is for acceptance of other people's views.

From our argument I have had a revelation. Theists have often that without God there cannot be an "absolute Truth" and so we won't be able to tell right from wrong. But we don't live in a monoreligious society. Right from wrong is different from religion to religion - heck, it's not the same throughout the Bible!
It is absolutely ridiculous to say that without God we cannot distinguish between good and bad. How have you been doing it so far? Do you pick up the phone to God if you're not sure whether you should kill your neighbour for being noisy? Or do you make the judgement yourself, 'knowing' it is the wrong thing to do? Perhaps you consult the Bible? in which case you are consulting an ancient inaccurate law book. So how can you justify religions giving us the distinction between right and wrong? Our judgement must make the final decision - and therefore there is not just one set of morals, it's a question of reason.

O.K Q*bert, here's the thing. I may perhaps might of come accross in that manner in my first message. Let me explain. Due to your incessant arguments, all your valid points of view and clever reasoning, I have now re-vamped my original statement.
(Sheesh, can't a guy make a statement and be instantly heralded as correct, forever? I ask ya....)
I didn't mean that only Theists were depressed and Atheists were smart and clever, even if it did come off like that. I meant that EVERYONE was depressed in that era, except theists came up with God to combat that depression, atheists just didn't agree. I now have a new idea thanks to YOU! *cough* *cough* Here is my new theory.
In THOSE times i ,mentioned above, god was an antidepressant. see my other messages for my reasoning behind this. In medievil times god was still an antidepressant for peasants, and yet God was "control"
for the nobleman who ruled over the peasants it kept them in check, i.e. "keep working for me and god will reward you in the afterlife".
NOWADAYS however, God is none of those things. You and Mr Cynic have brought up new arguments which have forced me to conclude the following: God has been rendered obsolete. God is a security blanket so that people can feel safe, get help in times of grief, feel that God is caring for them, looking out for them. However nowadays you don't need a magical God to look out for you! You have families, andfriends who actually care, unlike olden times when God was required! We can make our own moral decisions, we don't go to the priest for every single moral question! We figure it out by ourselves, or by talking it out with friends! We only still believe in God because our parents have socialised us into this belief. Basically our parents have influenced us as children so that we have been brought up to believe in God. Our parents can't help it, they were brought up in this way to. However God is now like a security blanket which we have grown up with, been taught to cherish, yet has not been disgarded when it should have been and has now become obsolete, only there because it makes us confident, secure. However it isn't really required anymore!


God is a twenty-four year olds security blanket

That is my new opinion, let's see what arguments you can get outa that......

You know....I think you're on to something there!

NM

Mr. Cynic - nobody can convince you that Jesus is the son of God. If I wasn't Christian, I would have to conclude that Jesus was a big liar and I would be left with some confusion about why all his friends spent the rest of their lives spreading lies and defending them to the point of being executed themselves. But then, I guess there are those that choose to believe that only some passages of the Bible and historical accounts about Jesus and his followers are correct, and discount others that attest to the supernatural. It's up to you.

You said "So you are saying God actually changed - from brute with the barbarians to kind with the NT folks" Huh? God is always the same God, but yes, he deals with humanity in different ways, depending on where they're at spiritually. A purely human example - it's like a father who punishes his 6 year old son for stealing by sending him to bed without dinner. A father dealing with a 16 year old son who steals something might be more inclined to sit down and discuss the concept of private property, the impact of stealing on society, i.e. get into more detail about WHY it's wrong. Not a perfect example, I know, but hopefully it helps you to understand my point a little better.

You said "Will Jesus not forgive all sins? Is this not true?" Yeah, of course he will. What' your point? He can forgive anything that we're sorry for and ask forgiveness for. In school they used to depict sin as a heavy burden that some guy is carrying, and that Jesus is willing to take it. But the guy has to first be willing to hand it over. As Christians we believe that Jesus respects our free will completely and so cannot rip our sins off us if we're not willing to even be forgiven for them. Make sense? I don't know, maybe I misunderstand what you're getting at.

You said "in the Catholic church Jesus doesn't have to do it. You just confess, either say "Hail Mary"...etc.." Sorry, I'm afraid you were misinformed. Catholic catechism throughout the millenia has taught that Jesus is the one who forgives sins, and the priest is merely an instrument of grace. It also teaches that reconciliation can take place if only there is sincere contrition. Look it up.

" 'If you have sinned as long as you believed, you're in the clear' is wrong" Yup. That is wrong. If you've seriously sinned and haven't asked for forgiveness, then all the believin' in the world ain't gonna help ya.

As for "you do not get sent to hell if you sin" perhaps you didn't read my response slowly enough? Let me repeat - YES you can get sent to hell. I said "people send themselves there" by the way they live their lives here on earth. I thought that I made that pretty clear.

You said "God isn't merciful...but he also doesn't punish" Did I say God doesn't punish? Sure he does all the time! I mean, just look at what happened to Sodom and Gemmorah. Or the flood, or the famines or... you get the point. That's one of the mysteries of God - merciful AND just. Why does a human father severely punish his kids now and then? Because he's a sadist? Hopefully not.

Hey sorry this discussion is getting WAY off topic, but hopefully you can understand where I was coming from a bit better.

Hanz.

"Do you pick up the phone to God if you're not sure whether you should kill your neighbour for being noisy?"

Me personally? No. Charles Manson? Maybe.

You raise an important point, though. How do atheists define morals? Is being moral just the same as being "reasonable"? Despite the differing opinions about what is "right" among theists, they nevertheless believe that there IS such a thing, and strive to discover what that is. Atheists, as far as I can tell, don't believe there is any absolute right or wrong, so what compass do their morals point towards?

> "Atheists, as far as I can tell, don't believe there is any absolute right or wrong, so what compass do their morals point towards?"

[repost - it's relevant here too]
Entry on Ethics: http://www.h2g2.com/A468920

It always amazes me how theists try and claim the moral high ground. I do good because it is good - I need no other reason. You do good because you are running scared of the eternal consequences. Which of us is the 'better' person?

Do you always post the exact same response in two different threads? Your response indicates that you either didn't read my other posts or unfortunately didn't understand them. Sigh. Oh well. It always amazes me how atheists try to portray theists as mindless pananoid yes men that are "running scared" of being zapped by an almighty sadist. So much verbal engineering.

When I do, I normally say "[repost - it's relevant here too]". And do it only when it's relevant.

You asked how atheists defined morals - I pointed you to an entry on how a large number of people define morals without reference to an authority figure. I felt this was relevant.

The "running scared" thing was a cheap hit, sure - but then, so was your saying that atheists don't believe in any absolute right or wrong. Pot kettle black.

> "Your response indicates that you either didn't read my other posts or unfortunately didn't understand them"

Or that I didn't care enough to respond to post 47 - only to post 48. And, indeed, only a single question within that.

"I guess there are those that choose to believe that only some passages of the Bible and historical accounts about Jesus and his followers are correct, and discount others that attest to the supernatural." - An odd accusation coming from a Christian, since I believe it is that sect who accepts what appears to be a confirmation of Jesus' "divinity" in one passage, yet completely ignores the bit about the Roman Emperor rising from the grave and ascending in a like fashion later in the same work by the same author. Unfortunately, I just loaned out the book that contained the nugget on the writer, so I can get more specific until I get it back. I think the work was by some guy named Mar-Serapion, or something like that, from about 150ad or so. If someone here can help me on this one, I'd surely appreciate it, since I'm not likely to get my book back for at least a couple of weeks.

If Christians are so upright and moralistic, why do they adhere to the morally bankrupt practices of ritual cannibalism and substitutive sacrifice?

>It always amazes me how theists try and claim the moral high ground. >I do good because it is good - I need no other reason. You do good >because you are running scared of the eternal consequences. Which of >us is the 'better' person?

Ahh... but what is good? And who IS the better person?
It's not intuitively obvious. And even if it was, intuition is a pretty shaky framework for an ethical system. Somebody contradicted me when I said that Hitler was elected because of people's lack of ability to discern right from wrong, and chose instead to pin the blame on a dumb electoral system and fear of communism. I don't see any difference. That intuitive knowledge of right and wrong can't amount to much if I can set up a trumped-up menace to make people see things my way, can it?

> "Ahh... but what is good? And who IS the better person?"

I see you didn't bother going to the linked entry.

> "Somebody contradicted me..."

That would be me. And, communism was a genuine concern at that time. You may remember the whole of the USSR becoming communist? And communist parties being set up throughout europe? And the communists getting 15% of the vote in germany, despite the best efforts of the SS to brutally murder them all?

In a flawed electoral system like plurality, you often need to choose the better of two evils. If one of those evils is communism and the other is hitler, you're pretty much buggered both ways. Had people not voted for hitler out of fear the communists would probably have taken Germany - though with 20/20 hindsight I dunno if that would have been worse.

Moot point....the communists got half of it anyway!

Since when did a subject about the nature of God(god) become an arguement on morals? Civilization(structural morals) will be aquired with or without the help of any divine influence. Self preservational instinct as a species will guide us to our inevitable end. Wheather that end is good or bad for our survival will be left for future historians to discuss at their liesure.

In the meantime, keep in mind that the character we refer to as God(god)is mearly a method used to control or comfort. As most things are with us humans, these beliefs can be used for good or evil.

Only in these modern times have we, the commoners, been free enough to even question such things. Only a bare few hundred years ago, we would all have been hunted down as dogs and executed for this discussion.

I'd call that progress up to this point.....at least your adversary here won't have you hunted down and burned at the stake!

NM

Lucinda: Believe it or not, I DID read the linked article before I made that last posting. However, since you press me into frankness, I didn't think it was particularly relevant to what we were talking about at the time. The problem is that the essay (although well-written for what it is) only provides the different ethical theories without countering my point that none of them are worth a darn without some concept of an objective "goodness", which requires God (or something like God). I already questioned some of them, and you point out the flaws in others yourself. Intuitional ethics? They're not intuitional, in my experience. Logical ethics? Logic's only as good as its premises. Communitarian ethics? Isn't that another name for mob rule? Historical ethics? That could require some revisionism, seeing as how we only got rid of slavery a couple hundred years ago, in most parts of the world. Consequential? What if you don't know, or care, about the consequences? Egoist or personal ethics? Go back and read my very first posting to this forum and tell me where it contradicts egoist ethics, or personal ethics. Unless I've missed one or made an error somewhere (please point it out) every theory listed in the entry is useless here. So the question again becomes: What is good?

Fairly strange: You're mostly right... but who cares about structural morals? Everything Martin Luther King did was against the mores of society at the time. What are you going to appeal to if you challenge "structural morals?" People's good side? Good luck, especially if people are worried that you're a communist out to take over the country.

Bilge: You're absolutely correct. God is a security blanket. Exactly like humanism.

Humanism is not a security blanket. It is simply a philosophy that accepts the role of a tiny little fish in the great big pond. All these claims and accusations you level at atheism and humanism cause me to wonder if you really know anything about them beyond hearsay and conjecture.

One of the central tenets of humanism is that humans are basically alone, and responsible for themselves...right?

I'll get to how it's a security blanket in a while. First I'll make sure I do know more about it than hearsay and conjecture.

Well, you blew it with that opening statement. Humans are *very* not alone... there are billions of us encompassing this tiny world, and we had better learn to get along together.

No, I meant humanity was alone in the cosmos, without outside help from God or spirits or benevolent aliens...oh never mind. I confess my ignorance, just tell me exactly which accusations were outrageous and why so I can properly defend myself.