Full of joviality

So late this week I was laughing at Darwinists, and before that I was laughing at atheists trying to express moral outrage. I'm gonna keep chuckling at the latter, embodied by Larry Clapp from CFI, today.


If you define something as "good" because God commands it, then it's arbitrary

Well, 'arbitrary' is sorta right. God has been and forever will be the same. So since He's always been this way, from eternity "ago", it kind of drains the meaning of arbitrary from the term. He is the only objective standard that I've encountered, and you certainly haven't presented one. God commands what is in accord with His nature, not out of some standard extraneous to Him.
Without Him, everyone is a morality of one, and can change their morality at will. THAT'S arbitrary.


But again and again (and again and again and again ...) he insisted on having reasons, which everyone took great delight in shooting down.

But again, you don't have a good reason to say "if you don't have a good reason and can't be consistent with your stated reasons, you should change your approach". Maybe he believes that it's moral and proper to act consistently inconsistently with his stated reasons. You have no access to that, and you can't tell him he's wrong. You're stuck, in a morass. The next time you encounter a pædophile in the middle of raping a child, all you can consistently do is say "I don't like that" and then infringe on his personal morality and rights by trying to stop him. When you do that, you're acting as if you were a Christian. And then you wonder why I scoff at atheism.


by definition, no atheist can be good, not even theoretically.

Now you're changing the topic. This has never been about atheisTs. It's been about your worldview.

Now let me tell you a story, similar to what you told me:
Long ago, men looked around and they saw that eating ice cream indiscriminately led to gaining weight, which they didn't like. They said "don't do that". They saw that eating broccoli led to lower weight, which they liked. They said "do that". They found that doing some things led to stuff they liked and other things led to stuff they didn't like. They encouraged the former and discouraged the latter. Somewhere along the way, they said "This isn't just me saying this, it's the gods saying this! You should obey!" Holy writ, and our "moral sense", is just (ha!) thousands of years of condensed good (and sometimes not so good) sense. But at its core it's just people talking to people, and people agreeing on certain things. Agreement. Between people. That is all.


Anyway, this is completely inadequate. You've begged the question (again) by using the word "good sense". You are unable to differentiate between current Western society, Nazi Germany, and my scenario. In fact, in my scenario, the exact same thing happened as you described, only what led to order and what the society liked was actually stealing little girls from other tribes, raping them, and killing them, leaving their bodies to rot in the jungle. So by your own logic, that's totally fine. Good luck with that.

Atheists wrangling about morality - it's just funny

A CFI commenter named 'theclapp' has succumbed to the temptation to debate with me about certain things related to morality and atheism. He doesn't know better yet. ;-)

Anyway, he asked me to take our discussion elsewhere, I offered my blog, here we are. The thread in question deals with whether an atheist rapper is right or wrong to make offensive statements and slurs and epithets against homosexuals in his rap lyrics. The whole thing just makes me chuckle at the large-scale display of cluelessness. They have no grounding for any moral statement they make, but that doesn't stop them! No sir. Morality of one? Why the hail not just throw out some touchy-feely subjective "I don't like this (oh, and I also don't like lobster 'cause it tastes funny)" type of statement and see if anyone will swallow it? It generally goes unchallenged b/c most US and UK atheists hold to a vaguely biblical ethic, but what possible answer would they have if they were to encounter some actual diversity of opinion?
So here is the summation of my interaction with theclapp:

Original post: Should atheists, and those involved in the "atheist movement" (which overlaps the humanist, skeptic, freethought, etc. movements), be concerned if an avowed advocate for atheism expresses such views? Should atheist organizations withhold support, and individual atheists who disagree turn their backs?

Another question: If someone does not rely on tradition or religious authority to form ethical views, are there any good reasons (besides "I find it yucky") to be so virulently homophobic?

Rhology: You act inconsistently with your atheism when you make moral judgments of any kind that you expect or imply should be or are normative for anyone else. I also chuckle when I see atheists engage in moral debate like this - it’s all “I like chocolate ice cream” vs “yeah? Well, I don’t”.

...

Rhology: Let me ask you guys a question.
How do you know when something—anything—is true?

theclapp: Like everyone, I have certain axioms that I believe to be true without proof. One of them is that I exist. One is that I can learn about reality via my senses. And one that I’m debating, but having a hard time putting into words, is that truth does not exist, only consistency. I cannot say that X is true, only that it appears consistent or inconsistent with other axioms, theorems, and hypotheses, which (hopefully) are consistent with reality.

Theists like to ask atheists “how can you talk about morality when you have no objective reference for it?” (by which they mean, a deity, usually their deity, usually the being portrayed in the Bible). “If you have nothing objective to rest your theories on, then it’s just ‘what I like’ and ‘what I don’t like’.” I object (hah) to this on a couple of points. First, I rest my theories on observed reality, which is as objective as I can get. Second, as I don’t accept the Bible as divinely inspired (much less dictated, as some have claimed), it has just as much (or as little) legitimacy as any other document created by humans.

So here’s the thing. I value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (among other things). I have *observed* that others do too. I have *observed* that slamming an entire class of people frequently leads to a general decrease in the life, liberty, and/or happiness of said class, and occasionally in the person doing the slamming, to boot. I have *observed* that sometimes when people slam groups that don’t contain me, occasionally they get around to slamming groups that *do* contain me. So when people go around slamming homosexuals for no good reason, or for demonstrably false reasons, I object, and I question what good can come of it.

So, in a nutshell, I object to homophobia, especially loud, obnoxious, and unfounded homophobia such as Charlie’s, out of selfishness.

Rhology: It’s good of you to concede that. With some ppl, it’s like pulling teeth. Now, you do realise that most atheists deride Christianity as being “w/o proof” too. So even on your own views, your worldview is on the same level as mine, founded on no proof. (I don’t agree with that, but I’m talking about the implications of YOUR views here.)

Your 2nd paragraph commits the naturalistic fallacy. Let me suggest you look that up, and get back to me.

I value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

And maybe my ethic makes depriving you of those things morally obligatory and praiseworthy. So, which of us is right, and how can we know?

So when people go around slamming homosexuals for no good reason, or for demonstrably false reasons, I object, and I question what good can come of it.

1) Maybe, to me, “atheists are &*^*^&%*%ing pieces of &^*&^&*^” is my idea of doing good to them.
2) Maybe, to me, insulting people spontaneously is a good reason precisely b/c it’s spontaneous and arbitrary.
3) Maybe, to me, ripping ppl on false charges is an expression of love
You might say “you’re messed up”, but that’s what I’m saying to you at the same time. So, who’s right and how can we know?
See, on Christianity, it’s easy to say you’re wrong and to explain how I know it, and I have an objective standard to tell me right from wrong. I want you to explain how, on atheism, that’s possible, b/c I’ve never seen how it is.

theclapp: You said “your worldview is on the same level as mine, founded on no proof”. Well, sort of. As near as I can tell, the actions and values of most atheists and humanists have a higher probability of being consistent with reality than the actions and values of some Christians. (You may or may not fall into that group.)

I skimmed the Wikipedia article on the naturalistic fallacy, and I don’t see where I committed it. I didn’t say “good => natural” and I didn’t say “natural => good” and I don’t think I tried to “draw ethical conclusions from natural facts”. I said I try to remain consistent with reality. I stated my values. I stated that Charlie’s actions conflict with my values and why, and that ergo I would not “support” him. I even stated the foundation of my values: base selfishness.

That said, and on further thought, I suppose I must grant you your initial assertion: it boils down to what you value and why, or as you put it “I like this” or “I don’t like that”. And so I guess the great question is: So?

Regarding your points 1, 2, and 3: You’re free to believe that, of course, but in my opinion such behavior is inconsistent with what I know of the core teachings of Christianity, and by observation such behavior frequently leads to other behavior and actions that go against my values (i.e., however indirectly, they threaten me and mine, including the society I live in), and ergo by both your values (or what I assume as your values) and mine, you shouldn’t do that.

As far as “right” and “wrong”, I agree that neither of us can know, but I disagree that we can’t reasonably extrapolate from observed cause to unwanted effect, and discuss why we do or don’t want such things.

As far as Christianity having an objective standard, in a way, you do: you have a book. The book says certain things. You can act in ways consistent or inconsistent to those things. You can argue and interpret your book in many ways.

But *shrug* there are lots of books. In the end, *you* decide. The Bible can guide you, but *you* make the call:

“No one’s finger is on the trigger [metaphorical or literal] but your own. All the talk-talk in your head, all the emotions in your heart, all the experiences of your past — these things may inform your choice, but they can’t move your finger. All the socialization and rationalization and justification in the world, all the approval or disapproval of your neighbors — none of these things can pull the trigger either. They can change how you feel about the choice, but only you can actually make the choice. Only you. Only here. Only now. Fire, or not?” —Eric Raymond. I don’t agree with everything Eric says, but I think this is an excellent point.

So anyway, you say: “I have an objective standard to tell me right from wrong.” And, from my point of view, it’s as “objective” as any other book written by humans. But Christians accept, as an axiom, that the Bible came from the Christian God. This is not an axiom that I am prepared to accept.

*Since you appear to realize **all** of this*, it puzzles me that you continue to bang your head against atheists and humanists, when you already know from the very beginning that your core axioms differ significantly from ours, and that until you resolve that fundamental difficulty, you will make *exactly zero progress* in changing minds. (... on the other hand, I’m doing it too, by talking to you, like a moth to a freakin’ candle, so I suppose it shouldn’t puzzle me *too* much.

Rhology's final comment on this: I’m glad you feel that way. Moving on.
Don’t rely on wikipedia. Here’s what I mean: it is said to apply to any attempt to argue from an “is” to an “ought,” that is, to argue directly from a list of facts to a claim about what ought to be done.

I don’t think I tried to “draw ethical conclusions from natural facts”.

Of course you did.
You said this in #14 - “I value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (among other things). I have *observed* that others do too.”

I even stated the foundation of my values: base selfishness.

Now, can you tell me whether base selfishness is right or wrong? How do you know?
If you can’t, the fact that you don’t live like you don’t know whether your basic moral presupps are right or not tells me that you don’t value atheism either. It looks like there’s no reason why one would believe atheism beyond simple personal preference.

as you put it “I like this” or “I don’t like that”. And so I guess the great question is: So?

Go back and read the original post and answer So? for me.

You’re free to believe that, of course, but in my opinion such behavior is inconsistent with what I know of the core teachings of Christianity

So? I was asking whether it was right or wrong. Apparently you can’t tell me.

such behavior frequently leads to other behavior and actions that go against my values (i.e., however indirectly, they threaten me and mine, including the society I live in), and ergo by both your values (or what I assume as your values) and mine, you shouldn’t do that.

That’s not the case if I actually blv the things I said I blvd up there. So, just pretend I blv those things. Am I wrong?
And don’t play games. Don’t say “well, it’s wrong for ME”. That is a 100% meaningless statement. Morality is not the dealings with the question “What do I do?” It’s “what SHOULD I do?”

As far as Christianity having an objective standard, in a way, you do: you have a book.

Exactly. A book that doesn’t change, written by a God Who doesn’t change. This is a way in which Christianity has a far superior metaphysics than atheism.

there are lots of books. In the end, *you* decide.

No, God’s existence and communication is my starting point.
In one sense, yeah, I *recognised* its truth, but that doesn’t seem to be what you were saying.

They can change how you feel about the choice, but only you can actually make the choice. Only you. Only here. Only now. Fire, or not?

There’s one more question after that, and you posed it. Let’s say I fire. And the person hadn’t done anythg wrong. As you said, So?

it puzzles me that you continue to bang your head against atheists and humanists, when you already know from the very beginning that your core axioms differ significantly from ours

Yeah, that’s what alot of ‘classical’ apologists don’t seem to realise. But what I’m doing here is showing you the idiocy and poverty of the atheist axioms. If you can’t justify anything about the answers to these questions I’m asking, if you’re going to be consistent, you next have to ask yourself whether, even if atheism is true, one is obligated to believe it. And if not, what that means.
In fact, I already dealt with that very question recently. I encourage you to drop-kick atheism, b/c it’s idiotic.

So, it's up to theclapp now if he'd like to comment here.

Seeking the truth at the Center for Inquiry

Now, to be fair, I don't think DagoRed is a member of the CFI or has any controlling influence on them, but I pause here to note what he said in response to my good faith attempts to engage some atheists in thoughtful conversation on their own turf. You know, asking critical questions, replying to what they say and trying to get to the most rational conclusion. Stuff that atheists give lip service to all the time - finding evidence, parsing arguments, finding the truth.
Well, in my experience, many atheists just want Christians to shut up and want to keep their own religious faith close to the vest rather than engage.

Best if we simply ridicule and poke Rhobology (sic) (#13) with pointy sticks. He is a dull, boring, and VERY tedious fundagelical apologist troll who posts all over the place, and is simply looking for material to post at his own blog (he has already posted some slander about CFI). He has no interest in what we have to say. He is merely trolling for comments from nontheists that he will twist, warp, and caricature in a post on his own blog.

When you have nothing, it's best just to slander someone. And notice that I didn't twist, warp, or caricature what he said. I generally prefer to quote ppl as-is and let the product speak for itself. Congratulations, DagoRed, you've spoken.

You get that cross down this instant!!

The Center for Inquiry blog posted an article with a rather offensive title that I found strange, so here are my thoughts. Until today, I'd always thought that an organisation with the name "Center for Inquiry" would be a science society, but I started to be suspicious when the Oklahoma U CFI invited Dan Barker to speak in November. Barker is no scientist - far from it - and certainly no philosopher of science. But, as it turns out, CFI's mission is "to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values." Oh, well that explains Barker. Anyway, on to the comments on the article:


From the Christian side of the aisle...a different perspective.
Why is it your or anyone else's business whether a private enterprise puts up a cross? No one is forcing you to go shopping there. If my local grocer put up a bunch of "worship Satan NOW!!!!" posters, I'd tell the mngr it was lame, share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with him, and hope he'd change his mind. If he wouldn't, I'd go to a different grocery store if it irritated me sufficiently.
I don't understand how putting up a cross demonstrates "disrespect (to) those without religion or those with minority religions". Shall I then think that any positive expression of naturalistic materialism or secular humanism or whatever it is you hold is automatically a disrespect of my own worldview? Not that I mind if you disrespect my worldview; you're wrong, but whether my worldview is "disrespected" doesn't send me running to the nearest newspaper. Why the oversensitive inconsistency?

You said:
Who wants to (shop) where someone else's faith is being pushed down your throat?

1) Apparently you don't. So go shop somewhere else. Let this guy try to make it in a marketplace where he has to compete with others, who might not have crosses in their stores. If you think you can do better, open your own store, and make sure none of your products contain the word "cross" or "Jesus" or "Jesús". Whatever you want.
2) How is hanging a cross on the wall shoving his faith down your throat? I suppose ABC News' showing the Pope's visit to the White House is shoving Romanism down your throat too.


Does this mean that a manager who lacked belief in the supernatural would be less qualified to manage the store?

You should know as well as I do that they were almost certainly referring to the man's Christianity-based integrity, sense of fair play, and honesty.


"If the Jews feel offended, They should, thats called guilt"

He might have been referring to the whole Christ-killer thing, true. And why not?
Matthew 27:24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.” 25 And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” 26 Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.

"Christ-killer" is not a Christian invention; it's a Jewish invention. Of course, the Romans share responsibility with the Jews for the immediate, physical occurrence of the execution of Jesus. But,
Romans 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
John 10: 17 (Jesus said:) “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18 “No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”

In the grand scheme of things, *I* killed Christ b/c He chose to give Himself as a substitutionary sacrifice, an atonement for all the lawbreaking I've done. All the believers, Jewish, Roman army, and other Gentile, through history receive this benefit and thus also share in this (propitiated) guilt.


I'm not personally offended by the crucifix

Well, you seemed sort of bent out of shape that it was "shoving faith down (your) throat".


how inappropriate everyone might find it if above the service desk were a statement pushing a lack of belief in a god.

Then everyone who found it inappropriate would be free to shop elsewhere, wouldn't they? If it's YOUR property, you have the right to post whatever you want, and statements about faith and worldview are not indecent like a pornographic image would be. So, no, that wouldn't be inappropriate. Maybe you could start an atheist grocery store.


since the store is taking government funds to open a location downtown.

ISTM a lot of private enterprises take gov't funds for similar things. Maybe you should petition your gov't to add a proviso in future business dealings to that effect. But it's still a private enterprise.


Afterall, what business wants to display something in a very prominent place that may offend a minority of its customers(?)

This one. And if it thrives long-term in the very competitive and difficult grocery business, the answer to your question would be "a successful one".

Overall, it sounds like you were kind of desperate for material for today's blogpost, and spiced it up with a pretty offensive title. Why not try a little more tolerance in the future? It's good for those ulcers too.