One thing you’ll find in working with atheists is that they’re ALL over the map. They just say whatever seems to suit, in the moment. Check out the comments on the last three or four posts, well, actually, over the last three or four years and you’ll see what I mean.
One day it’s, “What we experience is the feeling of an objective moral code but that’s all it is, a feeling (Kind of like the geneticist Francis Crick, “We have to keep reminding ourselves that what we’re seeing wasn’t designed.”). Any given atheist might tell you that, "What feels like an objective moral code comes from a trillion years of evolution as little by little what works for our survival has become hardwired into our brains.”
Another day it’s, “What we call our moral code is actually the consensus of the collective in which we live. If it looks like it might enhance our survival, we call it right. If it looks like it might hinder our survival we call it wrong. But no individual actually needs to obey the consensus of the collective. You just do what you think is right in the situation that you’re in and that’s cool. If it feels right then it must be right. Right?”
Another day it’s,
“Mak, what you’re doing is wrong.”
“Says you?”
“Um . . . um . . . ah . . . I don’t know what I’m supposed to say or what I’m supposed to believe. All I know is that when Sam Harris comes again, everything will be explained.”
That’s atheism. Say anything. Think anything. As long as it avoids dealing with the fact of Creator God.
Atheism. Absurd, Illogical, Incoherent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Perhaps you were not aware of this, but atheists are not clones. I know, I know, it's hard to believe. But believe it or not, we have different reasons for not subscribing to religion and dogma. We don't follow along in some holy atheist text, gather every sunday and calibrate our contentions, or even sing songs about atheism and harmonize as we coalesce into a warm ball of solidarity.
ReplyDeleteYep, one atheist will describe his or her view and then another with a slightly different view will join the discussion, weird right?
I was under the impression that Christians were the same, is that not accurate?
Do ALL Christians believe and interpret the scripture in mass synchronicity?
Please, enlighten me.
Let me try to explain something again just to humor the ridiculous thought that you might learn something... My contention on collective morality is not shared by all atheists first off. Secondly, I'm not saying that a collective definition is sn objective truth. What I'm saying is that the closest thing to OBJECTIVE morality would be the collective interpretation. NOT THAT IT IS OBJECTIVE, because it's not truly objective, it's simply the closest thing we'll get to it. And since an absolute morality is impossible, it's unfair to hold the term under the weight of that which is not possible. I call it a compatiblist approach, similar to the compatiblist approach to free will. When we alter our definition of free will to better fit reality, we achieve a contention that says determinism does not negate free will. I propose that the impossibilty of absolute morality does not void objective morality, as long as we agree on a definition of objectivity that is compatible with reality.
There's nothing to really disagree with except for the terms I propose we use. Because that's all im suggesting. I'm not proposing we change anything, because a collective morality is how things already work. If you betray the collective you are punished, and if the collective's laws need revision, then we revise them.
By the way, in case you just happened to overlook the question I asked 3 or 4 times now, here it is again...
ReplyDeleteWhy would a designer create a flawed design, then punish "his" creation for being flawed?
“Why would a designer create a flawed design, then punish "his" creation for being flawed?”
ReplyDeleteIn case you missed my reply, if you were God, how would you have done it differently?
By not setting people up to fail.
ReplyDeleteAnd certainly if I did I would not claim to love them. That's like asking my wife if I'm the best looking guy she's ever dated, and then telling her that if she doesn't say that I am, I'm going to divorse her. Then on top of, telling her I'm doing this because I love her. I would not appoligize for flaws that I was forced to have.
I wasn’t clear enough. Accepting that:
ReplyDeletea) A moral universe is better than an amoral universe and
b) A universe where creatures have Free Will is better than not having any choice and
c) A universe where real Love exists as opposed to not experiencing or giving love,
How would you have done it different? How would you have gone about setting up those conditions? Remember, from a moral God comes a moral universe. From a God who exhibits choice comes the ability to make choice. From a God who IS Love comes the ability to experience and to give love also. Given that's the case, how would you have done it differently?
In answer to your first response:
Are you saying that giving people a choice to do right or to do wrong is “setting them up”?
Is knowing how someone will respond to the choice that you’ve given them “setting them up”?
Is providing and out from the consequences of their bad choice, i.e. making sure that they can, if they want, completely and totally escape the consequence of their bad choice, at His own expense no less, is that “setting them up”?
I don't see it but . . .
Off topic but @ Hugo in response to your ridiculous "no atheist has ever said the the Bible isn't historically accurate.
ReplyDelete"Take Judaism for example. After careful study of the existing texts and archeology, most experts have concluded that there is no proof that Abraham existed. Ditto for Noah. Ditto for Moses."
From CNN - an atheist commentor on a Stephen Colbert thing on "Religious Truthiness"
@Thesauros
ReplyDeleteYou are never able to process the text that we write correctly.
The proof is in the fact that you constantly misrepresent the opinions and beliefs of others.
You are either an idiot, or a liar. Let me know if you have the answer.
I dont agree to the terms of your qualifiers.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, (b) is not only false, but ridiculously so. "knowing how someone will respond" DOES NOT DESCRIBE GOD'S ACTIONS. I don't know how many times we'll go over this but your qualifier is incomplete. God NOT ONLY knows in advance but DESIGNED in advance AS WELL. Simply knowing ahead of time does not void free will, but designing the path and destiny of every particle in the universe without temporal limitations or unknowns, DOES negate any freedom for self will. Will belongs not to self, but to god, lest we defy the creator's sequencing, which negates the design and thus impossible.
Who are we? We are who require definition. It's through gods design that we inherit our individual, otherwise we cannot be designed. And if we inherit our individual, we inherit our flaws. If we inherit our flaws, and are to be punished for them, by what basis can we convince ourselves that we're not being set up to fail?
Thesauros asked the following: if you were God, how would you have done it differently?
ReplyDeleteI would set it up so that imperfect beings were given the ability to choose their own destinies, and not punish them for the results. I'd give them tools to figure out how to succeed (just as any parent does for their children).
The goal of me setting up a universe like that would be to see if I could create something which could improve itself over time without my help. THAT would be a creation to be proud of.
Two things I'd like to point out:
ReplyDelete1) while I haven't agreed with much of the last two posts, there were no obvious lies in them. I think it's fair to ask atheists why they're all over the map IRT morality (though 'snackbar provided the correct answer for this). Good stuff
2) A single atheist who thinks that Moses, Noah and Abraham didn't exist IS NOT the same as "atheists say the Bible isn't historically accurate". I cringe at having to explain why, but, for example, an atheist who takes 5 minutes to investigate will conclude that Herod the Great actually existed.
Now, qualifiers (a) and (c) can only be true if we accept that god must conform to rules that transcend "himself". When we say "god had to have done it that way" we suggest that rules must be followed for an existance like ours to make sence. Otherwise, our universe would be nonsence right? In order to qualify "nonsence", we must defy a logical order. Who designed the logical order that god must abide? Who designed the rules god operates under?
ReplyDeleteIn order for god to qualify as having infinite power, "he" had to have designed his own logical order by which he must submit to, then provide a reality based on his own self induced restrictions. If god designed the logical order, then he most certainly had a choice about how to qualify what logical means inside the dynamic container of existance he takes credit for. If you say, "god did it the best possible way.", then we must accept that there is organized and finite set of rules by which to qualify "best possible". Because "best possible" can only work under defined rules, otherwise its "best" relative to what? Ergo, god must answers to "his" own designer.
ReplyDeleteWITH THAT FINALLY BEING SAID...
ReplyDeleteIf I was god, I would have designed the logical order so that suffering is not required to qualify true love.
"God NOT ONLY knows in advance but DESIGNED in advance AS WELL"
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that Adam and Eve never had the choice to say “yes” to obedience?
And all the stuff about flaws, is that another way of saying that you would have created a world without sin > flaws?
=============
Now, qualifiers (a) and (c) can only be true if we accept that god must conform to rules that transcend "himself".
Creator God is perfect in all His attributes including morality, love, justice etc. To create something that reflects something other than Himself is to create something less "good" than it could be.
===============
"In order for god to qualify as having infinite power, "he" had to have designed his own logical order by which he must submit to, then provide a reality based on his own self induced restrictions. If god designed the logical order, then he most certainly had a choice about how to qualify what logical means inside the dynamic container of existance he takes credit for. If you say, "god did it the best possible way.", then we must accept that there is organized and finite set of rules by which to qualify "best possible". Because "best possible" can only work under defined rules, otherwise its "best" relative to what? Ergo, god must answers to "his" own designer.
I maybe need to read that more carefully but at first glance, I don’t see any problem with this.
It doesn’t take anything away from God to say that He cannot contradict His own character nor the laws of logic that He designed. Good comment.
===========
Ooops, I missed it -
ReplyDelete“If I was god, I would have designed the logical order so that suffering is not required to qualify true love.”
Finally, someone said it. Of course we would have, and so would God, I would think. Since He didn’t I think we can assume that for reasons we can only guess at, that isn’t possible.
Thsauros asked Are you saying that Adam and Eve never had the choice to say “yes” to obedience?
ReplyDeleteIf Hugo wouldn't answer it this way, I certainly would: you are correct. Adam and Eve did not have a choice in how they behaved. God made them knowing they would eat that apple, and that there was no possibility of them doing otherwise.
They were not "tested" in any way. They were destined to be punished and result in the torture of humanity.
Thesauros said...
ReplyDelete"And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are FREE to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
They were told what to do and what not to do and they were told what the consequences would be if they did what they should not do.
Same as for you and for me.
"The serpent said to the woman, "Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden?"
The woman said, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden but God did say, "you must not eat from the tree that is in the middle of the garden. Now when the woman saw that the fruit was good for food and pleasing to the eye and also desireable for gaining wisdom . . ."
If the outcome was a given, why the whole temptation song and dance?
Why the decision to do or not to do?
Seems like free will to me. Granted, God knew the outcome but the choice was theirs to make.
One last question. I've had crippling arthritis for 50 years. Have I had a choice as to how to respond to this difficulty? God has known all along how I'll respond, does that mean that He is the cause of me either rebelling against my life or instead going with the flow, so to speak?
I'm curious. Does anyone else agree with, um, who wrote this - WEM? Are your thoughts and choices - wait - no choices, thoughts and behaviours preprogrammed? Are they at the very least beyond your control? Because isn't that naturalism? Chemical reactions, firing neurons and all that?
ReplyDeleteGod did not know the outcome, god DESIGNED the outcome. This completely negates free will. If god sequenced your actions they are an extension of his Own actions and not yours. Quoting the bible does not help "prove" that we have free will under god. You obviously have a hard time understanding this subject.
ReplyDelete"God did not know the outcome, god DESIGNED the outcome."
ReplyDeleteOh, well, that is completely and totally your own invention.
The Bible clearly teaches free will and God’s justice based upon our free will decisions.
You’re doing what many if not most atheists do. You use the Bible to allow for God’s existence - but only to find fault with what God does based upon your own perverted (meaning twisted) declaration of how Creator God works. Then, when I or someone else points out how your theology is in direct opposition to what the Bible teaches you immediately jump to, “Well, the Bible is just a book written by men so, what does it matter? God doesn't even exist.”
Still, to make sure that I haven't misunderstood you, could you answer my question? - I've had crippling arthritis for 50 years. Have I had a choice as to how to respond to this difficulty? God has known all along HOW I'll respond, does that mean that He is the cause of me either rebelling against my life or instead going with the flow, so to speak?
I never said anything about the bible. What's wrong with you? Are even reading my posts?
ReplyDeleteAnd about your question. It's amazing how you need to ask this because I've made it incredibly clear already. Under an all knowing and all powerful creator, you absolutely had NO choice. Your will is not yours but an extension of his, as all sequencing is of his design.
ReplyDeleteMy own invention? I'm talking about the implications for the qualifications of god that you agree with. What does the bible have to do with this? I invent nothing more than you. Do you consult the bible when talking about the "finely tuned constants of physics"? I'm not the one who's being wishy washy. Your not even understanding the arguement.
"I never said anything about the bible. What's wrong with you? Are even reading my posts?"
ReplyDeleteMaybe not. You atheists all look alike to me. Are you snacker and whateverman the same person? I can't imagine two people on the same planet both saying such equally stupid stuff.
The ONLY God that I talk about is Creator God as He has been revealed through creation and through the Bible. Are you speaking of the same Deity, and if so, from where and how do you know of Him if not from Creation and the Bible?
I refer to ANY creator that fits the qualifications of all knowing and all powerful. It's a discussion from philosophy. Of course I can't expect you to understand philosophy. Perhaps if I drew you some pictures you might better understand the argument. That is of course, if I can find some crayons. Why don't you respond to my comments on this last 1.6% solution you just posted. I'm curious to see how well you fare in understanding the argument.
ReplyDelete"I refer to ANY creator that fits the qualifications of all knowing and all powerful."
ReplyDeleteYou do know, don't you, that there is only one of those? The One described in the Bible?
So who you are is who you think you have to be.
No choice.
No change.
Just life as a pawn, a puppet.
Like Gandolf, “My parents were conned by some religious shmuck and now I have no choice but to reject what Jesus taught.”
That is so pathetic.
So passive.
So pitiful.
Taking naturalism to justify being pitiful and attaching god to it as an excuse to justify your anger at Him for not existing.
That’s just sad.
What a schizophrenic way to live!
Again, do you other guys agree with this? That you don't have free will? Self-change is not an option?
Thesauros asked the following: Are your thoughts and choices - wait - no choices, thoughts and behaviours preprogrammed? Are they at the very least beyond your control? Because isn't that naturalism? Chemical reactions, firing neurons and all that?
ReplyDeleteFree will is a complicated question. Please note that, before you point to the inconsistency of the answers you receive about this as a victory somehow, people have been debating the existence of it (free will) for thousands of years:
Materialistic determinism has faded in and out of fashion. There have been times when it was rejected, and times when it was accepted - and the final answer has yet to be reached.
I know that due to quantum mechanics, the possibility of absolute determinism has been smashed. The nature of Nature is such that the future can not be set in stone. However, this "uncertainty" appears to exist only at the scale of particle physics. "Macro determinism" could very well be real.
As for me, I can not explain free will. Our model of the universe suggests that we are little more than material substances in horrendously complicated arrays; life appears deterministic. However, this strikes me intuitively as being wrong or incomplete. Surely my choices can't be predictable by natural mechanisms...
On the basis of particle physics and intuition, I have faith that my choices are not predetermined. I believe that I have free will. I can't prove that, however...
When I responded to YOU, Thesauros, this question of free will was in the context of an Om{X} being who would know absolutely how I'll behave in the future. Such a being is illogical, but if he exists, then my future is predetermined, and punishment for my crimes can be levied equally justly at the time IO commit them, or several milliseconds after I was conceived by my parents.
In the context of your God, Thesauros, I have no free will. In the context of the universe as I believe it to be, I have faith that my choices are freely made by me - but I can't prove it.
Thsauros wrote The Bible clearly teaches free will and God’s justice based upon our free will decisions.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible also teaches that God is all knowing and all powerful. Ignoring for the moment that this being CREATED the universe in question, such a being can't exist without predetermining the actions of each and every component in the universe.
Your error is in believing that a perfect God can create a flawed system.
ReplyDeleteAs stated:
From a moral God a moral universe arises
From a loving God the experience of love arose
From a Just God, justice can be expected.
Any flaw that you perceive to be present is just that, a perception and only that. A perception that is based upon our ignorance of an all knowing God.
@Whateverman
ReplyDeleteI love the subject. I'll tell you what I think when it comes to free will.
I tend to be an incompatiblist when it comes to free will. I like to think that determinism is NOT compatible with free will, and that free will is an illusion. I am certainly aware of quantum indeterminacy, however I would go as far as to say even indeterminacy doesn't grant free will. We would need to be able to show that indeterminacy excepts us from being subject to the physical reactive processes, despite whether a Laplace monster could determine our actions. It just seems to me that if we can accept indeterminacy as randomization (as it concerns the mind), then I think from there we can easily accept that randomization doesn't grant free will. That's just how i see it.
The thing is, if free will existed we would need to be able to define the physics of subjectivity. How would we begin to describe that as something completely different from the operations of the objective mind. People are quick to think that the free will part of the mind is "outside the brain", but if so, why does brain damage effect the subjectivity of one's experience?
The mechanics of the brain are within our understanding. like how excessive levels of dopamine increase paranoia and excessive levels of oxytocin increase euphoria. It's an amazing renderer or consciousness, the human brain is.
Between genetic influence, experience, and human tenancies, even if we could prove that free will existed, we wouldn't be very free, we'd be very much influenced by SOOO many factors. If we were completely free, we couldn't rely on demographic statistical data. We wouldn't see concentrations of anything. In the middle east we would see a random number of Muslims and Christians, none having a large gain over the other, because people would be free from influence.
I will say, that I think the compatiblists make a good argument. But I can't be convinced until we define what the mechanics of free will might be.
Your error is in believing that a perfect God can create a flawed system.
ReplyDeleteSo God made a perfect system eh'? The best possible system?
I'll paste my comment from the next post you did...
The Logical obsurdity in infinite power is not being understood, so I'm going to explain this in the simplest way I can...
You cannot say that god did "the best he can" unless god is limited in what he can do. A "best" can only work when there are limits. This is because with infinity there can always be "better". Just like there can always be a bigger number. You do not have a "final" number and likewise not a "best" thing, unless god operates under limitations. If god is limited, he's not unlimited.
If god is limited, then how is he god?
If god is unlimited, then it follows that he intentionally designed a reality with suffering even though he didn't have to, to achieve the results he wanted.
We cannot say god put limits on himself, because he had to have done so being unlimited and therefore he's never limited.
Thesauros wrote the following: Any flaw that you perceive to be present is just that, a perception and only that. A perception that is based upon our ignorance of an all knowing God.
ReplyDeleteNo, Thesauros, the issue is not a perception, nor is it something that's understood incompletely/incorrectly. The flaw comes directly from the following:
1) the definition of omnipotent
2) the definition of omniscient
3) the definition of free will
By definition (not perception), these three things can not co-exist. The real problem, IMHO, is in your flawed understanding of this deity you claim to believe in. He can not exist as he has been defined by believers.
The problem is yours, not mine.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAtheistSnackBar wrote much, of which the following was only a part: I would go as far as to say even indeterminacy doesn't grant free will. We would need to be able to show that indeterminacy excepts us from being subject to the physical reactive processes, despite whether a Laplace monster could determine our actions. It just seems to me that if we can accept indeterminacy as randomization (as it concerns the mind), then I think from there we can easily accept that randomization doesn't grant free will. That's just how i see it.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to assert that quantum uncertainty grants us free will. Rather than it (QU) being a positive statement, I believe it simply makes room for the possibility: it shows that pure determinism can not exist.
Whether or not free will follows from that is a different subject entirely :)
I too love this topic...
EDIT: reposted to fix typos
@WEM
ReplyDeletethat's true, QM certainly has a history of suprises!
Research today is nuts and with a larger focus on neuroscience, who knows what new insight will bring to the age old arguement of free will.
I confess, I got a potent and nerdy enthusiasm for scientific discovery!
The Mak said.."So who you are is who you think you have to be.
ReplyDeleteNo choice.
No change.
Just life as a pawn, a puppet.
Like Gandolf, “My parents were conned by some religious shmuck and now I have no choice but to reject what Jesus taught.”
That is so pathetic.
So passive.
So pitiful.
Taking naturalism to justify being pitiful and attaching god to it as an excuse to justify your anger at Him for not existing.
That’s just sad.
What a schizophrenic way to live!"
Lieing again are we Mak.Blatantly misjudging folks again Mak.I came here today feeling sorry i jumped on ya,but now i realize you only get everything you deserve on this blog.And i no longer need to feel sorry for you.
What dont you get about the fact its not just about what i see in my family.What dont you get that i also "see your faith" does nothing for you either!, other than turing you into a bigot who misjudges people and is also a liar like in this post about me.
Should i choose to become a ignorant fool, and choose to take swallowing your "faith poison", only to become another thoughtless ignorant injust bigot like you Mak?.
Dont you get it Mak.Its got little to do with my own cult familys visible actions ,and MUCH MORE to do with the fact i see faith poison has THE VERY SAME EFFECT on the visible actions of you and most ever other folks of faith Mak.
You fool, why should? i be drawn to swallowing faith poison, when you and all other folks of faith, show us so clearly and blatantly! what terrible stuff it obviously is!
We only need to study you Mak to know what will be the likely outcome.
What has that to do with my own cult family Mak? ....Cant you even be just and honest in you judgments Mak? ...Does your Jesus like you telling such utter lies about me Mak?
The Mak said..."Again, do you other guys agree with this? That you don't have free will? Self-change is not an option?"
Of course we have some free will to make choices Mak.
But that dont change the fact that if some creator god actually exists...Then the fool still went and created us with free will ..."fully knowing" it was quite possible and EVEN VERY LIKELY, we or Adam and Eve, would VERY LIKELY often make the wrong choices!.
And to top this utter FOOLISHNESS off,you faithful suggest its likely this creator god would then being going to punish folks for not being perfect and not always making the right choices.
Dont you see, its simply like me creating a car that "has failures" ,failure that i to must have also obviously created.Because obviously nobody else created me.
And then im suggesting im going to punish every else, for "my own" design failures.
(If i create a car) that can be a failure,then no matter what!, (im still also the one who`s ultimately responsible for it).
Mak are you slow of mind? and dull of thought?.
Cant you see this.