Contentment
by Bradford"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Jeremiah 29:11
So it comes as no surprise that research suggests that, A belief in God could lead to a more contented life. Believers are better able to cope with life's adversity:
Religious people are better able to cope with shocks such as losing a job or divorce, claims the study presented to a Royal Economic Society conference.
They derive greater satisfaction from life:
HT: Tom Gilson
Data from thousands of Europeans revealed higher levels of "life satisfaction" in believers.
And there are multiple studies providing these positive linkages:
This is not the first study to draw links between religion and happiness, with a belief among many psychologists that some factor in either belief, or its observance, offering benefits.
And there is this:
"What we found was that religious people were experiencing current day rewards, rather than storing them up for the future."
You don't have to wait for the afterlife. But prejudice is stubbornly irrational:
"The belief that religion damages people is still in the minds of many."
Then there are the usual curmudgeons:
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, which represents the interests of atheists and agnostics, said that studies purporting to show a link between happiness and religion were "all meaningless".
"Non-believers can't just turn on a faith in order to be happy.
You're right about faith Terry Sanderson. It's not a fleeting feeling but an anchor that steadies a ship amidst stormy seas.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
It doesn't surprise me. Fantasy and fairy tales are much more comforting than reality. The question is this: if it was proven that ignorance is, in fact, bliss would you think this is a good reason to remain ignorant? Or is a sad truth better than a lie?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 22, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Todd:
There is nothing more comforting than successfully dealing with reality. Escapes from reality are but temporary diversions. But when reality is faced, as it eventually must be, then the assurance that you are grounded in truth is the path to contentment.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:10 am
What difference does it make in your worldview? Either way when you die you're just as dead.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 23, 2009 @ 12:10 am
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:56 am
kornbelt:
So are you. Unfortunately, you won't be able to realize that your cherished religious beliefs were baloney.:mrgreen:
(edit: why doesn't my Mr. green work?)
Comment by Raevmo — June 23, 2009 @ 9:56 am
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:27 am
It is programmed to self-destruct within mean spirited comments.
Comment by Bradford — June 23, 2009 @ 10:27 am
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
Assuming my religious beliefs are baloney, you are correct. (Or course, there is a middle view: consciousness survives death, and my current religious views are balony, and after death I am informed of that.) But, Todd B asked a question that implied something, and I asked a question back that implied something, that apparently got past you.
Assuming my religious beliefs, or any beliefs, are balony, what does it matter, except for your personal feelings and desires, which, pardon me, why should I care about?
The atheists around here seem to have no problem throwing around implicit and explicit "shoulds" and "oughts" that have the pretense of Something Really Important. That's always fascinated me.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 23, 2009 @ 11:10 am
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
What is most unfortunate is that after death your beliefs about religion (one in particular) will be shown to be baloney.
Comment by Bradford — June 23, 2009 @ 11:22 am
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
Todd Berkebile wrote:
Unlike the Kurzweillian Singularity, for instance.
A bright, shining future place where there will be no hunger, thirst, pain, or death, and all you have to do is believe everything its creator and his minions tell you to believe in order to participate in it.
Oh wait…
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 23, 2009 @ 11:29 am
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
It appears to be a kind of inverse Pascal's Wager, where instead of looking at the potential negatives in the afterlife, you look at the potential benefits in the here and now.
There is no earthly reward for disbelief, so you've gained nothing. There is an earthly reward for belief, so you've gained something (contentment). Whether it's true or false is completely irrelevant. You should believe because at the very least you've lost nothing by doing so, and have probably gained.
Comment by VentureFree — June 23, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
There is a cost to belief. Even if we discount the costs of religion, there are intellectual costs such as the requirement to ignore evidence that conflicts with the beliefs.
That depends on whether you're interested in the truth. If you aren't, then obviously you can believe anything you want.
Even if we ignore the very real costs, even the end game isn't really a lock. You imagine a God that rewards belief, but equally likely is a God that would be furious at you for believing something that His evidence didn't support. Instead of reward His pets and punishing disbelievers, what if there's a test about what you've learned that's verified by science, and a poor grade is punished?
Naturally, all this starts with the presumption that we are all so childlike that we believe things for no reason other than that they are suggested to us. After recognizing that the cult may well be deluded, only a weak mind would join anyway and share in the delusion because the cult members are happier and healthier.
Comment by don provan — June 23, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Doh! Forgot about Poe's Law. I'm with you, don. I made the mistake of believing that what I said was so obviously absurd that I didn't need to clarify my own position more clearly. At a minimum it fails for pretty much the same reasons that Pascal's Wager itself fails.
Comment by VentureFree — June 23, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
June 24th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
If there was good statistcal evidence that Hindus in similar social positions were more content than Christians, Jews and atheists, would you consider being a Hindu?
Comment by The Pixie Again — June 24, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
June 25th, 2009 at 12:13 am
This might surprise the theists (it shouldn't if they weren't so blind) but I live my life for more than just my own benefit. Being an atheist (this will never get through their thick skulls) does not imply that I worship Ayn Rand or live a hedonistic life or care only about myself. I care about making the world a better place for future generations, and my opinion is that a world that deals with reality will be a better place than a world that simply prays for miracles instead. In my opinion it is only science that is keeping 6 billion of my fellow humans alive and those who attack science threaten that. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe delusional fantasy is all humanity can handle or maybe we'd be better off if most of us died out due to our own ignorance, but I think more highly of our species than that.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 25, 2009 @ 12:13 am
June 25th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Hey Todd
why?
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 25, 2009 @ 7:09 am
June 25th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Let me venture a guess. That's just the way he is. Just like most people prefer the company of friends to a hot poker in the eye. Just like most humans prefer a sip of iced tea in the summer to molten lead forced down their alimentary tube. It's just one of the many peculiarities of being a chordate on Sol's 3rd rock. Astonishingly, I also hear they think with their meat (but I'm not sure if that is to be believed).
Scientists say these peculiarities are the result of something they call biological evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — June 25, 2009 @ 8:13 am
June 25th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I couldn't imagine a more profound testimony to the power of scientism if I tried.
"That's just the way it is".
So elegant, so simple, so Zen-like, so utterly vapid. Bravo, Zach!
Comment by chunkdz — June 25, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
June 25th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
You are such a buffoon, Tod. What do you gain with these caricatures? They certainly prevent me from taking you even seriously.
Comment by Jean — June 25, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
June 25th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Good question. It causes me to think those posting comments like that are likely intent on flaming or trolling. You'd have to be dense to think that approach affords you any influence with others.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
June 25th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:
Why? Nobody's keeping score, and you're not going to be around after a few more decades, and everybody you know will perish in a similar time frame. Your name will be just a datum until that datum is lost, at which point you will be nothing.
There are many atheists who hold the view that mankind's very existence causes the world to be a worse place, and that eliminating most (if not all) of humanity would benefit the planet immensely. Why are you right and not them?
If Malthus (who Darwin gave credit to in his work) and Ehrlich were correct, then we are on a course to population unsustainability, and according to you it's because of science. If that is the case, why do you hold science in such high esteem? If you are correct, we would be better off without it, as we were in the dawn of history.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 25, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
June 25th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
It astonishes me to realize that you wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone or to make the world a better place if you didn't think God was keeping score. You put the "self" in selfless.
What are you talking about?
What makes you right and not them? Why do you think this question has substantially different impact when you ask an atheist as opposed to when an atheist asks you?
Comment by don provan — June 25, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 2:07 am
Well, good for you.
I find it odd, given your worldview, that you care about making the world a better place, after all, it, and it's inhabitants, are merely molecules in motion, destined to die forever. Why do you care? Or better yet, why should you care?
Empirical science sure seems to yield beneficial results. The historical kind doesn't seem to be worth much, IMO. But that's just me.
Your delusional fantasy is merely a certain configuration of neural networks in your head meat, which will die an eternal death very soon. Why worry about anything. Eat drink and be merry.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 26, 2009 @ 2:07 am
June 26th, 2009 at 7:48 am
don provan wrote:
Why does it astonish you? What's wrong with being selfish? Nobody else can experience my feelings for me. When I'm gone, I no longer have any way of knowing whether the world is a "better" place or a "worse" place (whatever those two things are).
If anything, history teaches us that trying to make the world a "better" place is futile. Go to the street and ask random people what Jonas Salk did, then ask them what Hitler did. If we accept the old, decrepit Christian worldview, Hitler did the most evil things ever, while Jonas Salk did the most good, yet Hitler's name is practically eternal while Salk's is obscure.
Salk and Hitler suffered the same ultimate fate as all humans will – death. However, Hitler's "evil" has been rewarded much more greatly than Salk's "good". So why be "good"?
Where have you been for the last eight years, under a rock? You don't get around much, do you? Environmentalists have been preaching this stuff for decades, and it's finally having an effect on a generation (or two) freed from their parents' "indoctrination". Here's just Telic Thought's take on it; there's much more out there on TV and the internet. And lecture halls.
Why can't you or Todd answer my simple question without getting all hot under the collar? A reasonable person would think by your responses that you have no solid basis for your ideas of right and wrong and you're getting frustrated because of it.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 26, 2009 @ 7:48 am
June 26th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I figured Theists would all find it hard to understand that God is just a rationalization, not a source, for moral behavior. I find it interesting that Theists apparently all want to run amok in hedonistic escatasy but they resist only because God is watching. I guess they are all evil people at heart who behave only for the fear of Father's wrath.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 26, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Probably because the answer has been given many, many times, yet the question crops up again and again because the answer remains unsatisfying for folks who do not believe in morality decreed by a deity.
For example, some folks believe that in order to facilitate cooperation and functioning group dynamics, animals evolved morality (or a feeling of right and wrong). Such behavior can certainly be observed in many mammals.
Others, like Kant, for example, believe that you can use reason as basis for right and wrong.
Yet others believe that it is basically a cultural construct.
Yet others believe it's a combination of the lot.
In general the next question will be: But how do you know who is right and wrong, if there is disagreement. The answer will be, you don't. Just like you don't if you base your morals on the decrees of an all-knowing deity.
Comment by hrun — June 26, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:
True. So once again, what makes you right and the atheists who want to cull (or eliminate) humanity wrong?
Once again I ask, what's wrong with it? And how is hedonism evil? You have confessed in the past that even the Holocaust was perfectly justifiable by some people's standards. Have you changed your mind? If so, why?
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 26, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
hrun wrote:
Which mammals are those? Every "group dynamic" found in nature involves domination and submission. Masters and slaves. Yet some fools believe that slavery, domination, and hegemony is wrong. Do you believe such foolishness? If so, why?
What makes Kant more correct than, say, the Marquis de Sade? Kant was overtly influenced by stupidly Christian thinkers like Aquinas, whereas Sade extended animal and human nature (i.e., empiricism) to its logical conclusion. Sade wins because he is more solidly rooted in fact than Kant.
Good, then we are in agreement. There is really no such thing as evil or good or right or wrong. These things are whatever the powers that be decree at any moment in time. Therefore, Todd is writing meaningless gibberish when he declares theists evil or wrong. Thank you for clarifying that, hrun!
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 26, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 12:20 am
See here for some examples and keep on searching. Both the internet and your nearest University Library is your friend.
Ehhh? What??? Which group dynamics other than humans involves masters and slaves? And Do you believe that slavery is wrong? If so, why?
Dear God this is predictable and boring.
I doubt it.
Comment by hrun — June 27, 2009 @ 12:20 am
June 27th, 2009 at 5:01 am
It's just very un-Christian.
Yeah, I get it: you won't do anything unless you are rewarded for it. You have really just entirely missed Jesus's message. Jesus doesn't want you to help others just because you'll get a cookie for it.
I hadn't heard environmentalism and the "we hate humans" crowd was driven by atheism. Can you document that?
Why would I be hot under the collar. As far as I can see, we're not having an argument. My point was that you and I agree they are wrong, so why are you asking me to explain why and not simply explaining why yourself?
But, actually, I think now I understand why. It's because you think they are wrong only because you think God will pat you on the head for thinking they're wrong, not because you understand what's wrong with their positions. If you didn't think God would pat you on the head, you wouldn't care if they did wipe out 90% of the population of the Earth, so long as you were in the 10% left alive. And you're questioning my morality.
Comment by don provan — June 27, 2009 @ 5:01 am
June 27th, 2009 at 10:45 am
If you think that is what I said, you are not intelligent enough to bother trying to communicate with. If you had a genuine question to ask, I would answer it. If all you ask is "why?" then my answer is "because."
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 27, 2009 @ 10:45 am
June 27th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:
Here's a link to what you wrote so people can read it for themselves. I'll quote the comment below as well for those of you who click-challenged:
From our vantage point it [the Holocaust] was clearly immoral. The Allies also felt it was immoral and they had the power to do something about that conviction. Yet I am claiming we have no absolute basis for knowing one way or the other if it was or wasn't moral from other vantage points or from some absolute scale. [my emphasis] I am not claiming there is no absolute moral scale, only that we cannot know it and must do the best we can with our limited facilities.
Compare and contrast with "You have confessed in the past that even the Holocaust was perfectly justifiable by some people's standards."
If you didn't write what you meant, perhaps you aren't intelligent enough to communicate your points effectively.
If the question is geniune, you are unable to answer it. If it is not geniune, you refuse to answer it. Either way, same result – no answer. Thanks for playing!
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 27, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
hrun wrote:
I wasn't aware that the Daily Telegraph was a reliable scientific source, but if wish to use that, fine.
We observe much cruelty (for lack of a better word) in nature, so much so that it is used as an argument against the existence of God. This observed cruelty is used to support the idea of natural selection, in fact. Charles Darwin himself wrote to a friend, "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel work of nature!"
Now the Daily Telegraph, quoting some scientists, tells us that compassion, empathy, humility, etc., can be found in nature. Surely these scientists don't believe God exists – it's merely an acquisition of behaviors via Darwinian evolution. Which means we can't be held accountable for any of our actions any moreso than, say, an elephant, a wolf, a coyote, or a chimpanzee.
Any group of animals where one or a few animals dominate the rest. It is rampant in mammals, where one male in a group will exclusively mate with the females and attack the weaker males.
Social insects like ants and bees are even better examples. One queen dominates an entire hive of workers and drones, all of whom retain their roles for life and cannot possibly be free.
I sincerely believe that a human being should never be considered property or chattel because humans are endowed by God for a destiny higher than mobile meat. But this is my belief as a theist, which we all know is unreasonable and illogical.
If I were a logical atheist, what would my basis for rejecting such slavery?
My own personal revulsion? Why then, my slave-owning friends would tell me not to buy any slaves! Problem solved!
Law? Those can be changed. It was legal in the past, it can be legal again.
Respect for humanity? Humans are animals, science tells us so. We dominate and bend other animals to our will, why not other humans? If they are too weak to resist, then that is proof they are inferior and therefore are perfectly fine to dominate.
Not predictable enough for you to have an answer, evidently. Apparently you're so frustrated you've started talking to imaginary beings.
Aside from my weak lapse into theistic belief (which I confess is irrational and illogical), what have I written so far that would you disagree with, and why?
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 27, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
don provan wrote:
So atheists are trying to be Christian when they're being selfless?
So atheists are trying to please Jesus when they are "good" or try to "help" others?
How can anyone be "driven" by a non-belief?
As far as being atheists goes, most of the sources given in the TT blog entry are scientists. From what we've been told, most scientists are atheists and science is incompatible with religion.
My own informal studies of those professing a "we hate humans" philosophy on the Internet supports an overwhelming correlation as well. Not that all atheists are environmental genocidalists, mind you, but vice versa.
Conversely, since you seem to know a lot about Jesus, maybe you can give me a quote of his that your hypothetical Christian enviromentalists would use to justify their desire to scrub the earth of the virus known as humanity.
If we weren't, you would have answered my question. You didn't.
Because 1. I asked the question first, and 2. my explanation is "boring and predictable", as hrun would say, and would therefore be rejected out of hand by those who've heard it for the last couple of millenia.
If you're ever going to pry theists loose from their crazy delusions, you're going to have to provide compelling answers to fundamental questions. And you need to demonstrate why your answers are better than answers from other people who want to crush the theists' little fantasy world.
So far all you've done is act indignant. Not very indictative of a deep thinker.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 27, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I merely quoted this as a starting point for you to find some research that is being done. If you would like to use it, fine. If not, I'm already spoon feeding biology to Bert. I can't do two at a time.
Dominance among animals is not the same as slavery. If you would like to equate the two, fine.
Hey… what do you know. So do I. I don't believe that part about your deity. But this part I believe.
Because you know that slavery is wrong. That's why.
And this is why these conversations never lead anywhere. You believe that a logical atheist has no basis for rejecting slavery. Yet, logical atheists all over the world reject slavery. And yet, Christians for hundreds of years held slaves. Go figure.
Nope. Still utterly predictable.
The part about that 'logical atheists' would have no basis on which to base their opposition to slavery.
Comment by hrun — June 27, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
angryoldfatman, here are a couple of examples of primary literature:
sense of fairness in dogs: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/1/340
sense of fairness in capuchin monkeys: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6955/abs/nature01963.html
cooperation with related and unrelated animals in rats: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h545863582441398/
compassion to unrelated animals in chimps: http://www.springerlink.com/content/x8552786p77uv482/
These are just some of the many studies that explore cooperation, morality, sense of fairness, … in animals. Find more if you are interested. They are out there.
Comment by hrun — June 27, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Why will an unabashedly liberal atheist throw his support behind Muslim terrorists who use "Allah" as an excuse to kill homosexuals, women and infidels? I've seen this time and time again. Why don't atheists rage against Muslim theocracies or Hindu-based caste systems? Why do atheists seem to disproportionally hate Christianity and Judaism? Can you think of a reason? I can.
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 27, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
June 27th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Who are these 'unabashedly liberal atheists' who hate Christianity and Judaism more than Muslim theocracies or Hindu-based caste systems? My guess is that you will not be able to make a convincing case that you know more than a handful (at most). On the other hand, I would venture that none of the Atheists here on this blog hate Christianity or Judaism any more or less than for example Islam.
Comment by hrun — June 27, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Why will an unabashedly liberal atheist throw his support behind Muslim terrorists who use "Allah" as an excuse to kill homosexuals, women and infidels? I've seen this time and time again. Haha, hahaha, you're a hoot! This idea that Christians are being specially targeted for "liberal atheist persecution" is common despite being completely unfounded. It shows just how blind the Christians are to reality. Nothing strengthens a religion more that persecution so I understand the desire to claim you are being persecuted. This is why I prefer mockery, it is far more effective than persecution. I'm sure you could find a few Atheists who hate Christianity more than Islam, so what? I can find Christians filled with hate in nearly any church. If you want to claim a generalization you'll need some evidence, not allegories and biased samples. If you were to actually read any of the popular atheist writings you will find they often use Muslim cultures as examples of the harm religious thinking brings. Of course you will not believe this and will instead continue to stir your own persecution complex.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 28, 2009 @ 11:25 am
June 28th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Thank you for proving my point. If I was to say, "I cannot prove there is not a teapot orbiting Pluto" apparently you would read that as meaning "Todd thinks there is a teapot orbiting Pluto." God has truly not gifted you in at least one department.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 28, 2009 @ 11:27 am
June 28th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I would agree with you that stupid and insulting comments do not qualify as persecution but it is clear, based on comments at TT, UD and other forums, that the principle target is not Islam. The evidence is in the comment sections.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Wow, the comment sections on English-speaking American Christian blogs talk mostly about Christianity? Obviously that means Atheists love the the Muslim. Your amazing powers of deduction have convinced me.
Maybe this will help, Mohammed was a disgusting pedophile and a power hungry petty dictator. His body should be dug up, wrapped in bacon, covered in shoes, and left to further decompose. There, now we have anti-Muslim comments too, happy?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 28, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Todd B:
Sounds good, but I seem to recall that Mo (pbuh) rode to heaven on a white stallion. Hence, there is nothing to dig up (hmmm, sounds familiar), at least on earth. Perhaps our resident muslim ID guy/Joe G can help out?
Comment by Raevmo — June 28, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
This is not the first time you've made allegations about that particular commenter. Where's the beef?
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Todd:
The first thing I noticed when I began participating in these internet discussions was the use of mockery and how this contrasted with my personal experiences with people who disagree with me. Mockery is rare in face to face encounters. It happens once in a while and it's usually a signal that the source wants to engage in verbal or physical fisticuffs. It's more easily done behind a keyboard. But if you prefer that to substantive exchanges don't complain if others return the favor or if moderators hole your efforts.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Ironic coming from someone who routinely uses mockery himself. I would gladly mock you in person if you ever want to get together for a few beers. I would not, however, resort to violence or any sort of physical fisticuffs. Still, I agree it is easier to mock using the Internet, you can reach more people at once and the mockery persists forever.
There hasn't been any of that substantive content around here for a long time, now I just come to bask in that smug feeling you get from reading silly things that people deeply believe in for no good reason.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 28, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 12:00 am
hrun wrote:
Animals don't have words. Does it need to be called "slavery" to be slavery? If you had to unwillingly submit to another human's will, is that not slavery?
No, the conversations never lead anywhere because you have no answer other than your own capriciousness. You tell me it's wrong, but you can't tell me why.
In America, the silly Christian abolitionists read the fairy tale of Moses leading the Hebrews out of slavery and somehow got the idea that it was wrong because Big Sky Daddy said it was wrong. Some slaveowning Christians, because they believed in the same Big Sky Daddy, bought the story and gave it up. Others liked the idea of a Big Sky Daddy, but liked money and its benefits better, so they kept their slaves.
The Big Sky Daddy group who bought the Moses story forced their will upon the other groups and now slavery, which has been an institution as old as history itself, is considered wrong.
If it's so predictable, you should at least have a pat answer. "Predictable" is not an answer, it's a childish evasion.
I asked what your basis was. You have yet to provide a satisfactory answer.
At least the Christians have "because Big Sky Daddy says so". You want to believe the same thing they do, but want to chuck out the very thing that the belief is based on.
Remember me telling Don Provan there were two questions every child knows that can stump the smartest materialist? These are the two questions that apply here.
Why?
and
Who says?
Why do you believe that slavery is wrong? Who says it's wrong?
You say, "I just believe it's wrong". Well, that's not a logical basis for a belief, is it? You couldn't very well condemn someone for believing in a Big Sky Daddy if just choosing to believe a thing was a valid basis for belief.
You say, "Most people believe it's wrong". That's an appeal to popularity. Lots of people believe in a Big Sky Daddy, as an example. That certainly doesn't make it correct, does it?
You say, "It's illegal". So it is. Laws are written by people, and people can change the law. If people decide one day that something is bad, or good, they can change the law to reflect that. So if, one day in the far future, followers of the Great Dawkins (blessed be His Name) decide that Big Sky Daddy believers are subhuman and they change the laws to allow enslavement of them, then once again slavery is just fine and dandy.
You say, "It's immoral". At which point one must ask, who says? We're back at square one again.
So, do you have a logical answer, or are you only capable of waving your hand at the issue and proclaiming it "predictable" without even a "talking point" to throw back at it?
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 29, 2009 @ 12:00 am
June 29th, 2009 at 12:03 am
hrun wrote:
I accepted your premise and addressed it. Scroll back and read it.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 29, 2009 @ 12:03 am
June 29th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Todd Berkebile wrote:
I've never claimed to be a smart man. Angry, old, and fat, but not smart.
But maybe you can explain to me, given your quote below:
From our vantage point it [the Holocaust] was clearly immoral. The Allies also felt it was immoral and they had the power to do something about that conviction. Yet I am claiming we have no absolute basis for knowing one way or the other if it was or wasn't moral from other vantage points or from some absolute scale. I am not claiming there is no absolute moral scale, only that we cannot know it and must do the best we can with our limited facilities.
… how something can be "clearly" immoral and yet an "absolute moral scale" is unknowable. Those two things seem to be mutually exclusive.
Of course I'm confident that your towering intellect can bring it down far enough for even my horribly crippled, feeble mind to grasp it. That is, after all, one of the signs of a great mind – the ability to make vast and imposing knowledge accessible to the masses. That's why Darwin is considered a great thinker, after all.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 29, 2009 @ 12:14 am
June 29th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Well, I can solve that problem! We'll just make up some arbitrary "first principle" and claim it is absolute and that it justifies whatever it is we happen to believe! You can call your made-up first principle "god", I'll call mine "because", and it won't matter which of us is correct because we will both still exhibit similar behavior. Of course that pesky science might demonstrate that both of our belief structures are primarily influenced by our environments and our genetics, but we'll just ignore it because obviously we know better.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 29, 2009 @ 12:51 am
June 29th, 2009 at 1:16 am
Perhaps the use of analogy will allow me to reach your mind. If I were to look at a mountain, can I not say "that mountain is tall" even if I cannot judge the precise elevation? By your logic, unless I know exactly how many feet that mountain raises up I can't claim that it's tall at all; an absolute scale (god's word) is needed to make any judgment. Of course, I might have been in England when I made this observation only to then travel to Virginia where suddenly I might see much taller mountains. At this time I might revise my previously opinion instead claiming the Appalachians are tall mountains and England is a tiny flat island. My original estimation wasn't really wrong, I just had inadequate experience and spoke from limited knowledge. Later I might travel to Colorado and once again be forced to revise my estimate as to what constitutes a tall mountain. The point is only by comparison to previous experience can I make value judgments. Knowing this limitation it would be foolish of me to claim that there is no possible new experience that would cause me to further alter my viewpoints (I might travel to Nepal some day).
Calling an act "moral" is like calling a mountain tall. From standing on the flats it might be obvious that the nearby hill is tall, but with greater experience you might realize it's not really so tall after all. In the theistic world view, however, a primitive tribe hundreds of years ago looked at the surrounding hills and declared "god has said these are the highest hills possible." And now people go through complex apologetics to convince themselves that all the larger mountains are really flat plains.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 29, 2009 @ 1:16 am
June 29th, 2009 at 3:05 am
Todd Berkebile wrote:
So far so good. Your beliefs are not based in logic anymore so than any theist's, then. Actually, yours are even more illogical since "because" implies a cause implies a causer which you claim does not exist. So the New Atheists' claims that theism is dangerous because it is illogical are hysterical and hypocritical nonsense.
Let us say this is true, for the sake of argument, and return to my first line of questioning.
You say you want to make the world a better place for future generations (of humans, I assume).
There are other atheists who have the idea that humanity is bad for the ecosystem of the planet should be culled severely or eliminated altogether.
Why are you right and why are they wrong?
And if it's because you possess an allele or a special cluster of synapses that forces upon you the desire to preserve humanity, why would you condemn your fellow humans who possess that same allele or synapses cluster but do not possess the ability to reject theism? Is it because you are helplessly bound to militant atheism because of some other allele or neural cluster?
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 29, 2009 @ 3:05 am
June 29th, 2009 at 3:38 am
Todd Berkebile wrote:
I like analogies, they're fun.
Let me change my previous assessent of your statement to fit your analogy and see if it still makes sense. First, we must map the terms properly. Your analogy substitutes "moral" (or "good") to "tall" and "morality" to "tallness". Now, let's see what happens:
You have confessed in the past that even the [Grand Canyon] was [terrifyingly lofty] by some people's standards.
Well, this is certainly true, isn't it? One could most definitely die from a fall into the Grand Canyon, just like any fall from a tall place. And if you're at the bottom, the sides of the Grand Canyon are most assuredly tall.
It's all in one's vantage point, just like you said. The Allies of WWII thought that the Grand Canyon was low and pretty much the opposite of tall. The Nazis thought it was tall enough to reach the sky.
And if you say an absolute moral scale is as silly as a teapot orbiting Pluto then I gather you believe one vantage point is as good as any other. Except that you act all outraged when I point this out and come down on the side of the Allies, who were mostly God-botherers.
But like the God-botherers of the abolitionist Union Army in the American Civil War, they killed those who disagreed with them until they gave up their vantage point. Which leads me to believe, since you agree with both sets of these conquering Sky Wizard lovers, your overarching philosophy is "might makes right". In which case, why do you act ashamed to confess it?
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 29, 2009 @ 3:38 am
June 29th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Not satisfactory to you. Plenty of satisfactory to me. Because I know it's wrong is sufficient.
Comment by hrun — June 29, 2009 @ 7:07 am
June 29th, 2009 at 7:28 am
hrun wrote:
That's blind faith, not logic. If that's the best you have, you're on the same footing as deluded theists.
Actually, you're worse off because if slavery should somehow arise again, you have no basis on which to condemn it, whereas the Sky Fairy people can pull out their fanciful Moses story.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 29, 2009 @ 7:28 am
June 29th, 2009 at 7:31 am
I never said that morally speaking I was not on the same footing as deluded atheists– except, of course, for the fact that the deluded atheists think the have divine power behind their morality. I do not. That makes those deluded atheists more likely to attempt to impose their morality onto others.
[And I would love to show you how predictable these discussions are, because in a similar discussion here on TT we had reached this very same point (probably not discussing with you). If TT had a better search function, I'd make an attempt to look for it. But as it is, you'd have to take my word for it.]
Comment by hrun — June 29, 2009 @ 7:31 am
June 29th, 2009 at 7:36 am
See, that's where you are wrong. And I think that is one of the biggest problems for fostering understanding.
Look at this story:
Johnny: I think I want to own slaves.
angry: But owning slaves is wrong, the Sky Fairy told me.
Johnny: You're nuts. I will hold slaves.
angry: Well, good thing we live in a country of laws where we decided you can't own slaves.
or
Johnny: I think I want to own slaves.
hrun: But owning slaves is wrong, my internal moral compass tells me so.
Johnny: You're nuts. I will hold slaves.
hrun: Well, good thing we live in a country of laws where we decided you can't own slaves.
Comment by hrun — June 29, 2009 @ 7:36 am
June 29th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
You're funny, you say "why?", I say "because," and now you are an expert on my beliefs! Amazing how the theistic mind can learn so much from so little, almost as if they just make it all up!
From my vantage point it is self evident. Is there something blinding your vantage point?
Condemn is a strong word, I just mock them, I don't condemn them. For the why, just read any post from Angry or FMM. I would die to defend their right to be that deluded, but I'd still mock them the whole time.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 29, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Hehe, yes, from many perspectives it is deep.
Haha. Now you lost me, I think you're off the rails already. In my analogy everyone can see which way the ground slopes. I understand the theistic mind can only conceive of polar opposites, anything in between send them into ambiguity panic, but in my example there are no negative numbers.
You're wandering deeper into the rough. I don't believe one vantage point is as good as another. I think my vantage point is the best vantage point excepting my own future vantage points which are even better. That's why I hold the views I hold after all.
Rant on brother, hallelujah! I'm so outraged, yeah! I always laugh this hard when I'm outraged, honest! That's laughter of rage, not mockery!
And to boot, you've even got some denial that Nazis where Christian thrown in! Hahaha.
As opposed to the equally Christian god-brothers of the confederate army?
And you round it out with some mind reading! Facts be damned, Angry can read minds so obviously he knows best! And of course just because god didn't tell me exactly what to think that obviously means I must think everything is ok (despite my repeatedly saying otherwise, but then again I must advocate treachery and lies too)? Why I bet I like to beat kittens to death with marshmallows too? Why oh why won't I just confess and admit how right the amazing mind reading Angry is?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 29, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
I love this. Extremely well put. It is so well put that I would like to post it again, maybe this time in bold:
Comment by hrun — June 29, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 7:57 am
hrun wrote:
I think you meant "theists".
If you have no better moral footing than theists, then you don't even have the capacity to criticize any delusions they may have in their morality, since yours is not based in logic either and may as well be delusional.
You differ from your fellow atheists in your honesty, though. Most of them will claim the moral high ground and say their morality is based in logic, and then offer no proof of said logic.
I think you meant "theists".
Do you believe that anybody has a right to impose their morality onto others? If not, then you have no right to say slavery is wrong for anyone else but yourself, since you would be imposing your morality onto others when you forbid them to have slaves.
This answer of yours was anticipated/predicted and answered earlier in the thread here. Talk about predictable.
Your morality, as you have confessed, is no better than a deluded theist's, so I can't do that.
Just the fact you didn't even have an answer to cut-and-paste shows everyone how empty and weak your claim is. You've had several opportunities to show your hand, you've continued to bluff, and now I call. Turn 'em up and pay up, cowboy.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 30, 2009 @ 7:57 am
June 30th, 2009 at 8:06 am
hrun wrote:
I see. You, like the theists, believe something is magical and unchanging – in your case, though, it is law.
This answer was predicted and answered here (scroll down to "illegal").
I don't know how you've done it, but you've managed to get a deuce-high hand.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 30, 2009 @ 8:06 am
June 30th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Of course I have that capacity. Look, genocide is wrong. Keeping slaves is wrong. See how easy that was?
I offered up links to Kant previously who argued for an absolute morality based on reason. It's really not that important to me where my morality comes from (reason, my inner ape, god giving me morality and making it seem like it is my own, …). I just know that I am right (unless I change my mind, of course).
Of course I have the right. Remember, my morality is the right one.
Huh? I told you these discussions pointless and predictable because they always appear to follow the same path… and now you are pointing this out to me? Keep up. I said this days ago.
An answer to what, specifically? I have given you plenty of answer. You just don't like the answers.
What bluff? You are not even making sense anymore. First you tell me that I am open and honest about this and now you tell me I am bluffing?
I think for now I will just refer you to my little story about Johnny, angry and hrun and leave it at that.
Comment by hrun — June 30, 2009 @ 8:11 am
June 30th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Are you dense? Laws being unchanging and magical? Last I looked there is a clear process of how we make laws in virtually all countries and pretty much in all of them there are ways to change the law.
And again, I find it utterly amusing that you are pointing out to me that this discussion is predictable.
Comment by hrun — June 30, 2009 @ 8:13 am
June 30th, 2009 at 8:17 am
I'll get to you later Todd. Work calls. In the meantime:
There's the problem. This is simply not true.
And the thrust of everything else I skimmed from your diatribe(s) is a rehash of "I am my own god". Well congrats. That and $7.00 will get you a mocha latte at Starbucks. Your answer was predicted and answered as well.
So you're a narcissist. Explain how any of your morality applies to anyone else, and how you can honestly and logically call anybody else's morality wrong.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 30, 2009 @ 8:17 am
June 30th, 2009 at 8:40 am
It always comes back to this, doesn't it?
We have answered this question over and over again: We simply call it wrong. Done!
Apparently, theists can only call something morally wrong if they were told by a higher authority that it is wrong. Atheists (apparently unlike theists) have an innate sense of right and wrong and don't rely on a higher authority.
And yes, angryoldfatman, I know that this was said before. It is, after all, an utterly predictable discussion that always ends up following a similar path.
Comment by hrun — June 30, 2009 @ 8:40 am
June 30th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Atheists have an innate sense put there by their creator. The Ten Commandments appear intrinsically moral to most people of all different cultures. There are exceptions of course but the general trend is either explained by vague evolutionary references or the one just offered.
Comment by Bradford — June 30, 2009 @ 11:03 am
June 30th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Yup. That's what I thought. While some people (especially theists) struggle all their life to truly understand the prescribed morality as imparted by their deities through poorly translated books, scriptures and oral recountings, atheists can simply listen to their innate sense put there by their creator.
Sounds like the atheists are more in tune with the creator than all the theists (especially all the theists that follow the rules of the wrong deity). Maybe that's why I have a problem with prescribed morality– I trust individuals more than I trust organized religions (most of them are bound to get things wrong).
[PS to angryoldfatman: This was yet again predictable. That's where it usually ends up going-- the theist telling the atheist that their morality also comes from the creator-- even though I strongly agree with much of the morality prescribed by most deities, thus proving the point unquestionably false.]
Comment by hrun — June 30, 2009 @ 11:49 am