So many atheists are ruled by emotion

It's amazing how easy it is to reduce atheists to a miserable mass of quivering feeling, devoid of reason or common sense.

All I did was tweet this:

@StevenZoeller I admit to curiosity as to why an atheist would find rape and bullying morally reprehensible.
— Rhology (@Rhology) November 24, 2014

And got a firestorm!
My favorite tweet in the ruckus was this one:

@buffsblg @cherokee_autumn @StevenZoeller Yet you just said our society changes. Maybe someday rape will be right. #fromyourowngallows
— Rhology (@Rhology) November 24, 2014

And then it got even better:

@Rhology @buffsblg @cherokee_autumn @StevenZoeller I actually think this IS a problem, but religion doesn't solve it.

— Laura (@lonelocust) November 24, 2014

I had to bow out after somewhere around 50 attempts on my part to get these atheists to reason consistently. Canard after canard after canard... I don't think a single one of them had ever even thought about my challenge before. I didn't have time to keep up with all of the shambling inanity, so this combox is an open invitation to anyone who would question me on the matter.

The King and I Project: Abraham and Isaac, part 2

The discussion continues with Paul on the previous comment.

Paul, your double post is b/c the spam filter ate your 1st one, but in the interest of full disclosure i went ahead and made it post it anyway.  No problem.  It's a bit of a headache for everyone. :-)
And thanks for your thoughts and continued interaction.
Finally, thanks for letting me know you're a naturalist.  It might be relevant later on.

1) Cool.

2) Re: mutilation - when I said "specious", I meant that it's loaded with pejorative baggage.  "Circumcision", being more precise both contextually and theologically as well as lacking said pejorative baggage, is to be preferred.  Would not a refusal to modify your vocabulary accordingly demonstrate bias on your part?

3) Hebrews and probability analysis.
You said:
I would be quite a task to do a true Bayesian probability analysis

Then may I ask why you made the claim?  Did you have any reason, any justification for it, or think you did when you wrote it?


It is somewhat unclear who the original author of the letter to the Hebrews was

True, it's unclear who the HUMAN author was.  Christians also accept that God is the fundamental (aka "other") author, though.


The belief in resurrection is a core element to developing Christian theology at this point, and it shows throughout the letters in the New Testament.

Definitely.


So why then would we assume such passages as Hebrews 11 are an accurate account of history?

I'd say it's b/c God wrote it, and b/c it actually discusses historical people, in the past tense.


Especially when it the majority of the book is based around themes of faith and resurrection.

Certainly it does.  I'd contend that it brings up the ppl it brings up precisely b/c an important part of their lives and careers was relevant to the discussion.  It's significant to talk about them b/c faith and resurrection were active in their lives, as opposed to bringing up some guy named Joe who didn't have faith and who died after an unremarkable 40-year life.


It is also a stretch to assert the author of Hebrews had a better chance of correctly deriving Abraham's motives from the text than we do.

What if God were writing it and knew Abraham's heart better than even Ab did, and chose to reveal it more fully in Hebrews?


4) So I understand that you don't have knowledge of a textual variant, and know of no translational problem.  OK, cool.
Also, "multiple sources" =/= textual variant.

You said:
However, not something I find particularly compelling.

I'd ask you at this point: given naturalism, why would you believe that ANYthing is compelling, given that you're merely matter in motion, receiving and reacting on neural impulses over which you (since "you" don't exist; matter exists and you're a material machine) have no external control?


5)
a. Yes, He knows the outcome of the tests.
b. Yes, those things required a lot of faith.  One thing to clip your nails, quite another to circumcise yourself.  Yeesh.
c. 2 things.  They had their origin in God, not in man.  And on a human level, what reason do you think the apostles might have had to throw away all their religious acceptance and such for the sake of a guy who they knew wasn't God (if indeed they knew for sure that they'd hidden the body and that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead)?  It's not comparable to jihadists blowing themselves up - they don't KNOW that Allah is a false deity.  The disciples would've KNOWN FOR SURE that Jesus didn't rise, if He didn't rise.

6) I wouldn't say that asking for "evidence of God's character" is the right way to go about it.  Rather, we either accept that claim at face value or we accept another.  Accepting any other leads to absurdity (and when I say "absurdity", I mean it as a serious charge, haha); thus by process of elimination I don't see a good reason to say that God's character is not in fact absolute and unchanging.  Especially b/c He said it is.

You said:
It would seem God changes very much from the OT to the NT.

I would suggest that you're not reading them correctly.
For one thing, did you know that the NT discusses eternal torment in Hell MUCH more frequently than does the OT?
Have you ever looked at OT/NT with a view to the different situations in which the people of God (rather than God Himself) lived?


In the OT He is concerned only with his preferred family, while in the NT he is much more interested in everyone

Actually, He's very interested in redeeming a particular people in both, and reaches out to the outside world in the OT quite a lot.  Let me commend this article to you.


stops walking and wrestling with people

Far from it!  Jesus is very God incarnate, and He's in the NT!


The book of Joshua is filled with the genocidal slaughter of the Canaanites. God commands the killing of even the elderly and unborn children. Yet in the New Testament we are told of a God who loves the world. Then on to the present, and genocide is seen as barbaric.

This is shifting morality?  God condemns Ananias and Sapphira to death in Acts 5, and Jesus says in Luke about some ppl who died when a tower fell on them: "I say to you that you too must repent or you will likewise perish".  Jesus predicted the razing of Jerusalem in AD 70 and warned the unrepentant Jews that this judgment would fall on them. Etc.
God has the right to put anyone to death anytime, remember? And every day, 1000s of ppl die.


What of all of the laws in the OT?

Here, take a look at this and it will hopefully help you out on this question.


Yet it is commanded, then Jesus tells us later only the blameless can cast stones.

Are you familiar with the actual Mosaic law regarding how adulterers were to be punished?  Namely, that BOTH parties should be present?  That the whole reason they brought the woman to Him like that was to hypocritically test Him?

And thanks for the link to commonsenseatheism.  I'm afraid that I can't take Luke too seriously, given his propensity to delete my comments, which I assure you contained no unseemly content or profanity.
But as for Fyfe, I'm still waiting for him to let us all know how we can know which desires are moral to have and act upon.



What is interesting is quite a few religious philosophers have been doing ethics without grounding moral truths in God for quite a while. 

Well, sure, but the question is not whether people can "do ethics", but how they justify those ethics.

When a PhD does you no good

I simply must direct you to the most recent round of conversation between myself and Dr Ken Pulliam. It's not as if he began at a high level of discourse regarding his moral basis; I mean, "intuiting" that things are "self-evidently wrong" is pretty weak. But today he's gone downhill, and fast, and the man has a PhD in theology! Generally highly-regarded Luke of Commonsense Atheism thinks his recent series is "Christian Theology's Worst Nightmare" (and also deleted my comment, which is quite lame).  Ordinarily "a Ph.D.-carrying theologian hard at work explaining – in great detail – why Christian theology no longer makes sense to him" might cause one to shake in one's boots a bit.  But the mystique wears off quickly when one actually talks to the man. 

Let's take a look at his most recent round of comments, from this morning:

Dr Pulliam:

Here is a quote from someone who believed that one needed a religion in order to have an objective moral code:

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people, especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life . The various substitutes that have been offered have not shown any results that might warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the existing denominations." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10

Me:

I'd've thought better of you than to incite your readers to commit the genetic fallacy, Dr Pulliam.

Besides, it's not like Hitler was a Christian. You're committing your fallacy at the expense of paganism.

Dr Pulliam:

I am not saying that the quote from Hitler proves anything, so I am not committing the genetic fallacy. I am merely citing a statement that he made. You are free to interpret it anyway you like.

Hitler was a Roman Catholic as I understand it and he never renounced his faith. Granted, he was not a typical RCC and he was obviously a sociopath, but he was not an atheist, as Hector Avalos clearly shows.

Me:

--I am not saying that the quote from Hitler proves anything

Oh, OK. Then...what was the point of posting it, I wonder?

--Hitler was a Roman Catholic as I understand it and he never renounced his faith

I'm no friend of the Roman Church, but I suggest you do read the link.

And I didn't claim he was an atheist. He was a pagan.

Dr Pulliam:

In addition, Hitler said in a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933: "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." (My New Order, New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1941, p. 144.)

What is my point? My point is that one can believe that Christianity provides an objective moral code and still commit awful atrocities. The OT is full of these atrocities. So, what good is an "objective moral code" if it can lead to such acts? Christians will say, "well that it is not true Christianity ! But herein lies the problem, if the "objective moral code" of the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, how then can anyone be sure they have the correct moral code? So, to argue that one only has a sure basis for saying whether something is right or wrong, if it is based on the moral code of the Bible is misguided. My question is: "which moral code" because the Bible has several and they are contradictory. Christians cannot agree among themselves on what the "true" moral code is.

Me:

--My point is that one can believe that Christianity provides an objective moral code and still commit awful atrocities. 

1) Yes, quite. Don't tell me you're unfamiliar with the biblical doctrine known as "sin".

2) I suppose we're back to your "intuiting" that these "atrocities" were "awful", aren't we? But once again, apparently Hitler "intuited" that murdering Jews was self-evidently a good thing. So the objective outside observer has to ask: how do we know who's right between you 2?

--So, what good is an "objective moral code" if it can lead to such acts?

Obviously, it tells you that they are indeed atrocities. 

Are you a PhD in theology and do not understand these things?

--if the "objective moral code" of the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, how then can anyone be sure they have the correct moral code?

Oy. This is the kind of stuff I see from the least informed atheists on teh Interwebz, sir. It's the same way I know you're questioning me about the moral code of the Bible and not telling me that Jell-O 5 no bones and the further they fly the much. This is a postmodern, worthless, conversation-killer that cuts the throat of ALL communication. Try something else, please. 

--Christians cannot agree among themselves on what the "true" moral code is. 

Someone who's willing (and able) to repeat the message of the Bible, whether or not he agrees with it, would know that the Bible actually predicts such things. I'm having trouble seeing what good your education did you, to be honest...

(Please leave any comments at the Triablogue post.)

You will bow before me!

Following in the same vein of this previous post, the Former Fundy, Dr Ken Pulliam, is now attempting to simply define his way into moral justification.  It's easy, apparently.  Just assert, w/o argument (or by reference to an obscure book, in this case written by one Audi) that your view is "self-evident", and you're golden.  Let's see how it all plays out, when I pretend to assert w/o argument the opposite view.


Dr Pulliam,
There are certain beliefs that are self-evident, that is, they are not inferential beliefs.

No no, I do understand that.  The purpose of my reductio is to demonstrate the emptiness of your ipse dixit.
See, *I* say that "rape is morally compulsory" is in fact that which is self-evident.  You are mistaken in thinking that "rape is morally wrong" is self-evident.  And I have a whole bunch of people, both in prison (those who are being oppressed by the oppressive majority) and out of prison (who take their stand against The Man) behind me.


If your intuition tells you that rape is good, then you are a socio-path who will wind up in prison.

I knew it.  Your view reduces to might makes right.
Plus, this has nothing to say about the morality of rape.  Now you're just telling about what you'd prefer to do to someone who violates your preferences.
See, if I can gain enough power, then I can make the same category error as you and start saying that rape is morally compulsory.  Since I have the power.
This is the problem with your human-centered and human-based moral system.



There are always exceptions but the near unanimous opinion of man is that rape is wrong

The near-unanimous opinion of human societies throughout human history have not been atheistic.  If you don't respect counting noses at all times, I don't see why this isn't an exception too.


Hume's guilliotine does not work against foundationalism

It does until you can make some real connection between what you intuit and what is normative and prescriptive outside yourself, and why.



you should be able to make a real name for yourself by refuting Audi.

Right, just like I'd make a real name for myself in refuting evolution.  Those things aren't quite as simple as you make them out to be, sir.


Now, I've noticed, BTW, a post by a none-too-bright commenter in the same thread by the name of Geds

S/he apparently has no idea that when s/he said:

I self-identify as a feminist. My argument is this: women are people, ergo they deserve to be treated like people and not objects.

And I responded:

1) Prove the ergo. I'd encourage you to read up on Hume's Guillotine. I've been bringing it up for several threads now, and nobody's touched it. Not even Dr Pulliam, who, as a PhD holder shouldn't be afraid to delve into a little elementary philosophy. how does IS imply OUGHT?

2) My argument is this: atheist women are not people, ergo they deserve to be treated like objects and not like real people. And any ideology that says otherwise should be resisted. Prove me wrong.

that I was engaging in an internal critique, a hypothetical, a thought-experiment. Geds really thinks that I think that atheist women are not real people!  Geds also apparently thinks that I somehow thought that the Atheist Experience was going to let me run their show during an April Fools' prank a couple of years ago.  Yeah, not so much.  Anyway, unfortunately Geds represents the majority of American voters' thought level.  Now I'm all depressed...

What I do is what is right

Ken Pulliam, the Former Fundy, and I had some helpful conversations about his ideas of morality based on intuition, which are shared by many, especially atheists, in modern times.  Let's take a look at how well this extends out.
I'd said:
I bet you wouldn't ask "true or correct for whom?" if the question were: "Is it true that life on Earth evolved by a series of slight, successive modifications?"
Or am I wrong to think that? 
If I'm not wrong to think that, why would this be a valid question? I'm asking about objective morality, not "What you think is right". What you think is immaterial - you could be wrong. 

Ken said:
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
1. Is it always wrong to kill infants and toddlers?
2. Is it always wrong to own another human being as your personal property?
Regarding your question about evolution. I think there is plenty of evidence that leads me to believe that evolution is true. There is also plenty of reasons for me to think that child rape or any kind of rape is wrong.


I said:
1. No.
2. No.
Please answer them too. Thanks!
Now, you said that "evidence" leads you to think evol is true. Then you said "reasons" lead you to think rape is wrong. In what way can these latter "reasons" be likened to evidence you think you have for evol? Where is the prescriptive power in evidence for evol? And where is the prescriptive power in your reasons to categorically reject rape? Why do you reject rape while other atheists such as Dan Barker can think of scenarios in which it might be acceptable? And what of my scenario - is what Tkalim is doing wrong? How do you know?

Ken said:
I maintain that we as human beings have an instinct or intuition that certain things are wrong. Where does this intuition come from? I tend to think its just the way our brains have evolved. We can act against these intuitions, especially when an authority tells us its okay, but usually the authority gives us some rationale (excuse) why in this particular case its okay to go against our intuition.
Thus, my intuition tells me that its always wrong to kill infants and toddlers, its always wrong to own another human being as property and its always wrong to rape.
----

With that in mind, I'd like to propose a few other things that I personally know by intuition.
I maintain that we as human beings have an instinct or intuition that certain things are wrong. Where does this intuition come from? I tend to think it's just the way our brains have evolved. We can act against these intuitions, especially when an authority tells us it's OK, but usually the authority gives us some rationale (excuse) why in this particular case it's OK to go against our intuition.

Thus, my intuition tells me that it's always wrong to believe in Darwinian evolution, it's always wrong to own a computer, and it's always wrong to call oneself a Former Fundy.  Further, my intuition tells me that, not only is it wrong to believe in Darwinian evolution, Darwinian macroevolution actually never happened.  My intuition tells me that the Book of Mormon is true.  My intuition tells me that no atheist deserves the protection of law. That Ken's children are responsible for all the unsolved murders in the USA and Mexico.  That B. Hussein 0bamuhh is (against all evidence to the contrary) actually a really good President.  That the speed of light is ~26 miles per hour, but can get all the way to 30 mph if it really tries.

Now, the astute reader will note that I'd asked Ken whether it is possible to make an objective moral statement, independent of whether anyone believes it or not.  Ken no doubt thinks that Darwinian evolution is responsible for the variety of lifeforms we see on Earth today, independent of whether anyone believes it or not.  So when I ask him for a fact and he gives me an intuition, why can't I just play the same game myself?

The facts don't support some of the intuitions I listed above, you say?  Why doesn't that same argument bother Ken?