This post is long overdue.
One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of moral outrage aimed towards theists in general and Christians in particular here at The Skeptical Zone.
Judgmentalism, oddly enough, is prevalent. A pungent odor of opprobrium frequently wafts its way forth from the atheist trenches, and it stinks.
Are we all moral realists after all? Do we all now agree on the existence of objective moral values? If so, what are they and what makes them objective?
As for you moral relativists, are there any of you left? Why ought anyone (including especially Erik, Gregory, myself, fifth, William) be subject to the vagaries of what you moral relativists think others ought to be doing or ought not be doing?
Such opprobrium. Based on what, exactly?
If you are going to claim that we have some moral obligation towards you, you really ought to support that claim or retract it.
After all, that’s the intellectually honest thing to do.
I doubt fmm would agree.
“Our” way? fmm would disagree. There is no “our”. Just disagreements you’ve not yet had.
That wasn’t intended as a statement of mung’s position but as a summary of my position. It isn’t, of course, but that’s what he meant.
Just an idea
I can be sure of details when it’s my idea,
How do you know that? please be specific.
peace
Killing Hitler in grade school wold be wrong but could be justified. Don’t you agree?
Rape would also always be horribly wrong but could be justified if the victim was a serial rapist and killer it was absolutely necessary to save the life of everyone in the universe.
Like I said hypotheticals are pretty worthless.
Well if that is your goal you should focus on revelation and not on an idea
peace
I never claimed that the atheists here are deliberately misleading. My money is on self deception.
Regardless I don’t intend to be rude but if telling the truth in love is rude I’ll plead guilty.
Look if you claim to know that God does not exist simply support that claim.
Tell me exactly how you know, Be specific and expect follow up questions
peace
I second that one
peace
Good for him. That means that he and I are in agreement. Now if only you atheists could figure out what you agree on when it comes to morality.
Lets break this down
If God has clearly revealed a moral truth to everyone and there is disagreement on that truth then someone has rejected Gods revelation.
That should be self evident.
It would have to be an area where revelation has been given however
You might be assuming that I am claiming revelation in more areas than I actually am.
peace
Why should people agree?
People who think morality comes from a deity can’t agree. Why should people who think it is derived from personal feelings agree?
What is the point of implying agreement is a reasonable goal?
Actually it’s a summary of the position I thought you were attempting to ascribe to fifth along with my description of where I thought that line of thinking would lead. 🙂
Why should atheists agree about what atheism entails? Oh, I don’t know. Maybe if atheists want atheism to be rationally justifiable they ought to figure something out.
Why does nonbelief need to be rationally justifiable?
If you post that a pig just flew by , do I need a rational justification for disbelieving?
Quite frankly, neither I nor do most people spend their days finding deep rational reasons for disbelieving stuff.
Belief in extraordinary claims is not a particularly smart default position. Just my opinion.
fifthmonarchyman,
I am in a unique position to know my own beliefs. I assure you that belief in a god or gods is not among them. You may assume, by the rules of this site, that I am making that statement in good faith.
Are you claiming that I am being deliberately misleading? That I am ignorant, stupid, mentally ill, or demented?
Mung:
No, I addressed your specific question regarding the basis for opprobrium:
My answer is that there are no objective moral oughts that govern, or should govern, participants at TSZ. The implied premise of your question (“There is an objective moral obligation to do such-and-such at TSZ”) is false.
What is true is that there are both rules and a penumbra of more general expectations regarding debate and the general goals of the site (e.g., sustaining “intellectual honesty,” furthering dialog, etc.) that are no less of human devising than, say, the fact that in chess castling is forbidden if one’s King would move through a square attacked by an opponent’s piece. Meta-expectations such as rule-following and turn-taking are no less human inventions too.
I don’t see the relevance of this distinction. At any rate, much of the protest that occurs at TSZ is, in fact, directed at the referees.
The objections have to do both with the rules and with the more general, implicit penumbra of expectations that attend most conversations, even debates, all of human devising. The opprobrium is perfectly understandable in that context, and needs not resort to “objective” or absolute moral values for intelligibility or validity.
fifthmonarchyman,
I never made that claim. I am telling you, in good faith, that I lack belief in a god or gods. Your claim to the contrary is thereby proven wrong. Please stop making it — it’s rude.
Mung,
That’s easy. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism entails nothing else.
I don’t know about Patrick. But I do not claim to know that.
Not believing something is not the same as believing the converse. Are theists incapable of simple direct discourse?
Reciprocating Bill,
I contend that there is no rule for intellectual honesty on this site, that is fiction. See Lizzie run from the question of what is good, for example.
Really? Why then do atheists act otherwise?
Why do you, for example, consistently ask for an operational definition of God/god? You must have a reason, unless you’re just being irrational. You could say that the reason you ask for an operational definition of God or gods is unrelated to your atheism. But then what’s the point of asking for one?
If it is related to your atheism it must be because atheism entails something. Else, again, you’re just being irrational.
p.s. I think you meant to write atheism entails nothing. Which means it cannot be tested. Congratulations.
Mung,
Indeed it’s not. I ask for operational definitions for many terms under discussion, to make sure I’m using words and concepts in the same way as the other people participating. It enables communication. It’s completely unrelated to my lack of belief in a god or gods.
How exactly do you know that? Is it possible that you are mistaken about your position?
Maybe ignorant. Perhaps deceived.
I think you are intelligent I have no reason to believe you are mentally ill and I would not accuse you of being deliberately misleading.
Do you think there is something objectively wrong with being deliberately misleading?
peace
Can you lack belief in something you know to exist?
peace
Hi Phoodoo –
If you revisit my post, you’ll see that, in addition to rules, I referred to a “penumbra of more general expectations regarding debate and the general goals of the site, (e.g., sustaining “intellectual honesty,” furthering dialog, etc.)”
So you’re right, there is no such rule, nor did I characterize it as a rule.
It clearly has been an aspiration of the site, however. I hope you contribute to same.
fifthmonarchyman,
Please re-read the rules and comport yourself accordingly. I lack belief in a god or gods. Your claim otherwise is wrong. Park your priors by the door and stop being rude. You might learn something.
fifthmonarchyman,
If I have knowledge, belief is unnecessary. If I lack knowledge, belief is irrational.
When can we expect people to stop acting as if there are?
Actually, what I say is that most people here act that way, including atheists, judged by their comments.
Is this in dispute?
If it doesn’t involve any stated or implied moral obligation it’s not relevant, but in the cases in which it does, I think it supports my claim. Even the referees are expected to behave morally (especially so, in fact). The rules of how the game ought to be played are not the same as the rules for how the game ought to be refereed. Referees, for example, are expected to be impartial. Players are not.
It seems to me that your argument consists of the observation that everyone here expects everyone else here to behave in a certain way, regardless of the rules of the site, and when someone does not, others are quite understandably morally outraged. I don’t see how that follows.
Do you deny they involve morality at all? Dishonesty is not perceived to be a moral failing?
These expectations have what as their basis? I see you appealing to them but not explaining them, or how they can provide a basis for opprobrium. The closest you seem to come is to say they are of human devising, and therefore they are not objective.
So you don’t know that God does not exist but you call yourself an
Atheist ” from a- “without” + theos “a god”
Are you saying that you reject God regardless of whether he exists or not?
If you are just saying that you don’t know that God exists why would the proper term not be agnostic?
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
No, that’s not all atheists are saying. We lack belief in a god or gods. See my post on how atheism and agnosticism are orthogonal to each other.
knowledge is defined as justified true belief.
You can’t have knowledge without belief.
also
You can’t have knowledge without truth
God is Truth
Therefore if God does not exist all knowledge is impossible.
Therefore if you know anything at all God necessarily exists.
If you disagree please tell my exactly how you know…… anything
peace
from your atheist post
quote:
I am an atheist. I do not believe that any gods exist.
end quote:
and now
quote:
If I lack knowledge, belief is irrational.
end quote:
let’s see
You don’t claim to know God does not exist but you believe he does not exist.
I rest my case
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I’m not interested in your proselytizing. You made a claim. I proved it wrong. I lack belief in a god or gods. Please stop asserting otherwise now that your claim has been disconfirmed.
fifthmonarchyman,
No, I lack belief. That’s not the same thing.
You are going to have to elaborate. How is your position different than agnosticism?
Do you honestly think there are three categories of belief?
belief
lack of belief
and
unbelief
Is there a quantifiable difference between lacking belief in a global flood and not believing a global flood happened?
I’m agnostic about ET
I strongly doubt they exist but I would not call myself (Without extraterrestrial).
I just don’t have that much emotional baggage tied to my lack of belief in their existence and I have no positive evidence that they don’t exist.
peace
never mind Webster answered my question.
quote:
unbelief — lack of religious belief; an absence of faith.another term for disbelief.
end quote:
peace
Why aren’t you willing to support this claim?
How do you know you lack belief in a god or gods? Be specific please
You haven’t proved anything you have only made an assertion. Assertion is not argument.
I won’t proselytize to you then. See I’m perfectly willing to accede to your wishes.
however I won’t deny revelation and God has revealed himself to you such that you are without excuse. (Romans chapter 1)
peace
Mung:
That’s not the problem. The problem is your mistaking persons behaving within the context of standards, explicit and implicit, of human devising for persons behaving “as if there are [objective moral standards].”
Same mistake.
Again, same problem. Obligations and expectations for conduct may arise from sources other than “objective morality.” The instances I’ve seen here arise from such sources.
I deny protests regarding conduct here necessarily invoke “objective morality” with origins outside of human devising.
Is there something objectively wrong with that sort of mistake? If not why bring it up?
peace
Yes!!
Sigh. If only.
FMM:
That’s entertainment!
It’s certainly possible that I am a biased observer. But anytime someone mentions God your response seems canned, asking for an operational definition. I don’t see this from you in any other such regimented way in any other context. Not saying it doesn’t happen. I may have just failed to take notice.
Given that you have no concept of God or gods, asking others for an operational definition of God to compare with a concept that you lack to make sure you are using the terms in the same way seems a bit disingenuous.
Perhaps I’m not understanding some relevant distinctions.
You do have a concept of God, and you also have a concept of gods. Atheism, for you, is simply a lack of belief in this God or gods.
Is your definition of God an operational definition?
Actually, I don’t call myself an atheist. Other people call me that. My preferred term is “non-religious”.
Many people find the word “agnostic” to be confusing. That’s why I prefer “non-religious”.
That’s wrong.
It’s not the concept of a god which an atheist lacks — although it’s possible that our concepts of god are not exactly the same as yours — if you insist on calling a slightly different concept a “lack”, well there’s no way I can stop you from doing so, but you’d be factually wrong to do so.
It’s the belief that any such concept worthy of the name of “god” is instantiated anyhow which the atheist lacks.
Big difference.
Only if He exists
if God does not exist then premise 1 is false therefore premise 2 is unsupported
Since premise 2 is unsupported premise 3 is unsupported
Non revelation, the same way you do if your presupposition is false.
peace
I like that term. I would probably call myself non-religious as well.
The word “religious” has a lot of negative connotations that I would want to avoid.
peace
Right if he does not exist all bets are off, and knowledge is impossible
No, if God does not exist we can’t know if premise 1 is false or not in fact we can’t know anything at all
No if my presupposition is false I can know absolutely nothing at all.
Please explain how you know no non revelation is true. Be specific.
How is knowledge even possible in your worldview? be specific
peace
fifth,
You were unable to justify that claim, remember? I posed eight questions about your strange attempt at justification, and you couldn’t coherently answer a single one.
Here’s that comment, from September:
Since fifth is understandably reluctant to place his answers next to my questions, where their (in)adequacy as answers can be examined, I’ll do it for him.
Q1. Where was the physical Jesus hanging out during all of the time from creation to his ‘birth’? [You’ve said that incarnation was prior to creation.]
A1. there is no temporal distinction from the perspective of a timeless God
keiths:
Jesus entered into time, so he was no longer timeless. Remember, that’s precisely the reason you gave for why the Incarnation was necessary before creation could happen! Try again to answer the question.
Q2. Was the body living the entire time, or did God only animate it when he wanted to moon someone [Exodus 33] or otherwise muck around with his creation?
A2. John 1:4:
keiths:
That doesn’t answer the question. Try again.
Q3. If looking at the face of God was fatal (Exodus 33:20), and God’s body was really Jesus’s body, then why didn’t the disciples all die from the sight of Jesus’s face? [You confirmed that you believe God’s butt was Jesus’s butt in that passage.]
A3. Philippians 2:6-7:
keiths:
That doesn’t answer the question. If Moses couldn’t see Jesus’s face without dying, why could the disciples?
Q4. If Jesus already had a body, why did the Holy Spirit bother to impregnate Mary?
A4. The Holy Spirit did not impregnate Mary, Mary a virgin conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
keiths:
We’ve been through this already:
The Holy Spirit made Mary pregnant, according to the Bible. It impregnated her.
Try again to answer the question.
Q5. How did the Holy Spirit — a spiritual being — impregnate Mary? You’ve told us that it is “logically impossible” for a spiritual being to interact with the physical.
A5. The Holy Spirit did not impregnate Mary, Mary a virgin conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
keiths:
See above, and try again to answer the question.
Q6. If incarnation is required before physical interactions can take place, as you claim, then it must have been Jesus, not the Holy Spirit, who impregnated Mary. So Jesus impregnated Mary to produce Jesus the Fetus. Setting aside the incest, would you care to explain how that worked? [I am not saying that Jesus boinked Mary. I’m pointing out that by your logic, he must have somehow carried out the impregnation, since you claim that only an incarnated being could do that. How did it work?]
A6. The Father sent the Son by the power of the Spirit. God is a Trinity
keiths:
That doesn’t answer the question. How did [the physical] Jesus impregnate Mary with himself as the zygote?
Q7. Did Jesus’s body — the one he used to moon Moses — somehow get shrunk and implanted into Mary? [Or did it poof out of existence the moment the Zygote Jesus was created in Mary’s womb? Or did both physical Jesuses coexist for a time?]
A7. How did the body of Jesus walk on water get through locked doors and instantly appear before Paul on the Damascus road and stand before John on an island in the middle of an ocean? It was a miracle ,duh
keiths:
I asked what happened, not how it happened or whether it was a miracle. Try again.
Q8. Why haven’t you asked these questions yourself? Why are you so gullible?
A8. Mostly because they are the sort of silly juvenile questions an early teenage apostate would ask and I’m not that simple minded
keiths:
These “silly juvenile questions” appear to have you completely flummoxed. Would you like to try again?
An appeal to the Christians reading this thread: Can any of you do a better job of defending the faith than fifth? If so, please join the discussion. Or if you know of a competent apologist, please ask him or her to join in.
Moved a couple of posts to guano. Could I reiterate Lizzie’s point that queries and complaints about moderation need to be posted in the moderation issues thread.
fifthmonarchyman,
Over and over and over. This is the dog-eared trump card of the theist. Object to anything in the conduct of another, and one gets the same, with varying degrees of sneer: “what – you think there is something wrong in my doing X, heh heh?”. [Lean back, steeple fingers, adopt smug expression].
And to me pointing this out, the reply would be, of course: “You think there is something wrong with playing that card?” Check, and mate …
I’ve also noticed this as a tactic of fifth’s, doubly so on the “Thor” quote mining incident. Just enough quoted to make it seems as I’ve I actually said what fmm want’s me to have said.