Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity is Morally Bankrupt
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(5)
Message 204 of 652 (695055)
04-02-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by GDR
04-02-2013 10:31 AM


It's important
An atheist believes that there is no intelligent agent period.
Not really. I'm sure that it can seem this way. But this isn't really how I feel about it, anyway.
Perhaps an atheist just doesn't think the question merits a response. Because (to the Atheist) it is... an unnecessary question.
as a starting point you have to look at whether you conclude that there is any intelligent agent responsible for life.
Why?
Why do we have to look at concluding whether or not an intelligent agent is responsible for life?
When watching a hockey game on TV, we do not have to look at concluding whether or not the game is happening live, or with a 7 second delay, or with a 10 minute delay, or with a 6 year delay.
It may be important to some people.
But it's not important to all people.
It is also not important in order to enjoy the level of hockey that is being displayed on the TV.
I don't think anyone has to conclude anything about whether or not an intelligent agent is responsible for life.
Your claim as an atheist is that incredibly complex cells somehow formed from non-intelligent particles and then evolved into incredibly complex life forms some of which are intelligent and capable of morality all without any pre-existing intelligence being involved. What evidence or rationale do you have for making this case.
We are here.
We are able to understand and observe some natural stuff (processes, growth, decomposition, systems, physics, chemistry...).
We are able to understand and observe some natural stuff that yields incredible, wondrous results.
Out of the natural stuff we're able to observe and understand, we do not find any indication that an intelligent agent was required at any point in time.
Some of this natural stuff is boring. Like paint drying (...I mean that as a literal example.. wait, maybe not... the physics involved in paint drying is actually kinda cool... phase transitions and stuff). Like dandruff.
Some of this natural stuff is incredibly wondrous. Like computers and the "quantum world" and vision.
Throughout all the stuff we have... every single piece of natural stuff that we've ever been able to understand, and observe has always, without fail shown us that no external intelligence has ever been required. The natural stuff just happens on it's own.
Sure, there's some natural stuff that we are currently unable to understand, or observe as much as we would like due to limitations of our current technology.
However, we have not discovered... *ever*... even a single piece of natural stuff that actually required an intelligent agent to intervene before it could happen all by itself.
I just extrapolate from what we know.
If we are ever able to understand and observe some natural stuff that did actually require an intelligent agent in order to come about in the context of biological life... then I would begin to think that an intelligent agent (creator) may be required. But, we have yet to find this, so I don't begin to think that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by GDR, posted 04-02-2013 10:31 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by GDR, posted 04-03-2013 6:47 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(3)
Message 214 of 652 (695158)
04-03-2013 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by NoNukes
04-03-2013 11:20 AM


Re: Do Unto Others
NoNukes writes:
The golden rule does not suggest that you should your mom an X-box for Mother's day because that's what you'd like. Neither does the rule tell us to get an addict more booze and crack because that's what he's sure he'd like. And I think that all of us, including you, know these things.
True. But Tempe 12ft Chicken's examples were just to prove a point. One that you haven't refuted.
The golden rule does not suggest that you should your mom an X-box for Mother's day because that's what you'd like.
Then, what does the golden rule suggest?
Does it suggest that if I would like some charity money when I am poor and bankrupt, then I should give others charity money when they are poor and bankrupt?
Again... this scenario fails if someone does not like receiving charity when they are poor and bankrupt.
And, again, a clearer notion would be to "do unto others as they would like to have done unto them."
Does the golden rule suggest that we should do unto others what they would like done to them, because we like to have done to us what we like?
If so... that's a really roundabout rule that is more clearly put as "do unto others as they would like to have done unto them." ...which is all Tempe 12ft Chicken was suggesting.
If so... why say "do unto others as you would have done unto you" in the first place if this isn't what's actually suggested?
Of course, "doing as others would have done unto them" can be taken literally too much as well.
You could suggest that other like having money given to them, so I should give all my money to them.
But, note, that this would involve hurting myself.
Taking the golden rule too literal and we end up with hurting others.
So, we're left with two rules.
Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done to you
Platinum Rule: Do unto others as they would like to have done unto them
Golden Rule covers basic scenarios.
Platinum Rule covers basic scenarios.
Golden Rule can be taken advantage of and made to seem silly.
Platinum Rule can be taken advantage of and made to seem silly.
However... (for some situations)
Taking advantage of a literal Golden Rule leads to hurting other people. AND... To explain how the Golden Rule should be used then requires the use of the Platinum rule anyway.
Taking advantage of a literal Platinum Rule leads to hurting only yourself. To explain how the Platinum Rule should be used then only requires informing the person not to be stupid.
The Platinum Rule is clearly superior, and it's not silly to point that out.
Except that it was not the rule that fell apart in your scenarios.
Perhaps not by following the spirit of the rule, no. But that wasn't the point. The point was to provide a better, clearer, harder-to-take-advantage-of alternative wording.
Tempe 12ft Chicken says that the Golden Rule falls apart, and we should rephrase as the Platinum Rule.
And you chastise him by saying the Golden Rule doesn't actually fall apart if you apply it in the sense of the Platinum Rule (but still just call it the Golden Rule)?
That sounds like you actually agree with Tempe 12ft Chicken, but just want to keep the traditional name, and wanted to correct him on his... um... non-use of the traditional wording?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 04-03-2013 11:20 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 263 of 652 (697014)
04-20-2013 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Sombra
04-17-2013 11:27 AM


A thread, just for you
Hi Sombra, and welcome to EvC!
I have a few questions about your Skillful vs. Unskillful morality system... but I thought it was starting to get a bit off topic for this thread.
I've started a new one here:
A Skillful Morality
You can reply there, if you're interested.
Might have to wait for it to get promoted first, though... nevermind, it's good to go.
Hope you like it around here, it's a pretty fun place.
Edited by Stile, : I'll edit you. Straight to... um... editorial storage. Or something. Take that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Sombra, posted 04-17-2013 11:27 AM Sombra has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024