Hanging Atheists From Trees Until Dead

[Stone Island]

How would you scientifically evaluate or justify the following statement?
It is wrong to hang a person from a tree until dead solely because they are an atheist.

Is this statement true in any meaningful way?

Am I justified in believing this statement?

Ought I to believe in this statement?

[Cleon]

Is this statement true in any meaningful way?

Am I justified in believing this statement?

Ought I to believe in this statement?


Uh...YES!

I mean, duh.

[Mashuna]

Ought I be worried that you feel you have to ask the question?

[al_capone_junior]

How would you scientifically evaluate or justify the following statement?


Quote:
It is wrong to hang a person from a tree until dead solely because they are an atheist.



Is this statement true in any meaningful way?

Am I justified in believing this statement?

Ought I to believe in this statement?

If this is a spoof, haha.

If it's not...

I thought such stupidity resulted in your being hung from a tree until dead?

[Stone Island]

Ought I be worried that you feel you have to ask the question?

No. I'm just trying to critically illustrate the limits of science in a friendly and lively way.

You could bite, BTW. "Ought not to hang atheists from trees until dead" could be true in the following ways:

Many people believe it to be so.
Society is better if people believe it to be so (leaving aside the problem of what counts as "better")
It is a preference held by many people

Which still leaves the questions of truth and justification.

Knowledge is justified true, belief. Can I know that I ought not to hang atheists from trees?

[articulett]

I'd say the statement is on par with the statement: "It's wrong to hang Stone Island from a tree until he's dead merely because he's a bigot".

Is this statement true in any meaningful way?

Am I justified in believing this statement?

Ought I to believe in this statement?

The answers you seek to your questions will come from your answering those for my query.

Myself, I think that killing people is wrong. But then I don't have an invisible friend commanding me to kill people that don't "believe in" him.



Opinions aren't facts--but most people are evolved enough to refrain from doing things to others that they would not want done to themselves or their loved ones. Some of us even hurt at the thought of the suffering of others. Others, appear to need threats from invisible guys who are said to control "eternity". Theists seem to be very confused when it comes to factual statements (stuff that is true whether people believe them or know of them or not-- and everything else. I imagine this comes from thinking that "good" and "bad" are facts derived from their invisible friend and not the collective opinion of humans.)

[Mashuna]

No. I'm just trying to critically illustrate the limits of science in a friendly and lively way.

You could bite, BTW. "Ought not to hang atheists from trees until dead" could be true in the following ways:

Many people believe it to be so.
Society is better if people believe it to be so (leaving aside the problem of what counts as "better")
It is a preference held by many people

Which still leaves the questions of truth and justification.

Knowledge is justified true, belief. Can I know that I ought not to hang atheists from trees?

From a pragmatic point of view, you shouldn't hang atheists from trees until dead because you'll probably be locked up for murder.

[IMST]

No. I'm just trying to critically illustrate the limits of science in a friendly and lively way.

Congratulations! You've noticed that the process that we use to observe and make predictions about the natural world does not also define ethical standards! I'm sure you have a point. I'm sure I don't care much what it is. Go ask your imaginary friend if it's right for you to reply to me.

[Autolite]

Well, hold on just a minute here! Are we talking about all Atheists or just the rude and obnoxious Atheists???

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are you trying to say that science can't evaluate morality and ethics? Are you saying that jurisprudence is strictly a matter of religion?

[Autolite]

From a pragmatic point of view, you shouldn't hang atheists from trees until dead because you'll probably be locked up for murder.

Well, if we're being strictly pragmatic here, it kinda makes sense to "hang Atheists from trees until dead". What's the point in leaving them hanging for any amount of time after they're dead???

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, if we're being strictly pragmatic here, it kinda makes sense to "hang Atheists from trees until dead". What's the point in leaving them hanging for any amount of time after they're dead???
And if you cut us down earlier, you just make us really angry!

[Hokulele]

I would scientifically evaluate that sentence by mathematically subtracting the last six words.

[JFrankA]

It is wrong to hang a person from a tree until dead solely because they are an atheist.

Yes it's wrong.

....you can hurt the poor tree.





















:D

[jj]

Perhaps you should phrase this as a sociological or ethical question, instead of a scientific question?

Of course, I know where that leads...

[gentlehorse]

Knowledge is justified true, belief.

This notion fell out of favor about a hudred years ago. See Fallibilism and Critical Rationalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism

It is wrong to hang a person from a tree until dead solely because they are an atheist.

Yeah, but only because I don't like it.

[slingblade]

Is this statement true in any meaningful way?

Yes.

Am I justified in believing this statement?

Are you justified in believing that murder is against the law?

Ought I to believe in this statement?

Ought you to know that murder is against the law?



You believe in a god, don't you? I thought you were a theist? Does your religion not address murder? Do none of the laws where you live address murder? Does no one in your society have any opinion on murder?

Why are you asking such retarded questions?

[Foster Zygote]

Why are you asking such retarded questions?

Because a lot of people don't like atheists, and a lot of people don't like child molesters. Therefor, hatred of atheists is justified. Unfortunately, so is hatred of Africans, Jews, Native Americans, homosexuals, Catholics, Hindus... well, pretty much anyone who's ever been hated by any group of people throughout human history. Bloody Minoans...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why not state your point directly, Stone Island, instead of playing this stupid game?

Let me guess, you are claiming (or challenging but I doubt it) that science cannot account for morality and for that reason we all need god beliefs.

It's been discussed ad nauseum and this version of it will not change the facts. Humans evolved with moral behaviors and opinions. No gods or science needed, just evolution of a higher capacity brain in a gregarious species.

One can test this claim by looking at how very young children behave when you ask them to break an arbitrary rule they have learned such as not eating in the classroom, and a rule with an impact on the emotion of empathy such as not hitting a puppy. They have no problem breaking the former rule if told it is now OK but they do have a problem breaking the latter rule if told it is now OK.

One can also find all sorts of examples of moral behavior in primates and recently a sense of fairness was probably detected in dogs as well.

Your disguised way of presenting this topic isn't going to result in some revelation. There is no revelation here.

[al_capone_junior]

Because a lot of people don't like atheists, and a lot of people don't like child molesters. Therefor, hatred of atheists is justified. Unfortunately, so is hatred of Africans, Jews, Native Americans, homosexuals, Catholics, Hindus... well, pretty much anyone who's ever been hated by any group of people throughout human history. Bloody Mioans...

it really bothers me that your profile obviously has Frank Zappa overtones, but you spew forth this kind of nonsense that Frank would obviously be disgusted by...

I hope you have a point that is otherwise just not yet revealed... Otherwise do us a favor and ditch the Zappa references before the poor guy rolls over in his grave.

al

[articulett]

Is it okay for Muslims to hang Christians from a tree because they don't have the "right" belief?

Apparently some gods think it is fine to torture and kill those who don't believe in them. I hear Allah gives special rewards to those who kill infidels.

Killing people because they don't "believe" the right superstition appears to be a good way into manipulating people into saying they believe--the most virulent religions have practiced such-- but I can't imagine how anyone can be made to think this is moral or right. Yet, people do horrific things when they truly believe god commands it, and they feel righteous and good while doing it.

I think empathy and examples are better modifiers of morality than stories of what invisible men want. And then there's laws and social pressures for those who lack such things.

[Foolmewunz]

Oooh, goody. Another pop philosophy thread.

StoneIsland, you are justified in believing any damn thing you want. Faith is like that. You would be wrong, of course, but that's not the question.

(Am I the only one who thinks that StoneIsland is likely the love-child of Coberst and Yrreg? A slightly off combination of mental masturbation and holier than thou deist punditry wrapped in a sense of humor that only they understand.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oooh, goody. Another pop philosophy thread.

StoneIsland, you are justified in believing any damn thing you want. Faith is like that. You would be wrong, of course, but that's not the question.

(Am I the only one who thinks that StoneIsland is likely the love-child of Coberst and Yrreg? A slightly off combination of mental masturbation and holier than thou deist punditry wrapped in a sense of humor that only they understand.)It is my humble opinion that people who present these wishful 'aha' versions of proselytizing probably heard some version of it from a sermon at their church. They were so awe struck they concluded, if only the non-believers heard the message in a similar presentation they'd all be turning to Jesus post haste.

[articulett]

I was thinking more like Sunniman and Fred Phelps... but in any case, I wonder if theists are embarrassed that he is one of them? I wonder if anyone sees him as coming across in the "friendly and lively" manner he imagines himself exhibiting in post #5.

Anyone?

Isn't he more of an example of potential harms of theism?

[articulett]

It is my humble opinion that people who present these wishful 'aha' versions of proselytizing probably heard some version of it from a sermon at their church. They were so awe struck they concluded, if only the non-believers heard the message in a similar presentation they'd all be turning to Jesus post haste.

That's what I always think... they must be repeating something that they heard that confirms their biases. This sort of manipulation must have worked on them.

[slingblade]

it really bothers me that your profile obviously has Frank Zappa overtones, but you spew forth this kind of nonsense that Frank would obviously be disgusted by...

I hope you have a point that is otherwise just not yet revealed... Otherwise do us a favor and ditch the Zappa references before the poor guy rolls over in his grave.

al

Sometimes I can't tell, and need to ask. Were you joking?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Sometimes I can't tell, and need to ask. Were you joking?

I think I hear the loud flapping wings of the WOOSH BIRD. Though given the poster claims the name al_capone_junior who is to say?

[Foster Zygote]

it really bothers me that your profile obviously has Frank Zappa overtones, but you spew forth this kind of nonsense that Frank would obviously be disgusted by...

I hope you have a point that is otherwise just not yet revealed... Otherwise do us a favor and ditch the Zappa references before the poor guy rolls over in his grave.

al

Sorry, inside joke:

Call me a troll, but you know what other group at least 39.5% of the population would say doesn't share their vision of society and at least 47.6% wouldn't want their children to marry?

That's right. Child molesters.

Make of that what you will.

Sling had asked how SI could pose such a question. I was simply reminding her of the quality of his arguments past.

[slingblade]

Because a lot of people don't like atheists, and a lot of people don't like child molesters. Therefor, hatred of atheists is justified. Unfortunately, so is hatred of Africans, Jews, Native Americans, homosexuals, Catholics, Hindus... well, pretty much anyone who's ever been hated by any group of people throughout human history. Bloody Mioans...

Yeah, I'd heard rumors. :p

I hope Stone answers, though.

I love to listen to some of these Children of God explain why they would happily kill me, even though their loving and forgiving god told them killing is a sin.

They say they get all their morals from their god, and that since I don't believe, I have no morals.

Yet, of the two of us, I'm not the one who wants to kill someone.

I'm not the one who is threatening to lynch anyone.

I'm not the one saying things that, frankly, would probably make Jesus slap Stone right upside the back of the head and holler "What the-- Who told you it was okay to talk to your sister like that? What she believes makes her no less your sister, IN ME, and is no reason for you to go threatening murder! Now, say you're sorry and go wash in my blood, which I shed for both of you, by the way, you mouthy little...ooooh, I'm going to tell Dad you haven't read a thing he said, and he's gonna be so--ooh!" And then he'd slap Stone again.

So, Stone. Tell us. Why do you ask such a loaded and hateful question?

If your god does, in fact, exist...I'm sure he's dying to know, too....

[Jeff Corey]

WTF? I saw no Zappa overtures. This is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C2ZsuUqiHY

[Cavemonster]

Stone,
Most people here aren't huge fans of leading games. If you have a valid point to make it will stand up if stated openly and clearly.

In my experience people who attempt to post in this form-
A:Will you agree that statement x is true?
B:Okay
A:How about statement y?
B:Makes sense.
A:Haha! Well if statements x and y are true than that proves my point z! (usually that there must be a god, we need religion, we don't know that homeopathy is bunk, etc)

Are doing so because if you just stated that x and y imply z, there would be a clear flaw in the reasoning. Often it's an issue of semantics, where the meaning of an earlier statement is broadened past the original context.

What rubs folks the wrong way is that there really is no positive or respectful motive to attribute to this attempt to make a point. Either you view your self as a teacher figure, leading us through where we'd get confused or not see the big picture if given too much info at once, or you are trying to pull one over.

There really isn't a respectful reason not to just come out and say what your point is all in one post.

[Safe-Keeper]

I've never understood the idea that if you remove religion, then there's no way to discern morality and nothing to stop me from killing you, because there is no objective morality. I could say exactly the same about religion - if your Holy Book can be interpreted in any way, which according to theists it can, and is just one of many anyhow, then who are you to say murder is wrong because your subjective interpretation says so?

No. I'm just trying to critically illustrate the limits of science in a friendly and lively way.Neither atheists, nor anyone else, use science to find "good morality". Except perhaps anthropology and psychology, and even then... nah.

[Meadmaker]

How would you scientifically evaluate or justify the following statement?


Is this statement true in any meaningful way?

Am I justified in believing this statement?

Ought I to believe in this statement?

Well, I get the question, and I think it's a great question.

I think I will even attempt to answer it.

Science cannot evaluate questions of "right" and "wrong". Such questions have no scientific meaning. Therefore, the statement cannot be scientifically evaluated.

However, many people use scientific methods to evaluate questions of morality given some sort of additional premise about what is "right" or "wrong". Unlike religious explorations, people who try to use scientific methods to evaluate such questions, rarely define right and wrong based on adherence to allegedly revealed dogma. i.e. they rarely test such methods based on conformance to Biblical or other instruction. Instead, they generally add premises that are related to their effects on human or other life.

For example, they might assert that anything which increases the net amount of unhappiness in the world is bad, or anything that increases suffering is bad. If you add that additional premise, then it becomes clear that the statement is correct. If you were to hang atheists from trees just because they were atheists, several predictable sources of suffering would occur. First and most obviously, there would be the suffering of the atheists themselves. That alone should show that the statement is true.

Some might try to justify hanging atheists on a couple of different grounds. They might say that God will punish societies who allow atheists to live, and therefore there will be increased suffering if atheists are not hanged. While these beliefs may be sincere, there is no scientific justification for them. Therefore, scientifically, this is not an acceptable objection.

Others might say that there is a benefit to society to enforcing common religious practices. Allowing multiple religions or people who do not participate in the common religion increases strife, and therefore there might be a benefit to hanging atheists. However, experience has shown, and can be measured scientifically, that societies that hang people with one set of religious beliefs often end up hanging people with other religious beliefs, such as the idea that Jesus Christ is not present in the eucharist. This leads to extra suffering (i.e. more hangings) but also suffering via fear. People feel compelled to publicly profess religious beliefs that they do not actually believe, causing much stress, for fear of hanging.

Other premises might involve maximizing freedom, or maximizing lifespan. Hanging atheists would tend to work against those goals as well.

Therefore, if we assert a correlation between "right" and "wrong" vs. some measurable phenomenon, such as happiness, suffering, or lifespan, we see that hanging atheists does indeed tend to create phenomenon which we associate with "right" and "wrong". The statement is, therefore, scientifically correct, although we cannot say, scientifically, that the statement is correct in any absolute sense.

[UnrepentantSinner]

If an rhetorical question is posted in a thread and no one replies, was it profound?

Or just so insipid it didn't warrent anything more than dismissal?

[articulett]

I've never understood the idea that if you remove religion, then there's no way to discern morality and nothing to stop me from killing you, because there is no objective morality. I could say exactly the same about religion - if your Holy Book can be interpreted in any way, which according to theists it can, and is just one of many anyhow, then who are you to say murder is wrong because your subjective interpretation says so?

Neither atheists, nor anyone else, use science to find "good morality". Except perhaps anthropology and psychology, and even then... nah.

I never really understood the idea of "murdering" someone with an eternal soul... why aren't theists asking us to "murder" them so they can begin their "happily ever after" earlier--you know, before they sin and muck up the pass/fail eternity test?

It would seem that this plan would help them begin their paradise eternal vacation while ensuring our eternal suffering per the beliefs they feel so good for believing in. I don't think they can kill themselves because most gods frown on suicide, but I don't understand the zest with which they cling to this life given that they supposedly believe that the next one is the rewarding one.

I'd think that if they really believed in their faith... and they really believed that non-believers would suffer eternally--then the compassionate thing to do would be to leave us alone so that we might enjoy this brief bit of reprieve before we are set on eternal fire for not believing in the right invisible guy with the right fervency. I don't think those that preach here really believe the spiel at all-- they are trying to convince themselves it's true by trying to convince us. Or that's how it comes across to me anyway.

I wonder what lead Stone Island to this forum to preach?

[joobz]

How would you scientifically evaluate or justify the following statement?
Internet trolls ask blatantly insulting hate filled questions while wearing bras on their heads and drinking thier own pee.

[articulett]

I'd ask the expertise of Bobby McButtcrack...

[Cavemonster]

I never really understood the idea of "murdering" someone with an eternal soul... why aren't theists asking us to "murder" them so they can begin their "happily ever after" earlier--you know, before they sin and muck up the pass/fail eternity test?

It would seem that this plan would help them begin their paradise eternal vacation while ensuring our eternal suffering per the beliefs they feel so good for believing in. I don't think they can kill themselves because most gods frown on suicide, but I don't understand the zest with which they cling to this life given that they supposedly believe that the next one is the rewarding one.

I'd think that if they really believed in their faith... and they really believed that non-believers would suffer eternally--then the compassionate thing to do would be to leave us alone so that we might enjoy this brief bit of reprieve before we are set on eternal fire for not believing in the right invisible guy with the right fervency. I don't think those that preach here really believe the spiel at all-- they are trying to convince themselves it's true by trying to convince us. Or that's how it comes across to me anyway.

I wonder what lead Stone Island to this forum to preach?

Most Christians, since St. Augustine, regard suicide, even indirectly, but deliberately causing your own death, as a violation of "thou shall not kill". Plus, there's a big emphasis placed on god's plans, and that it is god's role to choose when we live or die. After all, if you're still alive, that means god has work for you on earth, right?

I'd say that's reasonably consistent.

As for annoying atheists trying to convert them, I'd say it follows Pascal's wager. If they can convert one heathen, that person is spared infinite punishment and given infinite reward. Even a slight chance of that occuring is worth all the annoyance they cause all the people they try to convert.

[joobz]

I'd ask the expertise of Bobby McButtcrack...
I think he'd say, "Yes, internet trolls do drink thier own pee. And by the way, My name is Bobby McButtcracck."

[Skeptic Ginger]

I never really understood the idea of "murdering" someone with an eternal soul... why aren't theists asking us to "murder" them so they can begin their "happily ever after" earlier--you know, before they sin and muck up the pass/fail eternity test?

It would seem that this plan would help them begin their paradise eternal vacation while ensuring our eternal suffering per the beliefs they feel so good for believing in. I don't think they can kill themselves because most gods frown on suicide, but I don't understand the zest with which they cling to this life given that they supposedly believe that the next one is the rewarding one.

I'd think that if they really believed in their faith... and they really believed that non-believers would suffer eternally--then the compassionate thing to do would be to leave us alone so that we might enjoy this brief bit of reprieve before we are set on eternal fire for not believing in the right invisible guy with the right fervency. I don't think those that preach here really believe the spiel at all-- they are trying to convince themselves it's true by trying to convince us. Or that's how it comes across to me anyway. ...Nominated for unique merit. :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

Most Christians, since St. Augustine, regard suicide, even indirectly, but deliberately causing your own death, as a violation of "thou shall not kill". ....Nice rationalization for the cognitive dissonance of claiming life after death is heaven while not really believing in the hypothesis enough to test it.

[PixyMisa]

The Cathars had a sensible answer for this. And the problem of evil, too.

Small wonder the Catholic Church hounded them to extinction.

[Safe-Keeper]

I never really understood the idea of "murdering" someone with an eternal soul... why aren't theists asking us to "murder" them so they can begin their "happily ever after" earlier--you know, before they sin and muck up the pass/fail eternity test? I've never understood this one. If life on Earth is so good, and we only get to live it once, why not stay here for as long as possible, even if what comes afterward is much better?

[shadron]

It'll get you 5 to 10 in Louisiana, even if you don't put a person in the noose.

[bruto]

I never really understood the idea of "murdering" someone with an eternal soul... why aren't theists asking us to "murder" them so they can begin their "happily ever after" earlier--you know, before they sin and muck up the pass/fail eternity test?

It would seem that this plan would help them begin their paradise eternal vacation while ensuring our eternal suffering per the beliefs they feel so good for believing in. I don't think they can kill themselves because most gods frown on suicide, but I don't understand the zest with which they cling to this life given that they supposedly believe that the next one is the rewarding one.

I'd think that if they really believed in their faith... and they really believed that non-believers would suffer eternally--then the compassionate thing to do would be to leave us alone so that we might enjoy this brief bit of reprieve before we are set on eternal fire for not believing in the right invisible guy with the right fervency. I don't think those that preach here really believe the spiel at all-- they are trying to convince themselves it's true by trying to convince us. Or that's how it comes across to me anyway.

I wonder what lead Stone Island to this forum to preach?

I've always wondered that myself - how paradoxical it is that people struggle and pray for help and survival, and then when some little kid dies of a horrible disease, they smile and say it's all right because he's in the arms of a loving god. Not to mention suicide bombers. Why on earth should followers of a religion that encourages martyrdom by murder-suicide be angry when their enemies provide them with martyrdom with no exertion and no expense?

[articulett]

I know... it gets weirder the more you think of it... because Jesus was supposed to die per his dad's plan (his dad who was really him, mind you)-- so technically, Christians should be thankful to the Jews for helping carry out this plan of god's-- doing the dirty work so-to-speak so that they could have their sins forgiven! Right? But instead Mel Gibson and such hold this grudge...



I like science, because the more you study it the more you understand--but with religion, the more I thought about it, the less any of it made sense. Thinking about it too much is a recipe for losing faith as far as I'm concerned.

[articulett]

I always wondered how people who believe in hell could justify having kids. How can you bring a person in the world that has the potential to suffer ETERNALLY. It would be better never to be born, right? And how can you call a god "loving" who would "invent" such a plan?

I thought religion would make sense to me like it seemed to make sense to others when I grew up, but then I grew up and I realized that people had just stopped asking questions-- they didn't let themselves consider the questions that occurred to me. They'd just use the manipulations that had been used on them to help them spin the faith-- lest something bad happen if they lose it.

I could say I believe, but I think I know too much to ever really be able to make myself believe in any sort of mystical "truth" or invisible being. So the thought of someone killing me or anyone because they can't "make" themselves believe such crazy things is just appalling to me. "Killing" feels against my nature, and it appears to be against the nature of most people. I think you need to be brainwashed to override these feelings to be able to kill. And I worry about people who think their god endorses such. (Because I've read some of the words he's said to inspired, and he's not as moral as most of the people I know.)

[MIKILLINI]

Knowledge is justified true, belief. Can I know that I ought not to hang atheists from trees?

Ask yourself this question: Can I know that I ought not to hang any living being from trees? Then show Me your answer.

[articulett]

I put my finger on what really bothers me about the OP. It sounds like Stone Island is saying that he's not murdering atheists because his god tells him murder is wrong. This implies that he'd be fine with murdering those who don't share his beliefs if his god commanded him to do so or if he didn't believe in god. That's... creepy... isn't it? Does anyone else get this impression? How many people would kill me or others if they believed they could get away with it and why? Maybe I don't really want to know because the implication is just... scary. Is he inferring that we should be grateful that he has faith because otherwise he would kill us? And he imagines that proves that he's moral??-- More moral than those who don't need to believe in a god to refrain from killing others???

Why doesn't Stone Island just understand that it would be as bad to kill someone for not believing in something as it would be to kill him or his loved ones for the things they don't believe in? Even apes and dogs seem to have that basic algorithm for social behavior. Reciprocity. I don't think very many creatures kill "just because". They may kill for protection of themselves or others--or for food-- But what creature kills because they derive enjoyment or satisfaction out of the suffering of others? I suppose that a species that does so had better invent gods if it helps them refrain from such practices-- (and we ought to encourage people like Stone Island to believe if that's what it takes to keep him from killing.)

In addition to promoting bigotry against non believers, I find Stone Island's posts sort of threatening. I think it's weird that he imagines himself as coming off as having a "friendly and lively" discussion.

[JFrankA]

...by the way, just to be clear, you all do know that my last post about "hurting the tree" was just a joke to show the absurdity of the question....

As to what the properly named Articulett said:

Originally Posted by articulett
I never really understood the idea of "murdering" someone with an eternal soul... why aren't theists asking us to "murder" them so they can begin their "happily ever after" earlier--you know, before they sin and muck up the pass/fail eternity test?

It would seem that this plan would help them begin their paradise eternal vacation while ensuring our eternal suffering per the beliefs they feel so good for believing in. I don't think they can kill themselves because most gods frown on suicide, but I don't understand the zest with which they cling to this life given that they supposedly believe that the next one is the rewarding one.

I'd think that if they really believed in their faith... and they really believed that non-believers would suffer eternally--then the compassionate thing to do would be to leave us alone so that we might enjoy this brief bit of reprieve before we are set on eternal fire for not believing in the right invisible guy with the right fervency. I don't think those that preach here really believe the spiel at all-- they are trying to convince themselves it's true by trying to convince us. Or that's how it comes across to me anyway. ...


I've never understood the theist's viewpoint of "no god = no morals" either.

To me, because I'm an atheist, I feel that I treasure life and people more than any theist could:

If I hurt someone physically or emotionally, then I don't get forgiven by some "higher-power" and I can continue to do it. I have to own up to the person I hurt.

If a friend dies, I will never ever see them again. So while they are still here, I will treasure that friend and enjoy who they are.

If I am kind to strangers, I didn't buy another point into heaven, I have contributed to someone's life so that all their life they will remember me as the nice guy who helped them.

If I did something wrong, I own up because it's my responsibility, not because some baby-sitter will punish me for being bad.

If I want something, I work for it. I don't beg a busy god who has millions of other things to do that are more important than my wants.

If I am going through a tough time, I work to get through it. I don't need a superior being to hold my hand.

And if I see someone else go through a hard time, I help that person through it. I don't need to send a message to a higher power to take care of that person for me.

When I learn something about the universe that I didn't know before and it's been proven as science, I'm in awe. I'm in awe of this forum and the way technology achieved this. I'm not jaded so that I need something that is impossible to happen in order to feel wonder to the universe.

I don't need a reward to be nice. I don't need a baby-sitter to treat people well. I don't need someone to fight my battles for me. I don't need a "miracle" to enjoy the beauty and wonder of the way the universe works.

I am a human. One of many, many, many humans. I am no more or less special than the next person. I am not more blessed or more cursed than the next person. That makes us different but equal.

Are you telling me that you need a god to do these things? You need a baby-sitter to be good, someone to hold your hand, to watch over you? I don't.

That tells me a lot to me about you. It tells me that you sell yourself and all other human beings short.

[articulett]

Can you imagine if the OP had said "black people" or "women" or "Catholics" instead of "atheists"?

Can you imagine if an atheist had said the same thing about theists? Does Stone Island have no capacity to "hear" what he's saying?

[articulett]

I bet a religious forum would never even allow an atheist to post such an offensive OP about theists.

Some theists seem to think that "do unto others" just means "do unto others that believe what the theist believes"-- not all others.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm sure Stoney was trying some sort of "gotcha" setup. It's a very dishonest way of conversing on a topic.

I do believe people with drastically different points of view can have a civil discussion on these matters (especially on an electronic forum like this, where there really should be nothing personal because we've never even met one another).

It does take a bare minimum of honesty though. Clearly, Stoney's goal here is not the truth, but merely an "Aha! I got you!" moment.

[articulett]

He has me on ignore, but I want to ask him: "Do you refrain from hanging atheists because of your belief in god?" or "If you didn't believe in god, do you think you'd be okay with hanging people"? And maybe, "If you believed that god wanted you to hang atheists, would you do so?" Because, to me, the OP seems to imply that he would.

Of course most woos who come here like to ask the loaded questions-- not answer them-- it's the way they win the "gotcha" game in their heads. I think he's trying to prove to us (via proving to himself) that he is moral because of his beliefs. But I think that he's indicating that he needs a spy in the sky to treat others the way he'd hope to be treated.

I think the only possible way I might think it was "okay" to hang someone might be as a form of retribution for those involved in the hanging of others. If you lynched people who lynched others, I imagine it might cut down on lynchings better than threats from a spy in the sky. Science shows that starting out kindly and then engaging in "tit for tat" is one of the most effective means of encouraging social cooperation.

[MIKILLINI]

Can you imagine if the OP had said "black people" or "women" or "Catholics" instead of "atheists"?

Can you imagine if an atheist had said the same thing about theists? Does Stone Island have no capacity to "hear" what he's saying?

That's exactly why I phrased my question to SI as any living being. I believe the way he answers it may reveal his bias.

This question reminds Me of Khomeini after he became leader of Iran and then created a theocratic government people feared: Your belief or non-belief could get you killed. SI's question gives the same kind of impression I had about Iran under Khomeini's rule.

[biomorph]

I bet a religious forum would never even allow an atheist to post such an offensive OP about theists.

I wonder if there's a religious forum that would? Somehow I reckon they might be thin on the ground...........

[Rairun]

I don't think the OP is offensive at all. He just asked that question because he hoped people would get overly emotional and say, "OF COURSE IT IS WRONG!" Then he could point out that we as atheists believe in things without evidence too, just like theists, since no one can derive an "ought" from an "is".

It's a valid question, except I hope no one here believes that morality has an objective existence. What many theists fail to grasp is that it's perfectly acceptable to have personal preferences. We can dislike things that bring people pain, for example, and then try to build a society that conforms to those preferences. It's that simple.

[UnrepentantSinner]

This question reminds Me of Khomeini after he became leader of Iran and then created a theocratic government people feared: Your belief or non-belief could get you killed. SI's question gives the same kind of impression I had about Iran under Khomeini's rule.

This is actually a myth. People were executed for being counter revolutionary or perceived threats to the regime, not for their religious beliefs.

I wonder if there's a religious forum that would? Somehow I reckon they might be thin on the ground...........

Christianforums used to be surprisingly liberal on the sorts of threads they allowed in the now defunct General Apologetics and Philosophy and Ethics sections. The OP would have been allowed since it's clearly framed in a philisophical framework even if it's insipid and trollish.

[quarky]

The Cathars had a sensible answer for this. And the problem of evil, too.

Small wonder the Catholic Church hounded them to extinction.

Wow! The Cathars! Whole villages of people burned to death by the Pope's orders, and no resistance. Don't hear much about them these days. Too Christian to survive, I guess.

It wasn't wrong, evidently to kill them, if you were being ordered to by Christ's interceeder on Earth. Cool stuff, the blood-lust of the righteous lovers of Jesus.

Too bad the Popes aren't into it anymore. Governments are left with the job of killing their own...perhaps the leading cause of death in the 20th century.

[plumjam]

Clearly it's morally reprehensible to hang atheists on trees. With the sole exception of mid to late December.

[JFrankA]

He has me on ignore, but I want to ask him: "Do you refrain from hanging atheists because of your belief in god?" or "If you didn't believe in god, do you think you'd be okay with hanging people"? And maybe, "If you believed that god wanted you to hang atheists, would you do so?" Because, to me, the OP seems to imply that he would.

Of course most woos who come here like to ask the loaded questions-- not answer them-- it's the way they win the "gotcha" game in their heads. I think he's trying to prove to us (via proving to himself) that he is moral because of his beliefs. But I think that he's indicating that he needs a spy in the sky to treat others the way he'd hope to be treated.

I think the only possible way I might think it was "okay" to hang someone might be as a form of retribution for those involved in the hanging of others. If you lynched people who lynched others, I imagine it might cut down on lynchings better than threats from a spy in the sky. Science shows that starting out kindly and then engaging in "tit for tat" is one of the most effective means of encouraging social cooperation.

Why would he have you on ignore? I've seen you around here a lot and you have the most intelligent, well-thought-out responses. on top of that you are polite. What could you have possibly typed that prompted him to put you on ignore?

......................or maybe that is the only way someone in a forum can hang an atheist from a tree? ;)

[Zep]

Let's substitute, and see what we get:It was wrong to wage war on Germany solely because Hitler was a short-arse.Brilliant! Godwinised right off the bat!

How about this one:It was wrong to hang Jesus from a tree until dead solely because his followers claimed he was the Messiah.If true (you agree it was a bad thing), your morality conflicts with the Bible story because God willed/permitted that killing. If false (you agree it was a good thing to hang him), you are a persecutor of Christ and thus no Christian. As Yul Brunner said, Iz - a puzzlement!

Hmmm... Either this has serious repercussions, or it's a pile of word-play crap. Guess which one I think it is.

[joobz]

I'm sure Stoney was trying some sort of "gotcha" setup. It's a very dishonest way of conversing on a topic.

It is. But that's why StoneIsland isn't bothering with a conversation. He's given the post and run method of trolling. Not at all clever or difficult to do. This is definitely a step down from his previous method of "detachedly debate a foolish position". He did this when trying to argue that a natural law existed. He couldn't defend his arguments, and simply relied on name dropping as though appeals to authority would make a room full of skeptics say, "Ohhh.....If XXXX says so, then it must be true."

[calebprime]

Well, I get the question, and I think it's a great question.

I think I will even attempt to answer it.

Science cannot evaluate questions of "right" and "wrong". Such questions have no scientific meaning. Therefore, the statement cannot be scientifically evaluated.

However, many people use scientific methods to evaluate questions of morality given some sort of additional premise about what is "right" or "wrong". Unlike religious explorations, people who try to use scientific methods to evaluate such questions, rarely define right and wrong based on adherence to allegedly revealed dogma. i.e. they rarely test such methods based on conformance to Biblical or other instruction. Instead, they generally add premises that are related to their effects on human or other life.

For example, they might assert that anything which increases the net amount of unhappiness in the world is bad, or anything that increases suffering is bad. If you add that additional premise, then it becomes clear that the statement is correct. If you were to hang atheists from trees just because they were atheists, several predictable sources of suffering would occur. First and most obviously, there would be the suffering of the atheists themselves. That alone should show that the statement is true.

Some might try to justify hanging atheists on a couple of different grounds. They might say that God will punish societies who allow atheists to live, and therefore there will be increased suffering if atheists are not hanged. While these beliefs may be sincere, there is no scientific justification for them. Therefore, scientifically, this is not an acceptable objection.

Others might say that there is a benefit to society to enforcing common religious practices. Allowing multiple religions or people who do not participate in the common religion increases strife, and therefore there might be a benefit to hanging atheists. However, experience has shown, and can be measured scientifically, that societies that hang people with one set of religious beliefs often end up hanging people with other religious beliefs, such as the idea that Jesus Christ is not present in the eucharist. This leads to extra suffering (i.e. more hangings) but also suffering via fear. People feel compelled to publicly profess religious beliefs that they do not actually believe, causing much stress, for fear of hanging.

Other premises might involve maximizing freedom, or maximizing lifespan. Hanging atheists would tend to work against those goals as well.

Therefore, if we assert a correlation between "right" and "wrong" vs. some measurable phenomenon, such as happiness, suffering, or lifespan, we see that hanging atheists does indeed tend to create phenomenon which we associate with "right" and "wrong". The statement is, therefore, scientifically correct, although we cannot say, scientifically, that the statement is correct in any absolute sense.

Good one, Meadmaker. I'm impressed that you could engage with the question while saying something reasonable, and something I agree with.

[Bikewer]

Couldn't I just be hung from the tree until I was aroused due to autoerotic asphyxiation?

[articulett]

Oh, you sexual tergiversating libertine!

I found out the silly OP is a rehash of a Ray Comfort blog video reference.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnI

I suppose this is clever deep logic to theists of Ray Comfort's intelligence/integrity level.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh, you sexual tergiversating libertine!

I found out the silly OP is a rehash of a Ray Comfort blog video reference.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnI

I suppose this is clever deep logic to theists of Ray Comfort's intelligence/integrity level.

The Joy of Hanging by Comfort? ;)


Seriously, though, you're right. Not only does Stone Island lack intelligence and integrity, he's not even being original.

[Esperdome]

Clearly it's morally reprehensible to hang atheists on trees. With the sole exception of mid to late December.

This could lead to a whole new line of Solstice Tree ornaments. :D

[godless dave]

No. I'm just trying to critically illustrate the limits of science in a friendly and lively way.

You could bite, BTW. "Ought not to hang atheists from trees until dead" could be true in the following ways:

I've bolded the area where you are confused.

Science doesn't answer "ought" questions. Science is a tool used to describe what is. An "ought" question only makes sense in the context of a human making a decision about the future.

The reason you "ought" not to hang human beings from trees is because you yourself are a human being and, I assume, you don't want to be hung from a tree. It's that simple. Kant formalized the idea in 1785, but Epicurus and others had articulated it a long time before that. Jesus even hinted at it.

The scientific reason that humans tend to get upset when people are hung from trees is that humans tend to have empathy for other humans and tend to feel distress in response to violence.

[fuelair]

I was thinking more like Sunniman and Fred Phelps... but in any case, I wonder if theists are embarrassed that he is one of them? I wonder if anyone sees him as coming across in the "friendly and lively" manner he imagines himself exhibiting in post #5.

Anyone?

Isn't he more of an example of potential harms of theism?

Stone Island trees bear strange fruit.

[godless dave]

Can I know that I ought not to hang atheists from trees?

No. You can feel that you ought not to hang atheists from trees. You can't know it, because moral values are not knowledge, they are values and ideas.

You can know how other people are likely to react if you hung people from trees. You can know how tall of a tree you need and how long of a rope. You can know the proper knot to tie to make a noose. You can't know whether or not you should do it, you can only choose to do it or not based on your own values and desires.

[fuelair]

I've bolded the area where you are confused.

Science doesn't answer "ought" questions. Science is a tool used to describe what is. An "ought" question only makes sense in the context of a human making a decision about the future.

The reason you "ought" not to hang human beings from trees is because you yourself are a human being and, I assume, you don't want to be hung from a tree. It's that simple. Kant formalized the idea in 1785, but Epicurus and others had articulated it a long time before that. Jesus even hinted at it.

The scientific reason that humans tend to get upset when people are hung from trees is that humans tend to have empathy for other humans and tend to feel distress in response to violence.
That's why when I see those pictures of lynchings in the old South my fingers yearn once again for the trigger of a submachine gun to speak to the laughing crowds.

[plumjam]

Couldn't I just be hung from the tree until I was aroused due to autoerotic asphyxiation?

Certainly this could be arranged, but only due to the attendant safety advantages -- it being much easier to pull you off.
Other than that, I wouldn't hold your breath.

[NewtonTrino]

Comfort is one sick puppy allright.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Stone Island trees bear strange fruit.

Well done!
(For the record, I got the reference to the Billy Holiday song!)

[godless dave]

Science, as any scientist will tell you, deals in facts. "I ought not to hang atheists from trees for being atheists" isn't a fact. No sentence with the word "ought" in it can be a fact. It's an opinion.

[bruto]

I haven't gotten around yet to reading this whole thread, but isn't there a basic problem here? The only reason to single out atheists for hanging would be if religion is ruling one's thinking. If there is any reason to ask about the morality of hanging atheists, it must be asked of a person who is not an atheist. In an atheist world, of course atheists would not be singled out for hanging. The issue would never arise. If the original question is intended as a "where do you get your morality" gotcha, it fails because it makes no sense at all. If Stone Island wants to test atheists' moral anchors, he should ask what would be wrong with hanging people like himself!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh, you sexual tergiversating libertine!

I found out the silly OP is a rehash of a Ray Comfort blog video reference.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnI

I suppose this is clever deep logic to theists of Ray Comfort's intelligence/integrity level.So my assessment SI was just passing on a sermon he was moved by was correct. That's one sick straw man argument video, though. I couldn't stand to watch more than the beginning.

This is interesting from 2/12/09 from Brother Ray:I have learned so much from the atheists on this blog. I truly thank God for every one of you, and for the fact that you sent that dumb banana video all over the world. It's given me a huge plateform (sic). I'm eternally grateful. Thank you.It's a catch 22 of sorts. Anyone coming to his blog that takes him seriously has to be too stupid to get the joke the banana is a human manipulated hybrid, not a god designed hand fitting fruit. They would have missed the obvious connotation rubbing that banana suggests & they would be dumb enough to believe the absurd premise about life in peanut butter jars disproving evolution theory.

Everyone else who found Ray's blog via the banana video would only go to the site to laugh at the guy.

[godless dave]

If you really want a laugh, look for Ray's posts about what he thinks biologists think about how sexuality evolved. It's a hoot.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you really want a laugh, look for Ray's posts about what he thinks biologists think about how sexuality evolved. It's a hoot.Had to use Google, couldn't find a search engine on Ray's site.

Monday, December 1, 2008 - Sexes Without Sex (http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/12/sexs-without-sex.html)Darwin theorized that mankind (both male and female) evolved in their pre-human state alongside each other over millions of years, both reproducing after their own kind before the ability to physically have sex evolved. They did this through "asexuality" ("without sexual desire or activity or lacking any apparent sex or sex organs"). Each of them split in half ("Asexual organisms reproduce by fission (splitting in half)." Ask A Scientist, Biology Archive, http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99927.htm.)...

...Theories about the evolution of sex have proven to be very difficult to test experimentally, and so the answer is still very much open to speculation" (www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/sex.html).

In other words, they have no idea why pre-humans stopped splitting in half and started having sex, or why male and female exist throughout creation.

In contrast, the Bible maintains that God instantaneously created man (in His own image) and woman, giving them the ability to reproduce after their kind. So the Bible and the theory of Darwinian evolution are not only apposed to one another, they are incompatible. The only commonality is that they are both miraculous, and they both require faith to believe them. :dl:


Besides the fact he can't spell, (apposed means juxtaposed not opposed), this guy is really that ignorant of the facts. He is seriously suggesting men and women evolved from different ancestors? Where along the path does he think the two species decided they looked enough like each other to hook up?

It does explain how evolution deniers maintain their position. They really don't understand the science they don't believe.

[rocketdodger]

How would you scientifically evaluate or justify the following statement?


Is this statement true in any meaningful way?

Am I justified in believing this statement?

Ought I to believe in this statement?

That depends upon the definitions of the words used in the statement.

If you were educated in mathematics, or even logic, or even plain old rational thinking, you would know that the truth of a statement cannot be evaluated until the meaning of the statement is known.

Some examples:

1) if "wrong" means "red like an apple," then the statement is false.

2) if "wrong" means "against the law in the U.S." then the statement is true.

3) if "wrong" means "something babies enjoy doing," then the statement is false.

4) if "wrong" means "something the Christian God doesn't want people to do," then the statement is true.

5) if "wrong" means "something that most people I want to be around would find extremely questionable, for whatever reason, and probably take action against," then the statement is true.

Get it?

[Stone Island]

So my assessment SI was just passing on a sermon he was moved by was correct. That's one sick straw man argument video, though. I couldn't stand to watch more than the beginning.

FWIW, I haven't seen that video.

I find the psychoanalysis interesting, though. A bit woo, if you were to ask, but funny.

As for a "gotcha" moment, I'm not really looking for it. Sometimes I'll argue a position I don't even support, just to see where it leads.

In any case, I'm writing my dissertation on something completely unrelated, so this is an amusing diversion which allows me to think about something else for a minute and doesn't take me too far away from the computer.

[Stone Island]

It is. But that's why StoneIsland isn't bothering with a conversation. He's given the post and run method of trolling. Not at all clever or difficult to do. This is definitely a step down from his previous method of "detachedly debate a foolish position". He did this when trying to argue that a natural law existed. He couldn't defend his arguments, and simply relied on name dropping as though appeals to authority would make a room full of skeptics say, "Ohhh.....If XXXX says so, then it must be true."

Actually, I was out with my wife celebrating Valentine's Day.

[articulett]

Really? Did you talk about romantic moral things like hanging atheists from a tree until they are dead, or are we the only ones subject to such "sweet nothings"?

[JFrankA]

In light of your post above, Articulett, it makes me wonder why Stone would put you on ignore when he himself claimed that he was only participating in:


"an amusing diversion which allows me to think about something else for a minute and doesn't take me too far away from the computer."


....Sorry, Stone. It sounds like you are back-peddling to me....

[Skeptic Ginger]

....I'm writing my dissertation ...I'm skeptical you are in the process of getting a PhD unless your PhD is from an unaccredited university. No offense but your posts don't exactly emanate PhD level knowledge.

[arthwollipot]

Too bad the Popes aren't into it anymore. Governments are left with the job of killing their own...perhaps the leading cause of death in the 20th century.In the US and China perhaps...

[arthwollipot]

Why would he have you on ignore? I've seen you around here a lot and you have the most intelligent, well-thought-out responses. on top of that you are polite. What could you have possibly typed that prompted him to put you on ignore?Articulett can occasionally lose control of her carefully cultivated politeness, and then her posts have been demonstrated to peel the paint off walls. :D

[ParrotPirate]

Would it be wrong to burn down a church every time somebody hung an atheist?

[Miss_Kitt]

What I want to know is, Is it wrong to do aught with an atheist that's hung like a tree??

Just askin', Miss Kitt

[joobz]

Actually, I was out with my wife celebrating Valentine's Day.
Actually, that doesn't contradict my point.

[gdnp]

I always wondered how people who believe in hell could justify having kids. How can you bring a person in the world that has the potential to suffer ETERNALLY. It would be better never to be born, right? And how can you call a god "loving" who would "invent" such a plan?

I thought religion would make sense to me like it seemed to make sense to others when I grew up, but then I grew up and I realized that people had just stopped asking questions-- they didn't let themselves consider the questions that occurred to me. They'd just use the manipulations that had been used on them to help them spin the faith-- lest something bad happen if they lose it.
Very well put. I have come to similar conclusions, but could not express them nearly so well.
I could say I believe, but I think I know too much to ever really be able to make myself believe in any sort of mystical "truth" or invisible being. So the thought of someone killing me or anyone because they can't "make" themselves believe such crazy things is just appalling to me. "Killing" feels against my nature, and it appears to be against the nature of most people. I think you need to be brainwashed to override these feelings to be able to kill. And I worry about people who think their god endorses such. (Because I've read some of the words he's said to inspired, and he's not as moral as most of the people I know.)

I'm not so sure that killing is against human nature. There is a fair amount of evidence that just the opposite is the case. Human beings have been killing each other for all of recorded history, and I'd guess in even larger numbers through pre-history. They've been doing this in many cultures on all continents. Not only that, but kids are not born with compassion and empathy. They learn it from their parents. I think a couple of hundred years of human culture can only superficially suppress 100,000 years of human evolution. It is only in cultures of relative abundance that our natural brutality has been contained. It rears its head again each time there is sufficient provocation.

[fuelair]

Would it be wrong to burn down a church every time somebody hung an atheist?
Certainly not if Fred Phelps or it's ilk is involved with it.:D

[Stone Island]

I'm skeptical you are in the process of getting a PhD unless your PhD is from an unaccredited university. No offense but your posts don't exactly emanate PhD level knowledge.

No offense? Very offensive, actually. In any case, my Ph.D. is in Political Science not philosophy or theology.

Just wondering, but does questioning people's motives and engaging in spurious psychoanalysis constitute Ph.D. levels of knowledge?

[Stone Island]

In light of your post above, Articulett, it makes me wonder why Stone would put you on ignore when he himself claimed that he was only participating in:



....Sorry, Stone. It sounds like you are back-peddling to me....

She's annoying and, as far as I can tell, can't see past her prejudice. I've got Dennett on the mind, that being one of the things I'm reading right now, so I would say that for her atheism and bigotry towards the religious (who are always stupid, mendacious, and deluded in her telling) are something sacred. I can't stand reading her posts.

[articulett]

Your loaded question is not relevant to the fact that your posts do not emanate the level of education one would expect from those working on a Ph.D. They are Ray Comfort-ish-- as has been demonstrated-- no one considers Ray Comfort a Ph.D candidate as far as I can tell either. He's considered to be laughably ignorant by educated people, and I can't imagine any accredited university wanting to associate himself with them. Even in Political Science.

[articulett]

She's annoying and, as far as I can tell, can't see past her prejudice. I've got Dennett on the mind, that being one of the things I'm reading right now, so I would say that for her atheism and bigotry towards the religious (who are always stupid, mendacious, and deluded in her telling) are something sacred. I can't stand reading her posts.


Because they reveal you for what you are.

I do not consider the religious to be "always stupid, mendacious, and deluded"; that's your straw man-- your delusion. A lie. That makes you a liar. Don't confuse my opinions of you with my opinions of others. I think that a few of the woo who preach here are, indeed, stupid, mendacious, and deluded-- but this opinion is much less offensive than the things such people say about others in conversations they imagine to be "friendly and lively".

The mendacious deluded woo are not limited to religious folks-- there's truthers, homeopaths, psychics, Scientologists, apologists-- I find a few assorted woos to be similarly mendacious and offensive in their approach to "selling" their "truth". I tend to have even worse opinions regarding the morality of those who mention hanging atheists on trees until they're dead in what they imagine to be "friendly", "lively" conversations.

[linusrichard]

How would you scientifically evaluate or justify the following statement?

I wouldn't. It's a normative statement - an "ought." Science deals with the descriptive and the predictive - a scientific statement is an "is." You can't get from an "is" to an "ought."

Is this statement true in any meaningful way?
Yes.

Am I justified in believing this statement?
Yes.

Ought I to believe in this statement?
Yes.


As for the long answers, I'll just commend Meadmaker's post 33 as the best one in the thread so far.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No offense? Very offensive, actually. In any case, my Ph.D. is in Political Science not philosophy or theology.

Just wondering, but does questioning people's motives and engaging in spurious psychoanalysis constitute Ph.D. levels of knowledge?I merely commented on the quality of your posts, nothing more, nothing less.

As for the "spurious psychoanalysis" as you call it, I have seen the pattern before many times from theists on these forums as have other people here. Again, just going by what is apparent in your posts. If your OP wasn't inspired by Brother Ray, that doesn't mean it wasn't inspired by some other sermon, directly or indirectly. The point is you obviously had some particular message about atheism and morality in mind that you thought would be cleverly hidden in your offensive example.

[gdnp]

FWIW, I haven't seen that video.

I find the psychoanalysis interesting, though. A bit woo, if you were to ask, but funny.

As for a "gotcha" moment, I'm not really looking for it. Sometimes I'll argue a position I don't even support, just to see where it leads.

In any case, I'm writing my dissertation on something completely unrelated, so this is an amusing diversion which allows me to think about something else for a minute and doesn't take me too far away from the computer.

Do you have anything to say about the topic you presented in your OP? Were you really trying to initiate a dialogue? Or would you rather bicker over people's psychological motives? At this point I do not believe you have expressed an opinion on the OP, or commented on the substance of anyone's response.

[articulett]

How interesting that Stone Island thinks that we should care about what offends him... Why doesn't Stone Island ask his wife the following question in a similar "friendly and lively" discussion so that she might enlighten him as to how offensive he comes across.

Hanging Theists From Trees Until Dead

How would you scientifically evaluate or justify the following statement?


It is wrong to hang a person from a tree until dead solely because they are a theist.

Is this statement true in any meaningful way?

Am I justified in believing this statement?

Ought I to believe in this statement?

Or ask her how she'd feel if a Muslim asked the question about Christians? Friendly? Lively? Or psycho-creepy? Most people don't need to engage in debate or believe in invisible men to understand that hanging any sentient being from a tree is vile-- and doing so because of the religions they reject makes even less sense! We can imagine how we'd feel if someone did something like that to us or a loved one-- it hurts me just to think of it. Why would anyone consider doing such a vile thing unless they were a sociopath? (or truly believed that their god really wanted them to-- he does request some pretty immoral things I hear.) I find the whole conjecture vomitous.

Can you imagine the mental capacity of someone who imagines this sort of query to be part of a lively friendly discussion? Is theism responsible for this utter blindness? Surely a woo forum would be the last place such a question regarding hanging people (other than nonbelievers) would be considered friendly or lively...

I am sickened that Stone Island gets away with this sort of hate speech on this forum... but even more sickened that he imagines it is "lively and friendly" and has the audacity to let us know that he's offended that we might question his Ph.D candidacy! I don't know of any atheist and few theists who would think this sort of conversation was "friendly" or "lively"--or even appropriate. I would hope that most people don't need an invisible spy in the sky to find the thought of hanging any sentient being abhorrent. It hurts me to even imagine someone doing it to a rabid dog! What benefit could come from hanging someone? And why does someone need a "scientific reason" or any other reason to refrain from doing so is what I want to know? The only possibly justifiable reason I can imagine for hanging anyone is because that person has been involved in the hanging of others, and I can't imagine such a discussion being considered "friendly and lively" (or a pleasant distraction) by any person I'd find moral.

Jeez-- would you go up to a black person and think it's lively and friendly to ask for scientific reasons why you shouldn't hang them from a tree until they are dead??! (Why do people think this is fine to say to atheists??)

(Is Stone Island intimating that he refrains from lynching atheists because he's afraid god would frown upon such??? That's it?! That's all that lies between him and torturing/killing others? Wow. I guess we better hope he keeps the faith.)

[Stone Island]

Do you have anything to say about the topic you presented in your OP? Were you really trying to initiate a dialogue? Or would you rather bicker over people's psychological motives? At this point I do not believe you have expressed an opinion on the OP, or commented on the substance of anyone's response.

It would seem to me that an objective system of morality would encompass the notion that we ought not hang people from trees based on their beliefs. It wouldn't be determined by our will, and wouldn't be a mere preference (or fear of reprisal).

Otherwise, I can't see how morality would have any meaning.

[paximperium]

It would seem to me that an objective system of morality would encompass the notion that we ought not hang people from trees based on their beliefs. It wouldn't be determined by our will, and wouldn't be a mere preference (or fear of reprisal).
And since many others here don't believe in "objective" morality, your entire line of contention is misplaced.

Otherwise, I can't see how morality would have any meaning.
If you find no meaning in living with other people with differing opinion without you killing or repressing then, then that is a problem you should look into.

[articulett]

He just said that his "objective morality" allows him to justify the killing of children: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135188&page=4

Creepy. Very creepy. People can be made to blithely do very evil things while imagining themselves moral-- so long as they can be convinced that god mandates it. It sounds like Stone Island thinks that it would be moral and right to kill babies and atheists if he believed his god wanted him to.

Yes, there are harms that are unique to religion. When people believe in invisible men in the sky who judge them on their faith-- they can be made to do anything they come to believe that invisible man wants. Why wouldn't they? Especially if they believed their eternity depended on them "proving" their faith? Isn't this the exact mentality of suicide bombers--Andrea Yates--those who kill abortion doctors--Timothy McVeigh-- the KKK? Egads.

I wonder how many people have a desire to kill someone and then imagine it as a "message" from god?

[paximperium]

He just said that his "objective morality" allows him to justify the killing of children: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135188&page=4

Creepy. Very creepy. People can be made to blithely do very evil things while imagining themselves moral-- so long as they can be convinced that god mandates it. It sounds like Stone Island thinks that it would be moral and right to kill babies and atheists if he believed his god wanted him to.
Which makes it even more creepy that he started a thread talking about the morality of murdering atheist.

Yes, there are harms that are unique to religion. When people believe in invisible men in the sky who judge them on their faith-- they can be made to do anything they come to believe that invisible man wants. Why wouldn't they? Especially if they believed their eternity depended on them "proving" their faith?

[Stone Island]

And since many others here don't believe in "objective" morality, your entire line of contention is misplaced.


If they don't believe in "objective" morality, what do they have to complain about?

[paximperium]

If they don't believe in "objective" morality, what do they have to complain about?
The complaint is about your silly and very childish little attempt at labeling atheist as somehow immoral without some magic person forcing you to you do what is right for others and yourself.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It would seem to me that an objective system of morality would encompass the notion that we ought not hang people from trees based on their beliefs. It wouldn't be determined by our will, and wouldn't be a mere preference (or fear of reprisal).

Otherwise, I can't see how morality would have any meaning.Well then, allow me to introduce you to evolution theory. If you want to understand the concept of morality, see how it evolved in gregarious beings with very high brain function. You will discover it is not some mysterious 'thing' magically inserted into our human brains by some omnipotent being, but rather it evolved and is currently a product of nature and nurture in the human species.

[articulett]

Mirror neurons. Empathy. We non-sociopaths feel horror at people doing vile things to other humans because we understand how much it would hurt us if the same was done to us or our loved ones. We want to live amongst people with similar morality.

My dog doesn't go around killing people, dogs, or cats... I don't think she wonders why she doesn't do it. I don't think she needs a scientific reason or a magical spy-- I presumed the same was true of most human beings. I don't need to have a reason to refrain from inflicting suffering on others when I cannot fathom a good reason to do so in the first place. It hurts me to even imagine such a thing, and I have no delusions about a god reading my mind or punishing me forever or giving me endless goodies for my "faith". I've never been "tempted" to hang anyone from a tree in the first place. Though I'll note that according to the myth, Stone Island's god endorsed a plan that involved hanging his son (who was really him) from a tree to save the faithful from "original sin".

[Skeptic Ginger]

My dog doesn't go around killing people, dogs, or cats... I don't think she wonders why she doesn't do it. I don't think she needs a scientific reason or a magical spy-- I presumed the same was true of most human beings. I don't need to have a reason to refrain from inflicting suffering on others when I cannot fathom a good reason to do so in the first place. ...

My dogs kill little things if they catch them. ;) Immoral little turds. :D

[Ron_Tomkins]

I don't know what wrong is from a moral point of view. I'm not interested in arguing it, certainly not with Theists. They think they've got it "figured out" themselves and then feel like imposing it on the rest of the people.

From my moral point of view, it is ok to really hurt someone who has really hurt and/or killed a cat.

There is, however, another connotation for the word "wrong". It refers to mathematical formulas and equations
2+2=5 for example is wrong

Yes, wrong! But don't worry. It's not morally wrong. You're not a "bad" person for making that mistake. You may be naive, perhaps even dumb, but not bad.

What's morally wrong is up to us to decide. We founded this society and we have to live by our own rules.... unless of course you get sick of it and go to Africa to live next to the Antelopes and Baboons. Then you can live a world of no morals. Just mere carnal survival. I won't deny you that that is at the very least, an interesting idea.

If you wanna do yourself a favor, don't waste your time asking Atheists and Agnostics what's "wrong" and what's "right". Who are the "good people" and who are the "bad people". You're wasting your time.

[articulett]

And theists don't agree-- they all subscribe to different sects with different holy men interpreting the will of the invisible deities differently. It's relative morality of the same type all humans have--they just imagine that it's "objective" and coming from a god.

The hijackers believed god wanted them to drive planes into buildings. The passengers believed their prayers might save them. All the families of all the dead folks imagine their loved ones are in paradise-- the hijackers and the hijackees. the faithful of each side imagines the evil other side in hell. And every believer imagines that their morals are objective. So who exactly had the "objective morality" in this picture? Who was god listening to and who has he rewarded for following his invisible orders via spokesmen gurus on this silly little planet he apparently created the universe for?

Sick and sad.

[Achán hiNidráne]

He just said that his "objective morality" allows him to justify the killing of children: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135188&page=4

Of course SI's morality is "objective." It's absolute. It's non-negotiable. It's objective, absolute, and non-negotiable even when his invisible sky-tyrant (or, rather, the power-hungry, sexually-repressive, charlatans who claim to be said invisible sky-tyrant's representatives in this realm) changes that "objective" morality to suit their earthly (e.g. poltical, financial, etc.) purposes. After all, God brought us into the world, and as his playthings he can take us out, right SI?

So I guess the answer to SI's genocide-fantasy... I mean question is: "As long as my God says 'hanging atheists from trees until dead' is moral, then it's cool until he--or my priest, minister, rabbi, imam, witch-doctor, etc.--tells me otherwise."

Oh, and SI... Can atheists be good citizens?

[articulett]

I have never heard an atheist question whether it was wrong to hang anyone nor justify the killing of those who caused no harm.

It seems to me that atheists can, not only be good citizens, they are often better citizens than those who imagine themselves to have "objective" morality. I cannot think of a single atheist who turns my stomach the way Stone Island does and I know very many.

[tornado]

Kill all the atheists....let God sort them out.

[articulett]

Well babies are all atheists, so I guess that would fit in fine with Stone Island's "objective" morality. Just kill the folks god wants you to kill and do the "thou shall not kill" thing for those who believe whatever you believe.

[articulett]

So, Stone Island,

How would you "objectively" evaluate or justify the following statement?


It is wrong to stone a person to death merely because they are an unruly child, adultress, or homosexual even though the bible endorses such practices.

Is this statement true in any meaningful way?

Am I justified in believing this statement?

Ought I to believe in this statement?

Go ahead--surely these questions qualify for "friendly and lively" discussion. Give us an example of the manner in which you thought we'd entertain the "friendly and lively" questions that you chose to divert yourself with. Give us an example of that stellar objective morality that helps you with your tough decisions regarding whom it's okay to torture/kill.

[Foster Zygote]

No offense? Very offensive, actually. In any case, my Ph.D. is in Political Science not philosophy or theology.

Just wondering, but does questioning people's motives and engaging in spurious psychoanalysis constitute Ph.D. levels of knowledge?

Whew! It's a good thing she didn't compare you to child molesters.

[bruto]

It would seem to me that an objective system of morality would encompass the notion that we ought not hang people from trees based on their beliefs. It wouldn't be determined by our will, and wouldn't be a mere preference (or fear of reprisal).

Otherwise, I can't see how morality would have any meaning.Why does morality have to be "objective" in order to have meaning? And in what way does morality imposed by a punitive god, absolute or not, not involve fear of reprisal (or hope for reward)?

And whatever it "would seem" to you an objective system of morality would encompass, where is such a system to be found? Where is this objective system of morality of which you speak, which encompasses the notion that we ought not to hang people from trees based on their beliefs? Is there a cult of practicing Kantians somewhere of which we are unaware? It certainly is not the morality based on biblical principles, unless you are going to nitpick and say that your statement about hanging from trees stands because Christians and the other Abrahamic faiths have generally preferred the bonfire, the stoning pit and the gallows for heretics. If it is true now that Christians do not believe heretics and atheists should be hanged, it can only be explained either by the failure of their moral guidance, including their core scriptures, in the past, or the unacknowledged adoption of a relativistic stance in the present. Not that I would object to a God who reassesses his position and issues new orders from time to time, but I don't know of any religion but the Mormons that has managed to carry this one off on major policies.

The most conspicuous practitioners of absolute and objective morality I can think of offhand at present are the Taliban, but most here would not consider that a recommendation.

[godless dave]

dupe

[godless dave]

It would seem to me that an objective system of morality would encompass the notion that we ought not hang people from trees based on their beliefs. It wouldn't be determined by our will, and wouldn't be a mere preference (or fear of reprisal).

Otherwise, I can't see how morality would have any meaning.

Why? Do only objective things have meaning? Analysis of the works of Shakespeare is subjective. Does it not have meaning?

If they don't believe in "objective" morality, what do they have to complain about?

Being killed. Other human beings being killed. Human beings tend not to want to be killed, especially by hanging.

I suggest reading some Kant, Stone Island. This is Philosophy 101 material.

[linusrichard]

If they don't believe in "objective" morality, what do they have to complain about?

The subjectively immoral.

[quarky]

If lynching was legal, and tickets could be sold, people would pay...gladly; sadly.
wouldn't matter if the hung were atheists or theists.

[Meadmaker]

If they don't believe in "objective" morality, what do they have to complain about?

Let us suppose that I take as the basis of my morality "It is wrong to increase human suffering." That is as objective as any other moral statement. I can then evaluate whether hanging atheists would increase human suffering, or decrease it. As best I can tell, human suffering would increase. That is an objective measure. I can therefore say that it is wrong to hang atheists, because it produces an objectively measured result, which I have equated with immorality.

Some people object saying that my choice of measures of morality is not absolute. i.e. I chose to minimize suffering. I could have chosen some other measure of morality. That's true. However, it is no more true of my measure of morality than any other measure, theistic or atheistic.

For example, most theists would assert that "true" morality consists of acting in accordance with God's will. When we do so, it is asserted, we are being moral. Let's leave aside a few questions about how we know a few things such as 1. There is a God. 2. God has a favored set of behaviors for us. and 3. We know what that will is. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that we know what God wants us to do.

Why do we leap to the conclusion that the deity's preferred behavior is moral? It's just another assertion. It is a rather convenient one in that conformance with divine will is often seen as producing some reward or another, or avoiding some punishment, but the idea that God is incapable of doing wrong is just another assertion. Indeed, many of us have read a record of God's accomplishments, as claimed in the Bible, and have reached a conclusion that if God really did all of those things, he was not all good.

For example, God is very mean to Job and his family in the book of the same name. We would conclude that by any objective standard of morality, God is not behaving morally. Of course, God himself has an answer for that. His answer is, "Where were you when I created the Heavens and the Earth?" In other words, whatever standards of morality you think you have come up with, don't bother. Just do what you're told. You are incapable of actually judging what is truly moral.

So, to conclude, Abrahamic religions teach that we are incapable of judging what is and is not moral. There is no "objective" morality, or if there is, we are incapable of knowing it.

In that sense, we cannot evaluate the original assertion from either a scientific or a religious perspective. From a scientific perspective, it has no meaning. From a religious perspective, we can at best try to determine if it is God's will that atheists be hung from trees. Most of us have concluded that God, if He exists, didn't bother to tell anyone that we ought to hang atheists from trees, but that it seems inconsistent with some of the other things He is alleged to have said, (such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.") and therefore, atheists ought not to be hung from trees.

[calebprime]

go, meadmaker.

I mean, stay.

I mean, keep talking.

eta: well, not if you're done.

I mean: another good post.

[gdnp]

In that sense, we cannot evaluate the original assertion from either a scientific or a religious perspective. From a scientific perspective, it has no meaning. From a religious perspective, we can at best try to determine if it is God's will that atheists be hung from trees. Most of us have concluded that God, if He exists, didn't bother to tell anyone that we ought to hang atheists from trees, but that it seems inconsistent with some of the other things He is alleged to have said, (such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.") and therefore, atheists ought not to be hung from trees.

On the other hand, we also know that God tells us that adulterers should be stoned. I wonder if those who believe in absolute morality as handed down by God in the bible ask for forgiveness for failing to carry out God's instructions in this regard.

[babbits]

Scientifically evaluate "It is wrong to hang a person from a tree until dead solely because they are an atheist"?

First of all, we have to make sure it makes sense. Who are "they" ?
And how can "they" be "an" anything?

It's plural, so it can't refer to "a person". So it seems the first part of that which you would have us evaluate is missing.

But apart from that, it is absolutely critical that we understand the role of science. Science is seen as having a methodology, it involves logic, and it is not applicable to all of the interests of mankind.

For example, science may be able to determine, of a rose petal, precisely what shade of red it is. But it can't determine if it is beautiful.

It can determine, using the methods of social science, what percentage of a set of people think it is beautiful.

Similarly, the issues of morality, and the social issues of crime and punishment, are, in a democracy, at least in theory, a matter of what the majority of people think is harmful to the society, and if they think that a particular set of beliefs is harmful, should it be punished? And if it should e punished, how.

In any society, democratic or not, it is one or more people in power who decide these ethical matters.

And underlying all law is the unproved assumption that writing a law, informing people of its meaning, and then punishing those who disobey it, will act as a deterrent.

The basis of the decision is usually based on some principle, such as

- this behavior (e.g. thinking there is no god) is harmful to
- me, or
- the group with which I identify, or
- the entire population of my nation, or
- the entire human population, or
- the health of the planet, or
- the peace of mind of some imaginary being, or
- other.

But if you wouldn't mind cleaning up your question, Stone, we can take a crack at it.

[JFrankA]

If I may, I'd like to make a little adjustment to your statement, my adjustments are in italics:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How would you theolistically evaluate or justify the following statement?


It is wrong to hang a person from a tree until dead solely because they are a homosexual.

Is this statement true in any meaningful way?

Am I justified in believing this statement?

Ought I to believe in this statement?


The reason why I ask is because if you are argueing that there is no morality without a supreme being, then how do you answer your own questions?

Before you answer, I do have an answer. Now to be clear, this is not my personal answer, because, being an atheist, I have no idea what morals are.

Therefore, I did a search on the internet, and I found the website of a church called Westboro Bapist Church. They say emphatically that AIDS is a cure for homosexuality. That homosexuality (and fornication and adultry (including divorce) is wrong and anyone practicing such acts are morally wrong in the eyes of god. Therefore, it is my guess that they would say that it wouldn't be "wrong to hang a person from a tree until dead solely because they are a homosexual".

I will make an assumption here, because I haven't had a chance to read their website since I am at work. So I am assuming that atheists would fall into that catagory of okay to "hang a person from a tree until dead solely because they are an atheist". Again, an assumption on my part. I will check my facts when I am home.

Now they claim, without any doubt, getting their morals from god himself. Whether they would hang atheists or not is irrelivent. The morals handed from god himself tell them that people who get AIDS deserve to suffer and that the US troops in Afganistan and Iran deserve to die.

So now here are my questions:

Given that this is morality from god himself, is the Westboro Bapist Church's morality it different from yours?

If it is, why would god give you one set of morals and the Westboro Bapist Church a different set?

Now I am assuming that the statement you are trying to argue is this: Morality only comes from god and/or the belief and worship of god, therefore atheists can not have any morality.

If that is true, then since I disagree with the Westboro Bapist Church's set of morals and think they are not moral in their beliefs, who has more morals? I couldn't have more morals because I'm an atheist, but then again, they can't either because do think it's moral that it's okay for people to die horribly and they get their morals from god.

Do both of us have morals or do both of us have no morals?

Let's say a theist agrees with me and not the Westboro Bapist Church, did I just get morals or does that theist who agrees with me has none?

...I have more questions, but I'm curious to your answers on these first.

[Tricky]

If I may, I'd like to make a little adjustment to your statement, my adjustments are in italics:



The reason why I ask is because if you are argueing that there is no morality without a supreme being, then how do you answer your own questions?

Before you answer, I do have an answer. Now to be clear, this is not my personal answer, because, being an atheist, I have no idea what morals are.

Therefore, I did a search on the internet, and I found the website of a church called Westboro Bapist Church. They say emphatically that AIDS is a cure for homosexuality. That homosexuality (and fornication and adultry (including divorce) is wrong and anyone practicing such acts are morally wrong in the eyes of god. Therefore, it is my guess that they would say that it wouldn't be "wrong to hang a person from a tree until dead solely because they are a homosexual".

I will make an assumption here, because I haven't had a chance to read their website since I am at work. So I am assuming that atheists would fall into that catagory of okay to "hang a person from a tree until dead solely because they are an atheist". Again, an assumption on my part. I will check my facts when I am home.

Now they claim, without any doubt, getting their morals from god himself. Whether they would hang atheists or not is irrelivent. The morals handed from god himself tell them that people who get AIDS deserve to suffer and that the US troops in Afganistan and Iran deserve to die.

So now here are my questions:

Given that this is morality from god himself, is the Westboro Bapist Church's morality it different from yours?

If it is, why would god give you one set of morals and the Westboro Bapist Church a different set?

Now I am assuming that the statement you are trying to argue is this: Morality only comes from god and/or the belief and worship of god, therefore atheists can not have any morality.

If that is true, then since I disagree with the Westboro Bapist Church's set of morals and think they are not moral in their beliefs, who has more morals? I couldn't have more morals because I'm an atheist, but then again, they can't either because do think it's moral that it's okay for people to die horribly and they get their morals from god.

Do both of us have morals or do both of us have no morals?

Let's say a theist agrees with me and not the Westboro Bapist Church, did I just get morals or does that theist who agrees with me has none?

...I have more questions, but I'm curious to your answers on these first.

Um... before you go holding Westboro Baptist Church as an example, you should know that it is a satire site.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just a minor point:
Who are "they" ?
And how can "they" be "an" anything?

It's plural, so it can't refer to "a person". So it seems the first part of that which you would have us evaluate is missing.
It's completely acceptable in certain speech registers to use "they" this way. The language lacks a gender neutral singular pronoun for "a person", and the technically correct ways of resolving the problem can be seen as sexist or overly formal for this particular register.

Using "they" this way wouldn't be acceptable on a formal paper but certainly would be acceptable in published fiction and informal conversation.

At any rate, I have no doubt whatsoever that the antecedent of "they" in this case is "a person". I think it's disingenuous to claim that you had difficulty parsing the sentence.

Fair is fair.

[godless dave]

Um... before you go holding Westboro Baptist Church as an example, you should know that it is a satire site.

Westboro Baptist Church is definitely not satire. You may be thinking of Landover Baptist Church.

[JFrankA]

Um... before you go holding Westboro Baptist Church as an example, you should know that it is a satire site.

The church itself is not a satire. It's preacher, Preacher Fred Phelps is not kidding in any way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

Here's the wiki on the church itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

[Stone Island]

The reason why I ask is because if you are argueing that there is no morality without a supreme being, then how do you answer your own questions?

Before you answer, I do have an answer. Now to be clear, this is not my personal answer, because, being an atheist, I have no idea what morals are.

1.) No, I'm not.
2.) I know what Judaism is, but I'm not a Jew. Remember, atheism doesn't have to be stupid.

[Tricky]

Westboro Baptist Church is definitely not satire. You may be thinking of Landover Baptist Church.

The church itself is not a satire. It's preacher, Preacher Fred Phelps is not kidding in any way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

Here's the wiki on the church itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Ah. Dave is right. I was thinking of Landover. Westboro is a lot more outrageous than any satire.

[Stone Island]

So, to conclude, Abrahamic religions teach that we are incapable of judging what is and is not moral. There is no "objective" morality, or if there is, we are incapable of knowing it.
If that is indeed the case, then I agree. My cat is incapable on understanding the larger world in which he lives. That doesn't mean that there isn't an objective truth to the matter. I think that Socrates is on to something in the Euthyphro.

[JFrankA]

1.) No, I'm not.
2.) I know what Judaism is, but I'm not a Jew. Remember, atheism doesn't have to be stupid.

So..wait...what is the arguement here?

I thought that the arguement is that atheists can't have morals because morals are brought on only by god.

So maybe I'm confused....Please clearify the arguement for me....

Is the arguement that atheism can't have any morals because there's no god in their lives?

Or is the arguement that atheism can't have any morals because athiest are stupid?

Or is the arguement that only stupid athiest can't have any morals?

If the last one is the arguement, then is the arguement that stupid people can't have morals? Does that include stupid theists?

Finally, why you didn't answer any of my questions......?

ETA: okay, I re-read your response. You didn't answer any of my questions because I have the arguement wrong. So what IS the arguement? What is it you are trying to discuss?

[Stone Island]

Why? Do only objective things have meaning? Analysis of the works of Shakespeare is subjective. Does it not have meaning?

Being killed. Other human beings being killed. Human beings tend not to want to be killed, especially by hanging.


You could read some Hobbes.

For if I should not believe all that is written by Historians, of the glorious acts of Alexander, or Caesar; I do not think the Ghost of Alexander, or Caesar, had any just cause to be offended; or any body else, but the Historian. If Livy say the Gods made once a Cow speak, and we believe it not; we distrust not God therein, but Livy. So that it is evident, that whatsoever we believe, upon no other reason, then what is drawn from authority of men only, and their writings; whether they be sent from God or not, is Faith in men only.

[Stone Island]

So..wait...what is the arguement here?

I thought that the arguement is that atheists can't have morals because morals are brought on only by god.

So maybe I'm confused....Please clearify the arguement for me....

Yes, You're probably confused.

I've only been trying to point out where morals don't come from. The rest is larking about by others, amateur psychoanalysis, and jumping ahead.

Someone said that if I ask a Question A, and then a Question B, that I was going to say, "Ah-ha, you must agree with proposition Z" forgetting that the answer to Question C, which I didn't ask, might lead to nothing of the kind. They said I was rude to try that. Fair enough. Of course, if so, then I suppose it's rude to do it to me. Which didn't stop them, by the way.

[I Ratant]

Let us suppose that I take as the basis of my morality "It is wrong to increase human suffering." That is as objective as any other moral statement. I can then evaluate whether hanging atheists would increase human suffering, or decrease it. As best I can tell, human suffering would increase. ...
.
The suffering of the hangee will increase, but the intent is to reduce the suffering of the hanger, by eliminating a source of irritation to the people at large.
It benefits a greater number, IOW.
Of course, removing atheists from the population is not good for the general growth of the population overall.
Their suffering under the mantle of belief would not be lessened, but maintained.
But would they know that?
If you don't comprehend your suffering, are you suffering?

[JFrankA]

Yes, You're probably confused.

I've only been trying to point out where morals don't come from. The rest is larking about by others, amateur psychoanalysis, and jumping ahead.

Someone said that if I ask a Question A, and then a Question B, that I was going to say, "Ah-ha, you must agree with proposition Z" forgetting that the answer to Question C, which I didn't ask, might lead to nothing of the kind. They said I was rude to try that. Fair enough. Of course, if so, then I suppose it's rude to do it to me. Which didn't stop them, by the way.

Then I call "Shenanigans" on you. You had no real point then, you were looking for an emotional responses.

I say this because:

A) You are trying to point out a negative.

B) You have thrown out to us a statement that will generate an emotional response with the sole purpose of getting one back, in a way that cannot be disputed because you did not propose all the information needed, and indeed, goad on an emotional reaction.

C) Your responses further "pushed the buttons" of those emotions without really trying to debate.

D) Your posts are not clear, you don't actually answer any questions put to you, and you seem to have a lot of incomplete responses.

Sorry, Stone. To me, you are pulling nothing but "Shenanagins" for whatever reason.

[Stone Island]

A) You are trying to point out a negative.
What's wrong with that. There are worse things than trying to clear the ground a bit so that others might build.

[Stone Island]

From Keith Burgess-Jackson (http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/2009/02/henry-david-aiken-on-the-consequences-of-ethical-subjectivism.html):Aiken is confused. The charge is that denying the objectivity of moral judgments has bad consequences. His reply to the charge is that those who deny moral objectivity don't intend to produce bad consequences. Both claims can be true, so Aiken's reply misses the point. What he should have said is that ethical subjectivism can be true even though its espousal has bad consequences. Suppose ethical objectivism is false; should it be affirmed anyway, because it has good consequences? If what may be affirmed or denied is a function solely of the consequences of those actions, then philosophy, which is inquiry for the sake of inquiry, is dead.

[Foster Zygote]

From Keith Burgess-Jackson (http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/2009/02/henry-david-aiken-on-the-consequences-of-ethical-subjectivism.html):

Aiken is confused. The charge is that denying the objectivity of moral judgments has bad consequences. His reply to the charge is that those who deny moral objectivity don't intend to produce bad consequences. Both claims can be true, so Aiken's reply misses the point. What he should have said is that ethical subjectivism can be true even though its espousal has bad consequences. Suppose ethical objectivism is false; should it be affirmed anyway, because it has good consequences? If what may be affirmed or denied is a function solely of the consequences of those actions, then philosophy, which is inquiry for the sake of inquiry, is dead.

Two problematic assumptions on Burgess-Jackson's part:

1. Ethical objectivism has good consequences.

2. Ethical subjectivism has bad consequences.

I'd like to know how he justifies either of the above.

[Soapy Sam]

How would you scientifically evaluate or justify the following statement?

This is clearly wrong.
The plural pronoun "they" should agree with the singular noun "a person".

The correct phrase should read "It only takes one idiot to start a forest fire."

[JFrankA]

What's wrong with that. There are worse things than trying to clear the ground a bit so that others might build.

Very well then. Let me put it this way:

I noticed that you didn't mention my other points in that post.

Prove to me that you are not doing them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ah. Dave is right. I was thinking of Landover. Westboro is a lot more outrageous than any satire.That's one of those problems with religious extremists, you can't easily tell if it is satire or not. ;)

I'm trying to remember who said that if anyone else knows.

[articulett]

Poe's law.

[godless dave]

You could read some Hobbes.

How does the part that's quoted have anything to with what I posted? I'm not talking about authority. I'm talking about morality being based on human empathy and self-interest. "Faith" doesn't enter into it at all.

Here's a question for you, Stone Island. Do you want to be hung from a tree until dead?

[fuelair]

From Keith Burgess-Jackson (http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/2009/02/henry-david-aiken-on-the-consequences-of-ethical-subjectivism.html):Philosophy is but a game of words. Reality cares not one whit about it.

[Stone Island]

How does the part that's quoted have anything to with what I posted? I'm not talking about authority. I'm talking about morality being based on human empathy and self-interest. "Faith" doesn't enter into it at all.

Hobbes argued that political societies were founded on a fear of violent death.

[slingblade]

Hobbes argued that political societies were founded on a fear of violent death.

No, he didn't.

[paximperium]

Hobbes argued that political societies were founded on a fear of violent death.
Lets assume that was the argument...so?

[godless dave]

Hobbes argued that political societies were founded on a fear of violent death.

Then why did you post a quote from Hobbes that had nothing to do with either political societies or fear of violent death?

[JFrankA]

Then why did you post a quote from Hobbes that had nothing to do with either political societies or fear of violent death?

.....'cuz he's trying to prove a negative.... :D

[quarky]

Wait,

isn't Hobbes a stuffed tiger?

[bruto]

Wait,

isn't Hobbes a stuffed tiger?Only when you're watching.

[Meadmaker]

I've only been trying to point out where morals don't come from.

In this thread? Then you had better be more explicit. All I saw was a question about whether or not your statement could be evaluated scientifically, and whether it ought to be believed.

If that was intended to be a comment about the source of morality, or one specific non-source of morality, then you should say that.

[Meadmaker]

If that is indeed the case, then I agree. My cat is incapable on understanding the larger world in which he lives. That doesn't mean that there isn't an objective truth to the matter. I think that Socrates is on to something in the Euthyphro.

For my part, I reached the conclusion that I will choose to live my life believing that there is such a thing as "objective morality" even though I cannot prove that, or even find a rational basis for that assertion.

I was pointing out, in my previous posts, that the existence of a deity doesn't help us in determining what is or is not objectively moral.

The Buddha, asked about the existence of God, asked if God were finite, or infinite. Obviously, the answer was infinite. The Buddha then asked if a human mind was finite or infinite. Obviously, finite. Then, he asked, was it possible for a finite mind to comprehend an infinite one? Obviously, no. His conclusion, then, was that we could not possibly understand what such a being wanted, and that we ought not to worry about it. Indeed, we are incapable of understanding whether or not such a being exists.

In that sense, we are like the cat from your example. We are incapable of understanding the totality of the world around us. Especially, we are incapable of understanding what God would want, or whether God exists. Earlier I asked us to assume, for the sake of argument, that we knew God existed and what He wants us to do. Even if somehow our finite minds could determine that, we still could not know whether those divine wishes coincided with any sort of objective morality.

There may be a God. He may have wishes for us. Those wishes may be correlated with some objective standard of morality. However, there is no way for us to truly know any of these things, any more so than your cat is capable of knowing these things.

I will continue to lead my life as if objective morality exists, and as if I am capable of making moral judgements. Unfortunately, I cannot prove either of those statements. Nevertheless, I will assert, without proof, that atheists ought not to be hung from trees until dead. Furthermore, although I cannot prove that it is wrong to hang atheists from trees, I will continue to use science to study the effects of hanging atheists from trees, and use the knowledge of those effects to inform my moral judgements.

[Meadmaker]

.
The suffering of the hangee will increase, but the intent is to reduce the suffering of the hanger, by eliminating a source of irritation to the people at large.

Well it is certainly difficult to compare degrees of suffering. Is the extreme suffering of the hangee balanced by the relief or pleasure of the hanger(s)?
I would assert that whatever benefit experienced by the hangers could actually be exceeded by other methods that involved no discomfort for the hangees. However, that would lead the thread too far afield.

[I Ratant]

Well it is certainly difficult to compare degrees of suffering. Is the extreme suffering of the hangee balanced by the relief or pleasure of the hanger(s)?
I would assert that whatever benefit experienced by the hangers could actually be exceeded by other methods that involved no discomfort for the hangees. However, that would lead the thread too far afield.
.
The greatest benefit to the greatest number.
A minute or so of discomfort for one, while the majority sinks back into thoughtless bliss.
There's other recourses available other than death to the non-believer that would also benefit the large number of believers.
I think in terms of the intent of the OP, these aren't options, though.

[Herzblut]

Nevertheless, I will assert, without proof, that atheists ought not to be hung from trees until dead. Furthermore, although I cannot prove that it is wrong to hang atheists from trees, I will continue to use science to study the effects of hanging atheists from trees, and use the knowledge of those effects to inform my moral judgements.
(bold is mine)

Hence, it is wrong to hang atheists from trees - unless for the sake of your continued scientific research? How many atheists have you hung in your career? :D

[JFrankA]

Here's something that just struck me:

(Opening up a new can of worms here, I think....)

Let's say there's a theist and an atheist.

They are both is taken to a field with a tree and a lever beside them. The theist is told this: "There is an atheist that has been an enemy of yours in the tree hanging by a rope and standing on a box. If you pull this lever, the box will drop and the atheist will hang by the neck until dead. You will not be charged with any crime and no family will suffer at his death. You have a choice: you can pull this lever or not."

The theist replies, "No." When asked why not his answer is "Because God says that this is a sin, and since it's His law and morality, I shouldn't do this. Therefore, I forgive him in the name of the Lord."

If the theist is not pulling the lever because he was told not to, because a superior being told him not to, is he really moral, or just following the rules because he's scared of what that superior being can do to him? Or does the theist think that by NOT pulling the lever he will get rewarded by this superior being? Or does the theist doesn't pull the lever because he follows god's rules because he loves god? Or is it simple obedience without thought to god? Or is the theist not pulling the lever for the same reason the atheist isn't pulling the lever?


The atheist is told: "There is an theist that has been an enemy of yours in the tree hanging by a rope and standing on a box. If you pull this lever, the box will drop and the theist will hang by the neck until dead. You will not be charged with any crime and no family will suffer at his death. You have a choice: you can pull this lever or not."

The atheist replies, "No." When asked why not his answer is "Because this person would suffer and die. It's against my morals to cause suffering to another human if I can help it. I forgive him."

If morality can only come from god, then why doesn't the atheist pull the lever?

Now here's what I'm pondering: Who of these two people really has the morals? Is it moralistic to follow the rules of someone more powerful than you because of a possible punishment or reward? Is it moralistic to follow the rules someone more poweful than you has set because you love that someone? Is it moralistic to obey rules someone more powerful than you out of simple obedience? And if they can only come from god, why would the atheist not pull the lever? If they don't come from god, where do they come from?



I have my own answers to these questions, but I'd like to hear yours. I feel that Stoney's question is trying to prove a negative and is therefore unprovable. I am hoping this is a better question than the one Stoney put up in the OP. If I have any logic or philosophical errors in my question, please feel free to correct me.

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I feel if we are going to talk about "where do morals come from", we should be doing it with "here it is" rather than "here it is not".

[Autolite]

I have my own answers to these questions, but I'd like to hear yours.


Well, if I were the Atheist I'd put the noose around the theist's neck and leave him standing on the box. If his god wants to spare him, he won't let him fall asleep now will he??? :D

[JFrankA]

Well, if I were the Atheist I'd put the noose around the theist's neck and leave him standing on the box. If his god wants to spare him, he won't let him fall asleep now will he??? :D

...uhm...good point!!!! :D


Okay, let's add to the scenario in both cases that if the person doesn't pull the lever, the person in the noose is released and set free without any harm.......

...I knew I missed something... :)

[Meadmaker]

(bold is mine)

Hence, it is wrong to hang atheists from trees - unless for the sake of your continued scientific research? How many atheists have you hung in your career? :D

It was all in a good cause. Don't you know that anything done in the name of science is acceptable?:D

[Stone Island]

Who of these two people really has the morals?

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I feel if we are going to talk about "where do morals come from", we should be doing it with "here it is" rather than "here it is not".
Neither. Acting out of from authority is no more (or less) moral than acting from the dictates of arbitrary will.

In other words, if God tells a theist not to hang a atheist, He's saying so because that's the right thing to do, whether or not God tells you to do it. A child doesn't necessarily have the facilities to make fully informed moral judgments, thus the necessity of respect for authority, but the authority itself is judged by some further standard.

Also, an atheist must have some reason other than arbitrary will. The will that tells me to love kittens today could tell me to feed them into wood chippers tomorrow. Other than a charge of inconsistency, how would I judge between the two? Unless there is some overarching, objective standard, neither is more wrong (or less right) than the other.

[slingblade]

Neither. Acting out of from authority is no more (or less) moral than acting from the dictates of arbitrary will.

In other words, if God tells a theist not to hang a atheist, He's saying so because that's the right thing to do, whether or not God tells you to do it. A child doesn't necessarily have the facilities to make fully informed moral judgments, thus the necessity of respect for authority, but the authority itself is judged by some further standard.

Also, an atheist must have some reason other than arbitrary will. The will that tells me to love kittens today could tell me to feed them into wood chippers tomorrow. Other than a charge of inconsistency, how would I judge between the two? Unless there is some overarching, objective standard, neither is more wrong (or less right) than the other.


Empathy. If you lack it, you could go from cuddling to chipping.

I cannot. I have sufficient empathy that even the idea of chipping a kitten makes me shudder in imagined epathetic pain. The idea is disgusting to me.

If that changes, it's likely because I've suffered some brain injury or disorder. Not because morality is objective.

[Safe-Keeper]

In other words, if God tells a theist not to hang a atheist, He's saying so because that's the right thing to do, whether or not God tells you to do it.The right thing to do by your subjective and ever-changing standards, you mean?

A child doesn't necessarily have the facilities to make fully informed moral judgments, thus the necessity of respect for authority, but the authority itself is judged by some further standard.Right. We atheists and moderates, and even fundamentalists, judge Yahweh by our society's standards, and discard the teachings we disagree with. Which is why you don't see theists stoning people for gathering twigs on the Sabbath.

Unless there is some overarching, objective standard, neither is more wrong (or less right) than the other. So the fundamentalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army) who interpret the Bible to mean that they should set a town on fire and mutilate the inhabitants are no more wrong than the moderate who sends the townspeople aid?

[I Ratant]

This "Database error" is really getting to be a major PITA!

[I Ratant]

The right thing to do by your subjective and ever-changing standards, you mean?

Right. We atheists and moderates, and even fundamentalists, judge Yahweh by our society's standards, and discard the teachings we disagree with. Which is why you don't see atheists stoning people for gathering twigs on the Sabbath.

So the fundamentalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army) who interpret the Bible to mean that they should set a town on fire and mutilate the inhabitants are no more wrong than the moderate who sends the townspeople aid?
.
Fixed that for you.
MOF, one of the victims of the Salem Witch Panic had a "previous" record.. He'd been denounced for gathering firewood on the Sabbath.
He was the guy that just prior to being hanged as a witch recited the Lord's Prayer correctly, despite everyone "knowing" witches couldn't do that.
Reverend Cotton Mather at the scene dismissed this, as just another act of Satan.

[godless dave]

Also, an atheist must have some reason other than arbitrary will. The will that tells me to love kittens today could tell me to feed them into wood chippers tomorrow.

And I already provided those reasons: empathy and self-interest.

[JFrankA]

Empathy. If you lack it, you could go from cuddling to chipping.

I cannot. I have sufficient empathy that even the idea of chipping a kitten makes me shudder in imagined epathetic pain. The idea is disgusting to me.

If that changes, it's likely because I've suffered some brain injury or disorder. Not because morality is objective.

I'm siding with Slingblade on this one.

Stoney, I'm sorry, your answer doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it's me but first you say that morals can't come from obeying a higher power, nor can they come from arbitrary will.

(And who said that the will of the athiest in the example was arbitrary? In fact, the example stated specifically that the athiest said it was against his morals to cause suffering to another human. I was specificially writing it so that it wasn't just "on a whim" decision. Neither person's decision was meant to be arbitrary.)

So you still haven't answered the question. Where does these people's morality come from? Or is your arguement that there is no morality at all anywhere and it's just an illusion? Or is your arguement that there is no morality in the example I illustrated?

I'm sorry, Stoney, I still think you are twisting negatives and words. Maybe I'm kind of dim, but I do not see where you are going with this.

Now on to Slingblade, I agree with him.

And here's why: (Now, I'm doing this at work - so if I miss anything or I am incomplete or choppy, please tell me and I'll try to clarify). It seems to me that most of us has empathy. I say that empathy comes from Evolution. As humans we can feel sorry for other people and understand what they are going through. That may not save an individual but it does help the species.

If morals come from empathy to others in your species (and indeed, empathy for some other species on the planet), then that means that Evolution has made a brain evolve far enough to actually feel that emotion, and apply it to others outside it's own family/tribe/species.

In fact, Evolution has made a brain that can create morals and why these morals exist (such as a god). Further, the human brain has evolved so that not only can we "see" the morals, we can actually analyze them. Figure out why we feel empathy in one situtation (such as not hanging a person by the neck) and not in another (such as a war, where the is moral belief is to kill the enemy).

So again, Stoney, I disagree with you: IMHO, morals do come from choice. And no, those choices are not arbitrary. The choices are thought out. The choice whether some kind of behvior is moral or not comes from a set of rules that empathy, analyzing thought, communication, imagination and creativity that human's brains has evolved to be able to utilize.

So my conclusion is that morals do come from science. Namely: Evolution.

....And again, this is only my humble opinion. Feel free to correct me if you see some kind of logic error or error in my understanding in Evolution.

[godless dave]

Face it, nobody except people and the kitten (and possibly the kitten's mother if she's around) cares what happens to the kitten. The universe doesn't care. If there is a conscious creator of the universe, she hasn't made her feelings on how to treat animals clear to us. So any opinions about the morality of throwing kittens in woodchippers can only come from humans and kittens, and the kittens aren't talking.

[JFrankA]

Face it, nobody except people and the kitten (and possibly the kitten's mother if she's around) cares what happens to the kitten. The universe doesn't care. If there is a concious creator of the universe, she hasn't made her feelings on how to treat animals clear to us. So any opinions about the morality of throwing kittens in woodchippers can only come from humans and kittens, and the kittens aren't talking.

And far more humans would care than kittens.... :)

[Hokulele]

Now on to Slingblade, I agree with him.


Her.

[JFrankA]

Her.

Oh. Uhm oops. I'm sorry, Slingblade.

...hard to tell the sex of people from this distance.... :)

[Hokulele]

Oh. Uhm oops. I'm sorry, Slingblade.

...hard to tell the sex of people from this distance.... :)


I am pretty sure she isn't terribly offended. You certainly aren't the first, and most likely won't be the last. ;)

[Stone Island]

I'm siding with Slingblade on this one.

Stoney, I'm sorry, your answer doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it's me but first you say that morals can't come from obeying a higher power, nor can they come from arbitrary will.

(And who said that the will of the athiest in the example was arbitrary? In fact, the example stated specifically that the athiest said it was against his morals to cause suffering to another human. I was specificially writing it so that it wasn't just "on a whim" decision. Neither person's decision was meant to be arbitrary.)

So you still haven't answered the question. Where does these people's morality come from? Or is your arguement that there is no morality at all anywhere and it's just an illusion? Or is your arguement that there is no morality in the example I illustrated?

I'm sorry, Stoney, I still think you are twisting negatives and words. Maybe I'm kind of dim, but I do not see where you are going with this.

Now on to Slingblade, I agree with him.

And here's why: (Now, I'm doing this at work - so if I miss anything or I am incomplete or choppy, please tell me and I'll try to clarify). It seems to me that most of us has empathy. I say that empathy comes from Evolution. As humans we can feel sorry for other people and understand what they are going through. That may not save an individual but it does help the species.

If morals come from empathy to others in your species (and indeed, empathy for some other species on the planet), then that means that Evolution has made a brain evolve far enough to actually feel that emotion, and apply it to others outside it's own family/tribe/species.

In fact, Evolution has made a brain that can create morals and why these morals exist (such as a god). Further, the human brain has evolved so that not only can we "see" the morals, we can actually analyze them. Figure out why we feel empathy in one situtation (such as not hanging a person by the neck) and not in another (such as a war, where the is moral belief is to kill the enemy).

So again, Stoney, I disagree with you: IMHO, morals do come from choice. And no, those choices are not arbitrary. The choices are thought out. The choice whether some kind of behvior is moral or not comes from a set of rules that empathy, analyzing thought, communication, imagination and creativity that human's brains has evolved to be able to utilize.

So my conclusion is that morals do come from science. Namely: Evolution.

....And again, this is only my humble opinion. Feel free to correct me if you see some kind of logic error or error in my understanding in Evolution.I'm dashing off to teach, so some thoughts:
Eating snails is disgusting to me. I don't think that that disgust is a morally relevant category.

I don't feel an particular empathy towards cows (for instance). However, there are those who would still argue that I ought not eat them.

Imagine a cannibal society, where people aren't disgusted by the thought of eating other people, and evolution has equipped them in such a way that their society can grow and thrive (either they don't eat each other, or they do so in prescribed ways that don't threaten the social order).

Is there any objective standard that I could appeal to that would have more force than my expression of preference (I would prefer not to be eaten), or empathy (I'm just like you, so don't eat me)?

Empathy and the consequences of moral thought (that it allows us to live together), are altogether besides the point. Why? Because we can always, "But was it good that I did/did not feel empathy in that case?"

Empathy and evolution are arbitrary and capricious because they don't really get down to the basis of moral claims (unless moral claims are essentially subjective). It's not randomness, it's whether you can derive an ought from an is.

[Stone Island]

Evolution isn't science.

Evolution is a nexus of theories and facts. Evolution is a theory that explains more facts than any competing theory.

Science is a method for turning empirical observations (facts) and theoretical connections between those observations into into means of testing those theoretical connections. It also gives us some guide as to what facts we should expect to observe.

[fuelair]

Oh. Uhm oops. I'm sorry, Slingblade.

...hard to tell the sex of people from this distance.... :)She's cool - and does very attractive jewelry!!:)

[godless dave]

Is there any objective standard that I could appeal to that would have more force than my expression of preference (I would prefer not to be eaten), or empathy (I'm just like you, so don't eat me)?

No. And none is needed. Your preference not to be eaten and your empathy with other humans are sufficient to declare it is morally wrong to eat humans.

P1. You are human.
P2. You don't want to be eaten.
P3. There is no reason to think your wants are any more important than anyone else's.
.: You shouldn't eat people.


Empathy and evolution are arbitrary and capricious because they don't really get down to the basis of moral claims (unless moral claims are essentially subjective).

They are the basis of moral claims, and it's obvious that moral claims are essentially subjective.


It's not randomness, it's whether you can derive an ought from an is.

You can't.

[Meadmaker]

In other words, if God tells a theist not to hang a atheist, He's saying so because that's the right thing to do, whether or not God tells you to do it.

And you know this......how?

For extra credit, apply this teaching to Lot's wife and to Abraham and Isaac.

For extra extra credit, apply it to Pharoah. Pharoah was willing to do the right thing and let the Israelites go, but God hardened his heart. It seems to me that God was telling Pharoah what to do specifically because it was the wrong thing to do. Having someone do the wrong thing was part of God's plan, so He made sure it happened, according to His will.

[Undesired Walrus]

'Until dead'?

Is there something less outrageous about only hanging people until they are almost dead?

FWIW Stone, I think Crime and Punishment (And Woody Allen's modified film homage: 'Crimes and Misdemeanors') addressed the questions you have here. I'm fairly cynical about humanity's hubris when it comes to moral statements.

[paximperium]

'Until dead'?

Is there something less outrageous about only hanging people until they are almost dead?
Well hanging me from a tree and blaring Britney Spears at me 24/7 will undoubtedly make me hope I was completely and utterly dead.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is there something less outrageous about only hanging people until they are almost dead?

I noted that earlier--if you hang us until we're almost dead, we atheists tend to just get angry and vengeful.

I think the phrase comes from the wording of capital punishment in the days when hanging was the method of execution.

[bruto]

Here's something that just struck me:

(Opening up a new can of worms here, I think....)

Let's say there's a theist and an atheist.

They are both is taken to a field with a tree and a lever beside them. The theist is told this: "There is an atheist that has been an enemy of yours in the tree hanging by a rope and standing on a box. If you pull this lever, the box will drop and the atheist will hang by the neck until dead. You will not be charged with any crime and no family will suffer at his death. You have a choice: you can pull this lever or not."

The theist replies, "No." When asked why not his answer is "Because God says that this is a sin, and since it's His law and morality, I shouldn't do this. Therefore, I forgive him in the name of the Lord."

If the theist is not pulling the lever because he was told not to, because a superior being told him not to, is he really moral, or just following the rules because he's scared of what that superior being can do to him? Or does the theist think that by NOT pulling the lever he will get rewarded by this superior being? Or does the theist doesn't pull the lever because he follows god's rules because he loves god? Or is it simple obedience without thought to god? Or is the theist not pulling the lever for the same reason the atheist isn't pulling the lever?


The atheist is told: "There is an theist that has been an enemy of yours in the tree hanging by a rope and standing on a box. If you pull this lever, the box will drop and the theist will hang by the neck until dead. You will not be charged with any crime and no family will suffer at his death. You have a choice: you can pull this lever or not."

The atheist replies, "No." When asked why not his answer is "Because this person would suffer and die. It's against my morals to cause suffering to another human if I can help it. I forgive him."

If morality can only come from god, then why doesn't the atheist pull the lever?

Now here's what I'm pondering: Who of these two people really has the morals? Is it moralistic to follow the rules of someone more powerful than you because of a possible punishment or reward? Is it moralistic to follow the rules someone more poweful than you has set because you love that someone? Is it moralistic to obey rules someone more powerful than you out of simple obedience? And if they can only come from god, why would the atheist not pull the lever? If they don't come from god, where do they come from?



I have my own answers to these questions, but I'd like to hear yours. I feel that Stoney's question is trying to prove a negative and is therefore unprovable. I am hoping this is a better question than the one Stoney put up in the OP. If I have any logic or philosophical errors in my question, please feel free to correct me.

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I feel if we are going to talk about "where do morals come from", we should be doing it with "here it is" rather than "here it is not".

I'm not sure whether I might be accidentally or incidentally agreeing with Stone Island on this, but I do believe there's a second option for the theist, which would be to say that religious principle (e.g. God's law, Jesus' teaching, details not so important here) informs his conscience, which makes the judgment on the particular level.

[JFrankA]

I'm not sure whether I might be accidentally or incidentally agreeing with Stone Island on this, but I do believe there's a second option for the theist, which would be to say that religious principle (e.g. God's law, Jesus' teaching, details not so important here) informs his conscience, which makes the judgment on the particular level.

I did include that but I think I worded it incorrectly. I said


Or is it simple obedience without thought to god?


I should have said "Or is it simple obedience to god without any other thought to it?"

But even though the theist might choose not to pull the lever because that's god's law, it's still his choice as to use that as a reason why he didn't pull it.

It's my opinion that morals are based upon choice, and the choices of what is moral or not has a roots in empathy, communication, imagination, creativity and the ability to analyze situtations. Only humans have evolved far enough to do this. And that's why I say that coming up with morals is a part of a species way of surviving. (I don't see any apes or chimps on this forum discussing this. :) ).

The morals may differ from person to person, but all humans ponder, create and choose to follow or not those morals. No other species on Earth does that. Period.

Personally, I don't know what's Stoney's opinion is. I don't think he's been clear. Or, to be fair, maybe he has and I don't see it. But it seems to me he just doesn't answer any questions put to him directly. It looks to me that he's always side stepping the issue to keep himself on the "correct side".

[fuelair]

Hobbes argued that political societies were founded on a fear of violent death.
What did Calvin argue about it?

[Sunstealer]

Although morality has always been viewed as a human trait that sets us apart from the animals, it now appears our closest ancestors share the same scruples.

Scientists have that discovered monkeys and apes can make judgements about fairness, offer sympathy and help and remember obligations.

Researchers say the findings may demonstrate morality developed through evolution, a view that is likely to antagonise the devoutly religious, who see it as God-given. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4632069/Morality-may-have-roots-in-our-primate-ancestors.html

[JFrankA]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4632069/Morality-may-have-roots-in-our-primate-ancestors.html

Wow! Thank you Sunstealer! I can see I might have been wrong on my details, but perhaps I was going in the right direction. :)

[I Ratant]

"Hence, it is wrong to hang atheists from trees - unless for the sake of your continued scientific research? How many atheists have you hung in your career?"
.
Consider the broad spectrum of potential subjects.
The happiest atheist is one who's grown up free of any exposure to the fantasies of the supernatural.
He would be at one end of the subject spectrum.
Then there's those that "tried it once, didn't like it" when exposed to religion, and those that spent way too much effort swanning around through many or all of them before throwing in the towel.
And how about those agnostics?
Should these be included as subjects?

[LarianLeQuella]

Hang in trees until dead? I thought the standard theist answer was to stone until dead.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hang in trees until dead? I thought the standard theist answer was to stone until dead.
Or to burn until stoned?

[JFrankA]

Or to burn until stoned?

Burn what to get stoned?


:D

[JoeTheJuggler]

Burn what to get stoned?
Exactly!

So many of the words for getting high one way or another are the same as being killed one way or another: stoned, bombed, blitzed, fried, totaled, ripped, baked. . .

I propose from now on, when you want to refer to being drunk, you should use "hanged from a tree" or better yet "crucified".

[bruto]

I did include that but I think I worded it incorrectly. I said



I should have said "Or is it simple obedience to god without any other thought to it?"

But even though the theist might choose not to pull the lever because that's god's law, it's still his choice as to use that as a reason why he didn't pull it.

It's my opinion that morals are based upon choice, and the choices of what is moral or not has a roots in empathy, communication, imagination, creativity and the ability to analyze situtations. Only humans have evolved far enough to do this. And that's why I say that coming up with morals is a part of a species way of surviving. (I don't see any apes or chimps on this forum discussing this. :) ).

The morals may differ from person to person, but all humans ponder, create and choose to follow or not those morals. No other species on Earth does that. Period.

Personally, I don't know what's Stoney's opinion is. I don't think he's been clear. Or, to be fair, maybe he has and I don't see it. But it seems to me he just doesn't answer any questions put to him directly. It looks to me that he's always side stepping the issue to keep himself on the "correct side".

Maybe I didn't state it properly, but I was trying to say that most theists I've known would agree that the choice comes down to themselves, and to their own understanding. The main difference comes down to the source of the rules we're understanding and acting on, but however we claim to have been informed of what the right thing is, doing it or not doing it is a choice, and plenty of religious people accept that responsibility, and perform more or less the same analysis that would be performed by an atheist, just using a different vocabulary.

[arthwollipot]

Exactly!

So many of the words for getting high one way or another are the same as being killed one way or another: stoned, bombed, blitzed, fried, totaled, ripped, baked. . .

I propose from now on, when you want to refer to being drunk, you should use "hanged from a tree" or better yet "crucified".I used to say "Man, I'm stoned as a heretic..."

[sleepy_lioness]

Where does God say it's wrong to feed kittens into a wood chipper? The God of the Old Testament, at least, seems rather keen on animal sacrifice.

[Evolved Wookie]

Well hanging me from a tree and blaring Britney Spears at me 24/7 will undoubtedly make me hope I was completely and utterly dead.

Britney Spears, or the music of Britney Spears?

...it may be a moot point...

[Evolved Wookie]

Where does God say it's wrong to feed kittens into a wood chipper? The God of the Old Testament, at least, seems rather keen on animal sacrifice.

But not on wood-chippers. There was no wood-chipper on the ark, as far as I know. Obviously they are the invention of Satan and all his little wizards. That's why it's wrong; not because of the kitten-smoothie result (<Homer>Mmmmm - vanilla-tabby...</Homer>), but because of the method. Mash your kitten by hand, like the good lord intended, and everything's fine.

[Beerina]

How would you scientifically evaluate or justify the following statement?

It is wrong to hang a person from a tree until dead solely because they are an atheist.

Is this statement true in any meaningful way?

Am I justified in believing this statement?

Ought I to believe in this statement?


Well, for pure logic, it could be tautologically true, as it could be for any statement. After all, any secondary statement, such as he murdered people for fun and profit, is, all by itself, sufficient to warrant execution (in the standard argument anyway.) So it's sufficient in-and-of-itself, and thus whether you're an athiest or think Minnie Mouse is da bombshell is logically irrelevant.

It really has meaning only if there is some other statement that, itself, is not sufficient to warrant the death penalty, but, when combined with athiest, is.


I don't think there are any such statements.

[Skeptic]

Is it wrong to hang a person from a tree until dead solely because they are an atheist?

Uh...YES!

I mean, duh.

Now you tell him.

[Skeptic]

I'm just trying to critically illustrate the limits of science in a friendly and lively way.

Wondering if atheists should be hanged from trees doesn't seem a "friendly" example.

Nor a "lively" one, for that matter.

Anyway, Socrates had the answer already, 2500 years ago, in the Eutyphro: does God hate hanging the innocent because it is wrong, or it is wrong because God hates it?

If the latter, then if God likes killing babies and cannibalism, killing babies is moral, as well as cannibalism, since God's likes and dislikes determine what is moral.

If the former, then ethics, and good and bad, exist independently of God, and we therefore can investigate them without reference to God.

Perhaps the investigation is not scientific, but philosophical; perhaps it is difficult; but we simply don't need God to decide why, or if, hanging innocents is wrong.

[linusrichard]

Wondering if atheists should be hanged from trees doesn't seem a "friendly" example.

Nor a "lively" one, for that matter.

Anyway, Socrates had the answer already, 2500 years ago, in the Eutyphro: does God hate hanging the innocent because it is wrong, or it is wrong because God hates it?

That seems like a pretty false dichotomy. Or - if it's a good dichotomy, it rests on some other assumptions.

Putting those assumptions aside, there's no reason morality can't flow from God without it being tied to His tastes. Perhaps God likes hanging the innocent despite the fact that it is wrong. Perhaps hanging the innocent is wrong despite the fact that God likes it. Perhaps God likes doing certain things, but doesn't want you doing them. Perhaps God wants some people doing some things, but doesn't want others doing those things. Perhaps God wanted people to do some things B.C., and other things A.D.

When you're dealing with made-up nonsense like "God," anything is fair game - you don't have to confine your made-up God to rules like "what He hates corresponds to what is wrong" or whatever.

Perhaps the investigation is not scientific, but philosophical; perhaps it is difficult; but we simply don't need God to decide why, or if, hanging innocents is wrong.
And that of course is absolutely correct.

[Herzblut]

Is there any objective standard that I could appeal to that would have more force than my expression of preference (I would prefer not to be eaten), or empathy (I'm just like you, so don't eat me)?

I think you should replace "objective" by "absolute" to make sense, since "objective morality" is a contradiction in terms.


Empathy and evolution are arbitrary and capricious because they don't really get down to the basis of moral claims (unless moral claims are essentially subjective). It's not randomness, it's whether you can derive an ought from an is.
The human capability to feel empathy or disgust has evolved biologically. How this manifests itself in a particular person is mainly a matter of the moral codex which has been implanted in her by a process called "education". Hence, morality is encoded culturally but uses capacities which are grounded in our biology, where else would they be found? Of course, history has shown that our moral "senses" are far from being perfect. But, perfection is unreachable anyway.

[tornado]

Hang em all...let God sort them out.

[slingblade]

Hang em all...let God sort them out.


You think I should be hanged? On what basis?

[Foster Zygote]

Hang em all...let God sort them out.

Yeah, you already said that last week.

[Stone Island]

I think you should replace "objective" by "absolute" to make sense, since "objective morality" is a contradiction in terms.
I appreciate your point, but I mean objective.

[Foster Zygote]

You think I should be hanged? On what basis?

I had a look at some of tornado's posts. I suspect one of the verbs you used may be inapplicable.

[TraneWreck]

Well, if we're being strictly pragmatic here, it kinda makes sense to "hang Atheists from trees until dead". What's the point in leaving them hanging for any amount of time after they're dead???

Feed crows?

[remirol]

You think I should be hanged? On what basis?

That it's improbable that you could be hung?