Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not man is strictly material or both material and immaterial defines the meaning of his existence. If he is only material, his end point is death. If he is material and immaterial, his end point is not the death of his material self. If he is only material, he has no intrinsic and inalienable worth. If anything, he is worth more the more useful he is to other creatures undergoing similar physical processes, but he has no value unto himself.

So if any DCUMers believe in human rights, there is every reason to care whether or not there is a Creator, and whether or not man is solely a material being.

A person does not cease to matter because they die. That's ridiculous. Lincoln is dead, did he not make an important impact on human rights? What about everyone else? Even if it is not someone famous, a person matters to someone. My existence is not meaningless because I'm mortal. I don't need god to think I'm special to make my life important.

Well, it depends on who you talk to. Members of the KKK would strongly disagree with Lincoln's personal opinion about human rights. How do you know who is right?

Some people matter to no one. Do they still have human rights?

This is an either/or problem. Either human beings have intrinsic worth, or they do not. If they do not, we may choose to grant them worth, but then their worth may be taken away by someone else.

I think you're running into the wishful "thinking problem" again. "Do people have human rights? If so, God." That's not an argument.

I am not trying to make an argument. I am simply observing that human beings do not have intrinsic value in a materialist universe.

Nor do they have one in a universe where we assume the God hypothesis is correct.

How so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought religion was a labeling and reflection of the right vs wrong in all of us.

So is the field of rationalist ethics. What's the reason for privileging "religion" over reason, given that we've alread established that religion gives no special insight into what is right or wrong?

Please share this idea of "rationalist ethics" with everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not man is strictly material or both material and immaterial defines the meaning of his existence. If he is only material, his end point is death. If he is material and immaterial, his end point is not the death of his material self. If he is only material, he has no intrinsic and inalienable worth. If anything, he is worth more the more useful he is to other creatures undergoing similar physical processes, but he has no value unto himself.

So if any DCUMers believe in human rights, there is every reason to care whether or not there is a Creator, and whether or not man is solely a material being.

A person does not cease to matter because they die. That's ridiculous. Lincoln is dead, did he not make an important impact on human rights? What about everyone else? Even if it is not someone famous, a person matters to someone. My existence is not meaningless because I'm mortal. I don't need god to think I'm special to make my life important.

Well, it depends on who you talk to. Members of the KKK would strongly disagree with Lincoln's personal opinion about human rights. How do you know who is right?

Some people matter to no one. Do they still have human rights?

This is an either/or problem. Either human beings have intrinsic worth, or they do not. If they do not, we may choose to grant them worth, but then their worth may be taken away by someone else.

I think you're running into the wishful "thinking problem" again. "Do people have human rights? If so, God." That's not an argument.

I am not trying to make an argument. I am simply observing that human beings do not have intrinsic value in a materialist universe.

Did not one take high school history class? Our country was founded upon the belief in Natural Law, which is to say that we can use reason to deduce the rules of moral behavior for people. In this tradition, it does not matter whether one believes in God or not. The universe is still the same, and so our observations about it can be made regardless. Has everyone forgotten that this is in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? The greeks, Hobbes, Locke? None of this rings a bell?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought religion was a labeling and reflection of the right vs wrong in all of us.

So is the field of rationalist ethics. What's the reason for privileging "religion" over reason, given that we've alread established that religion gives no special insight into what is right or wrong?

Please share this idea of "rationalist ethics" with everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Or check your local library.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not man is strictly material or both material and immaterial defines the meaning of his existence. If he is only material, his end point is death. If he is material and immaterial, his end point is not the death of his material self. If he is only material, he has no intrinsic and inalienable worth. If anything, he is worth more the more useful he is to other creatures undergoing similar physical processes, but he has no value unto himself.

So if any DCUMers believe in human rights, there is every reason to care whether or not there is a Creator, and whether or not man is solely a material being.

A person does not cease to matter because they die. That's ridiculous. Lincoln is dead, did he not make an important impact on human rights? What about everyone else? Even if it is not someone famous, a person matters to someone. My existence is not meaningless because I'm mortal. I don't need god to think I'm special to make my life important.

Well, it depends on who you talk to. Members of the KKK would strongly disagree with Lincoln's personal opinion about human rights. How do you know who is right?

Some people matter to no one. Do they still have human rights?

This is an either/or problem. Either human beings have intrinsic worth, or they do not. If they do not, we may choose to grant them worth, but then their worth may be taken away by someone else.

I think you're running into the wishful "thinking problem" again. "Do people have human rights? If so, God." That's not an argument.

I am not trying to make an argument. I am simply observing that human beings do not have intrinsic value in a materialist universe.

Did not one take high school history class? Our country was founded upon the belief in Natural Law, which is to say that we can use reason to deduce the rules of moral behavior for people. In this tradition, it does not matter whether one believes in God or not. The universe is still the same, and so our observations about it can be made regardless. Has everyone forgotten that this is in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? The greeks, Hobbes, Locke? None of this rings a bell?

You've identified why the Founders of our country are none too popular with the theists. They were wholly products of the godless Enlightenment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not man is strictly material or both material and immaterial defines the meaning of his existence. If he is only material, his end point is death. If he is material and immaterial, his end point is not the death of his material self. If he is only material, he has no intrinsic and inalienable worth. If anything, he is worth more the more useful he is to other creatures undergoing similar physical processes, but he has no value unto himself.

So if any DCUMers believe in human rights, there is every reason to care whether or not there is a Creator, and whether or not man is solely a material being.

A person does not cease to matter because they die. That's ridiculous. Lincoln is dead, did he not make an important impact on human rights? What about everyone else? Even if it is not someone famous, a person matters to someone. My existence is not meaningless because I'm mortal. I don't need god to think I'm special to make my life important.

Well, it depends on who you talk to. Members of the KKK would strongly disagree with Lincoln's personal opinion about human rights. How do you know who is right?

Some people matter to no one. Do they still have human rights?

This is an either/or problem. Either human beings have intrinsic worth, or they do not. If they do not, we may choose to grant them worth, but then their worth may be taken away by someone else.

I think you're running into the wishful "thinking problem" again. "Do people have human rights? If so, God." That's not an argument.

I am not trying to make an argument. I am simply observing that human beings do not have intrinsic value in a materialist universe.

Did not one take high school history class? Our country was founded upon the belief in Natural Law, which is to say that we can use reason to deduce the rules of moral behavior for people. In this tradition, it does not matter whether one believes in God or not. The universe is still the same, and so our observations about it can be made regardless. Has everyone forgotten that this is in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? The greeks, Hobbes, Locke? None of this rings a bell?

You've identified why the Founders of our country are none too popular with the theists. They were wholly products of the godless Enlightenment.

Well they did mention God, too. But the point is that they did not believe that morality was a matter of faith. They believed that one could apply reason to the world and to the human condition. I'm rather surprised that in 20-odd pages of posts about morality and justice, no one brought up such a critical founding principle of our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not man is strictly material or both material and immaterial defines the meaning of his existence. If he is only material, his end point is death. If he is material and immaterial, his end point is not the death of his material self. If he is only material, he has no intrinsic and inalienable worth. If anything, he is worth more the more useful he is to other creatures undergoing similar physical processes, but he has no value unto himself.

So if any DCUMers believe in human rights, there is every reason to care whether or not there is a Creator, and whether or not man is solely a material being.

A person does not cease to matter because they die. That's ridiculous. Lincoln is dead, did he not make an important impact on human rights? What about everyone else? Even if it is not someone famous, a person matters to someone. My existence is not meaningless because I'm mortal. I don't need god to think I'm special to make my life important.

Well, it depends on who you talk to. Members of the KKK would strongly disagree with Lincoln's personal opinion about human rights. How do you know who is right?

Some people matter to no one. Do they still have human rights?

This is an either/or problem. Either human beings have intrinsic worth, or they do not. If they do not, we may choose to grant them worth, but then their worth may be taken away by someone else.

I think you're running into the wishful "thinking problem" again. "Do people have human rights? If so, God." That's not an argument.

I am not trying to make an argument. I am simply observing that human beings do not have intrinsic value in a materialist universe.

Did not one take high school history class? Our country was founded upon the belief in Natural Law, which is to say that we can use reason to deduce the rules of moral behavior for people. In this tradition, it does not matter whether one believes in God or not. The universe is still the same, and so our observations about it can be made regardless. Has everyone forgotten that this is in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? The greeks, Hobbes, Locke? None of this rings a bell?

You've identified why the Founders of our country are none too popular with the theists. They were wholly products of the godless Enlightenment.

Well they did mention God, too. But the point is that they did not believe that morality was a matter of faith. They believed that one could apply reason to the world and to the human condition. I'm rather surprised that in 20-odd pages of posts about morality and justice, no one brought up such a critical founding principle of our country.

.

The most critical founding principle of our country was universal, inherent human rights from God:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

They did not say:

"We hold these opinions to be very persuasive, that all men should be seen as equal, and that we have decided based on our reason that men have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Mentioning a Creator was not an accident or a rhetorical flourish. It was absolutely essential. Natural law is defined as the existence of perfect Justice, authored by absolute Authority, which can be known by human reason. Have centuries of natural law theory really been so completely misstated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought religion was a labeling and reflection of the right vs wrong in all of us.

So is the field of rationalist ethics. What's the reason for privileging "religion" over reason, given that we've alread established that religion gives no special insight into what is right or wrong?

Power and control over the masses. It's a hard sell without the promise of immortality.

[Anonymous]

Nice selective quoting of the Declaration of Independence.

Good that you cut out the part about natural law. The fact is that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is Locke. And while Locke believed in God, he believed that God's purpose for mankind was survival, and that the logical outcome of survival was "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property".

I think we can all agree that atheists believe that living things have a purpose of survival.

Therefore, atheists can follow Locke's tradition to the same conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought religion was a labeling and reflection of the right vs wrong in all of us.

So is the field of rationalist ethics. What's the reason for privileging "religion" over reason, given that we've alread established that religion gives no special insight into what is right or wrong?

Please share this idea of "rationalist ethics" with everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Or check your local library.

.

Strange, isn't it, that human reason would lead to theories of ethics that contain such diametrically opposed maxims? From moral nihilism to pure selfishness to compassion? No one absolute standard emerges victorious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought religion was a labeling and reflection of the right vs wrong in all of us.

So is the field of rationalist ethics. What's the reason for privileging "religion" over reason, given that we've alread established that religion gives no special insight into what is right or wrong?

Please share this idea of "rationalist ethics" with everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Or check your local library.

.

Strange, isn't it, that human reason would lead to theories of ethics that contain such diametrically opposed maxims? From moral nihilism to pure selfishness to compassion? No one absolute standard emerges victorious.

In case you didn't notice, the same is true of theology. The Aztecs weren't sacrificing babies to appease reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nice selective quoting of the Declaration of Independence.

Good that you cut out the part about natural law. The fact is that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is Locke. And while Locke believed in God, he believed that God's purpose for mankind was survival, and that the logical outcome of survival was "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property".

I think we can all agree that atheists believe that living things have a purpose of survival.

Therefore, atheists can follow Locke's tradition to the same conclusion.

Do you mean this part?:

"to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"?

[Anonymous]

Seriously, can we at least have a semi-intelligent discussion about natural law? It is baked into our own country's history. Thousands of years worth of philosophers worked with it, from atheists to theists. It is at the nexus of the question of intrinsic morality. There is plenty to read, from Plato to Aquinas, all the way to our own founders' writings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought religion was a labeling and reflection of the right vs wrong in all of us.

So is the field of rationalist ethics. What's the reason for privileging "religion" over reason, given that we've alread established that religion gives no special insight into what is right or wrong?

Please share this idea of "rationalist ethics" with everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Or check your local library.

.

Strange, isn't it, that human reason would lead to theories of ethics that contain such diametrically opposed maxims? From moral nihilism to pure selfishness to compassion? No one absolute standard emerges victorious.

In case you didn't notice, the same is true of theology. The Aztecs weren't sacrificing babies to appease reason.

Yes, they were. They thought they had a very good reason to sacrifice babies.

And you are confusing natural law with religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought religion was a labeling and reflection of the right vs wrong in all of us.

So is the field of rationalist ethics. What's the reason for privileging "religion" over reason, given that we've alread established that religion gives no special insight into what is right or wrong?

Please share this idea of "rationalist ethics" with everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Or check your local library.

.

Strange, isn't it, that human reason would lead to theories of ethics that contain such diametrically opposed maxims? From moral nihilism to pure selfishness to compassion? No one absolute standard emerges victorious.

And strange, too, that irrational theism should lead to theories of ethics that contain such diametrically opposed maxims, as well. As I said, the outcomes of theism are no better than rationalism (they're arguably worse). It's just that in rationalism, you have to show your work.