Is Christianity Good for the World? Hitchens debate...

[Justin A]

Thanks for the link. Just read through the whole thing and it helped me clear up my thinking on some matters.

[LooseCaller]

[ QUOTE ]


What I'm really trying to point to is that rationality and morality require an absolute person. If the source of morality is located in the relative (person,society, etc.) though there is certainly a practical utility that results, there's no real, binding obligation, no fundamental oughtness. On what basis do you say Hitler was wrong or evil? By Ben K's definition, once Hitler established control (by might), German society could follow his dictates and be in compliance with morality.
...
Our moral sense is meaningless apart from the existence of ultimate morality and that must be personal. Otherwise, there's really no way to distinguish Hitler from Ghandi.

[/ QUOTE ]

although, this is somewhat similar to banging my head against a wall, i cant help myself.

WHY THE [censored] DOES YOUR POINT [censored] MATTER AT ALL? GOD DAMNIT, YOU ARE SO [censored] NITTY ABOUT EVERY [censored] POINT PEOPLE MAKE.

you cant come into a debate, tell people that you're not going to say what morality is, other than some making some obtuse claims about god, and then accuse every non-believer of not being able to prove hitler was worse than ghandi. why does anyone need to prove that he was under the relativist model that you say we use? we all think hitler was horrible, why do we need to prove to you something all agree on? this argument is completely unnecessary and establishes nothing.

why do we need "fundamental oughtness?" there are an infinite number of scenarios for moral decisions and there is absolutely no way to create (and remember) strict rules for all of them. in many cases, you are forced to use judgment and im certain that you exercise pragmatic decision making in regards to gray areas in christian doctrine. in this sense, you are being a relativist, because you must acknowledge that people think differently. does this mean taht your decisions are not moral?

please directly answer these questions
1) why do we need universal morality? why is it better than the current system?
2) why does it matter if i cant prove to you that 100% prove to you that stalin or hitler were bad people? as a theist, you obviously believe pretty strongly in things you cant prove 100%.

[Ben K]

Chill, dude.

This thread has finally confirmed to me that one can reject religion on moral grounds as well as the rest of them. Their lack of answers is just as revealing as some suspect argument about how good god is (or might be if he were actually around)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1) why do we need universal morality? why is it better than the current system?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm giving up. People either don't understand or don't want to understand a very simple argument that has been made by philosophy and theology for hundreds if not thousands of years. I got the argument almost instantly the first time I heard it and I'm no genius.

So from now on my moral argument will consist of the following:

Read C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity and Abolition of Man.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]


This thread has finally confirmed to me that one can reject religion on moral grounds as well as the rest of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The moral argument against theism is a strong one. How it ends up playing out on the street - you may act in a moral manner as a theist if your actions happen to fit the situation reasonably well ( which they often will), but you can't BE moral because of the flaw in the concept of absolute morality and personal gods.

If the situation isn't too complex, a theist will usually be doing the right things for the wrong reasons. For those that contend they would be psychopathic without their theology, it may work out better than having them loose, but most people would come to better moral decisions if they didn't have the theistic filter to get through.

luckyme

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Hitchens proves a point I've often repeated here, that all atheistic worldviews reduce to pragmatism

[/ QUOTE ]
NotReady,

Forget God. Answer me some questions:

- What makes a chocolate milkshake different from a muffin?
- What makes responsibility different from carelessness?
- Could you convince a child that breathing is evil?

I look forward to your response.

[NotReady]

What makes a chocolate milkshake different from a muffin? yes
- What makes responsibility different from carelessness? yes
- Could you convince a child that breathing is evil? huh?

[Ben K]

Yeah, well, for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years the idea that there is no god was almost inconcievable. No-one would want to say their god was bad so given his infinitness and your desire not to worship a bad god, it's only natural your god becomes the standard for an ultimate morality. Doesn't get you any closer to reality though does it?

We are, after all, merely trying to discuss the issue and come to some understanding of each others viewpoints. Whilst the real-world application of the moral guidance process I've proposed can be demonstrated, yours cannot. You may even be correct in that (should there be a god) god is the ultimate standard for morality. However, it doesn't help you on a day to day basis. If it does, perhaps you could explain how.....

I guess I'd better put Lewis on my reading list. I hope it's good.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Chill, dude.

This thread has finally confirmed to me that one can reject religion on moral grounds as well as the rest of them. Their lack of answers is just as revealing as some suspect argument about how good god is (or might be if he were actually around)

[/ QUOTE ]

As most of you are aware, my view of Religion is a bit different than NotReady's. Also my view on the best approach to Christianity is different from his. I've been following this thread and thinking about what everybody has been saying.

I argued on Slansky's Suicide Mission thread that the secular basis on which we have adopted a sense of Morality is the idea of putting ourselves in the place of the other person. I realize this is debatable, although nobody directly addressed it in that thread. It seems to me this is the same basis for Buddhist morality. They express the same idea in terms of Compassion. I think Jesus expressed the same idea in terms of "Love" and the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". For a kind of neutral terminology, lets refer to this as the "Empathy" basis for determining moral issues.

Some may argue that the real basis for our secular determination of what's Moral is utilitarian rather than "Empathy". What code of morality will produce the most benefits or utility for our society? They may argue that it is only coincidental that the Empathy Basis and the Utilitarian Basis coincide, and when they disagree the Utilitarian should dominate. Or they might argue that they always agree but it is only coincidental that they do.

For those who agree with the Empathy Basis for morality they can argue that the source for this Basis is not Religious but the result of evolution. We have come to have an innate sense of the legitimacy of the Empathy Basis because it has proved evolutionarily advantageouw to have such a sense as a species. This is in my opinion the most interesting argument to look at.

Looking at the historical evidence for the Evolution of an Empathic Basis for morality it raises questions in my mind. Why has this Basis been so poorly applied through history? It seems to be in conflict with something else in our natures whereby specific codes of morality for past cultures appear contrary to it, at least in some parts. Why has it been so inconsistently applied? Why have we needed leaders like Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Ghandi to remind us and focus our attention on it? It doesn't appear to me to be a strictly Evolutionary process involving natural selection. It looks to me like history shows us it has been more what I would call a Spiritual Evolutionary Process.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


but even if god exists and someonehow that means ought exists and the bible is as god wishes it to be, it doesn't follow that we ought to do what it says in the bible.



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



Yes it does.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it doesn't. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

chez