Anonymous
07/20/2011 14:38
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Maybe our capacity for seeing the dignity in our fellow humans is the source of all morality and our sense of justice. Society is not so bad, afterall, even if a few members lose, overlook or never had that moral compass.
Sure. Why not just say empathy provides an evolutionary advantage, and leave it at that. No big guy with a beard and white robes living on a cloud needed.
That is what I was saying.
I thought so; I was just restating it differently.
If nonbelievers are right, and human beings are living machines who come into being and go out of being as their parts come together and then fall apart, any value we assign to humans is granted, not inherent. And when value is given, rather than intrinsic, it can be taken away.
Isn't that ability the step taken before atrocities are committed? With so many examples of things like genocide and slavery, it is hard to argue it's not possible. Those of us without motivation to dehumanize see it for what it is. If you've ever believed in the death penalty, you've done the same by devaluing the life of another.
Anonymous
07/20/2011 14:22
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Maybe our capacity for seeing the dignity in our fellow humans is the source of all morality and our sense of justice. Society is not so bad, afterall, even if a few members lose, overlook or never had that moral compass.
Sure. Why not just say empathy provides an evolutionary advantage, and leave it at that. No big guy with a beard and white robes living on a cloud needed.
That is what I was saying.
I thought so; I was just restating it differently.
If nonbelievers are right, and human beings are living machines who come into being and go out of being as their parts come together and then fall apart, any value we assign to humans is granted, not inherent. And when value is given, rather than intrinsic, it can be taken away.
And your point is? You wish it were otherwise?
Perhaps if human beings were born without the capacity for empathy our sense of justice would be different. Of course, if humans had no sense of self-preservation, and didn't mind dying in the least, our sense of justice would also be differrent.
Anonymous
07/20/2011 14:21
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Anonymous wrote:Would it still be unjust to eliminate the genetically inferior, even if everyone on Earth believed it to be just?
If the genetically inferior actually believe that they should be eliminated from the earth, then who am I to question them.
What a stupid, stupid hypothetical.
I am not the brightest bulb in the bunch. Could you explain?
Anonymous
07/20/2011 14:20
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Maybe our capacity for seeing the dignity in our fellow humans is the source of all morality and our sense of justice. Society is not so bad, afterall, even if a few members lose, overlook or never had that moral compass.
Sure. Why not just say empathy provides an evolutionary advantage, and leave it at that. No big guy with a beard and white robes living on a cloud needed.
That is what I was saying.
I thought so; I was just restating it differently.
If nonbelievers are right, and human beings are living machines who come into being and go out of being as their parts come together and then fall apart, any value we assign to humans is granted, not inherent. And when value is given, rather than intrinsic, it can be taken away.
And your point is? You wish it were otherwise?
Anonymous
07/20/2011 14:01
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Maybe our capacity for seeing the dignity in our fellow humans is the source of all morality and our sense of justice. Society is not so bad, afterall, even if a few members lose, overlook or never had that moral compass.
Sure. Why not just say empathy provides an evolutionary advantage, and leave it at that. No big guy with a beard and white robes living on a cloud needed.
That is what I was saying.
I thought so; I was just restating it differently.
If nonbelievers are right, and human beings are living machines who come into being and go out of being as their parts come together and then fall apart, any value we assign to humans is granted, not inherent. And when value is given, rather than intrinsic, it can be taken away.
Anonymous
07/20/2011 13:49
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Maybe our capacity for seeing the dignity in our fellow humans is the source of all morality and our sense of justice. Society is not so bad, afterall, even if a few members lose, overlook or never had that moral compass.
Sure. Why not just say empathy provides an evolutionary advantage, and leave it at that. No big guy with a beard and white robes living on a cloud needed.
That is what I was saying.
I thought so; I was just restating it differently.
Anonymous
07/20/2011 13:47
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Maybe our capacity for seeing the dignity in our fellow humans is the source of all morality and our sense of justice. Society is not so bad, afterall, even if a few members lose, overlook or never had that moral compass.
Sure. Why not just say empathy provides an evolutionary advantage, and leave it at that. No big guy with a beard and white robes living on a cloud needed.
That is what I was saying.
Anonymous
07/20/2011 13:43
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Anonymous wrote:Maybe our capacity for seeing the dignity in our fellow humans is the source of all morality and our sense of justice. Society is not so bad, afterall, even if a few members lose, overlook or never had that moral compass.
Sure. Why not just say empathy provides an evolutionary advantage, and leave it at that. No big guy with a beard and white robes living on a cloud needed.
Anonymous
07/20/2011 13:41
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Maybe our capacity for seeing the dignity in our fellow humans is the source of all morality and our sense of justice. Society is not so bad, afterall, even if a few members lose, overlook or never had that moral compass.
Anonymous
07/20/2011 13:31
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Your analogy is flawed. I believe that the world owes me a comfortable living, where I am king. However, my belief will do nothing to change the reality of life for me. Justice is what our society and the people in it believe is just. Societies administer justice and they don't particularly care about one individual's beliefs about fonts. And as a practical matter, many types of philosophies have converged on some common social norms.
What about other societies? They also choose what is just for them. And, yes, societies do not always care about what individuals believe about justice. Can you live with the consequences of the materialist view of justice?
Well of course. Sometimes we have boycotts and wars and international aid and war crimes tribunals for exactly that reason.
The question is not whether I can live with it. We don't get to have universal justice merely because we really, really want it.
Do you know what the Nuremburg (war crimes) Trials were based on? Not the laws of Germany, obviously. Famously, the defense argued that this was ex post facto prosecution, that the accused were following the rules in their own system. The source of judgment for their actions came from a higher authority that prosecuted their crimes against humanity, their offenses against the dignity of human rights.
This is where hopeful nonbelievers would rejoice. Precisely! Individual nations may have flawed systems and judgments of justice, but international law is the higher authority that we need, an authority that protects human rights.
But what if the highest law in the world was applied by those who were prosecuted at the Nuremburg trials? What if those who had the ultimate authority on Earth did not think human rights were important? What if their version of justice was that weak, sickly, or non-Aryan human beings "ought" to not exist?
Would that be justice? Would it still be unjust to eliminate the genetically inferior, even if everyone on Earth believed it to be just?
If the genetically inferior actually believe that they should be eliminated from the earth, then who am I to question them.
What a stupid, stupid hypothetical.
Anonymous
07/20/2011 13:28
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Your analogy is flawed. I believe that the world owes me a comfortable living, where I am king. However, my belief will do nothing to change the reality of life for me. Justice is what our society and the people in it believe is just. Societies administer justice and they don't particularly care about one individual's beliefs about fonts. And as a practical matter, many types of philosophies have converged on some common social norms.
What about other societies? They also choose what is just for them. And, yes, societies do not always care about what individuals believe about justice. Can you live with the consequences of the materialist view of justice?
Well of course. Sometimes we have boycotts and wars and international aid and war crimes tribunals for exactly that reason.
The question is not whether I can live with it. We don't get to have universal justice merely because we really, really want it.
Do you know what the Nuremburg (war crimes) Trials were based on? Not the laws of Germany, obviously. Famously, the defense argued that this was ex post facto prosecution, that the accused were following the rules in their own system. The source of judgment for their actions came from a higher authority that prosecuted their crimes against humanity, their offenses against the dignity of human rights.
This is where hopeful nonbelievers would rejoice. Precisely! Individual nations may have flawed systems and judgments of justice, but international law is the higher authority that we need, an authority that protects human rights.
But what if the highest law in the world was applied by those who were prosecuted at the Nuremburg trials? What if those who had the ultimate authority on Earth did not think human rights were important? What if their version of justice was that weak, sickly, or non-Aryan human beings "ought" to not exist?
Would that be justice? Would it still be unjust to eliminate the genetically inferior, even if everyone on Earth believed it to be just?
If water were dry, rather than wet, would it still be water?
Exactly. Justice is nothing.
Anonymous
07/20/2011 13:18
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Your analogy is flawed. I believe that the world owes me a comfortable living, where I am king. However, my belief will do nothing to change the reality of life for me. Justice is what our society and the people in it believe is just. Societies administer justice and they don't particularly care about one individual's beliefs about fonts. And as a practical matter, many types of philosophies have converged on some common social norms.
What about other societies? They also choose what is just for them. And, yes, societies do not always care about what individuals believe about justice. Can you live with the consequences of the materialist view of justice?
Well of course. Sometimes we have boycotts and wars and international aid and war crimes tribunals for exactly that reason.
The question is not whether I can live with it. We don't get to have universal justice merely because we really, really want it.
Do you know what the Nuremburg (war crimes) Trials were based on? Not the laws of Germany, obviously. Famously, the defense argued that this was ex post facto prosecution, that the accused were following the rules in their own system. The source of judgment for their actions came from a higher authority that prosecuted their crimes against humanity, their offenses against the dignity of human rights.
This is where hopeful nonbelievers would rejoice. Precisely! Individual nations may have flawed systems and judgments of justice, but international law is the higher authority that we need, an authority that protects human rights.
But what if the highest law in the world was applied by those who were prosecuted at the Nuremburg trials? What if those who had the ultimate authority on Earth did not think human rights were important? What if their version of justice was that weak, sickly, or non-Aryan human beings "ought" to not exist?
Would that be justice? Would it still be unjust to eliminate the genetically inferior, even if everyone on Earth believed it to be just?
If water were dry, rather than wet, would it still be water?
Anonymous
07/20/2011 13:00
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Your analogy is flawed. I believe that the world owes me a comfortable living, where I am king. However, my belief will do nothing to change the reality of life for me. Justice is what our society and the people in it believe is just. Societies administer justice and they don't particularly care about one individual's beliefs about fonts. And as a practical matter, many types of philosophies have converged on some common social norms.
What about other societies? They also choose what is just for them. And, yes, societies do not always care about what individuals believe about justice. Can you live with the consequences of the materialist view of justice?
Well of course. Sometimes we have boycotts and wars and international aid and war crimes tribunals for exactly that reason.
The question is not whether I can live with it. We don't get to have universal justice merely because we really, really want it.
Do you know what the Nuremburg (war crimes) Trials were based on? Not the laws of Germany, obviously. Famously, the defense argued that this was ex post facto prosecution, that the accused were following the rules in their own system. The source of judgment for their actions came from a higher authority that prosecuted their crimes against humanity, their offenses against the dignity of human rights.
This is where hopeful nonbelievers would rejoice. Precisely! Individual nations may have flawed systems and judgments of justice, but international law is the higher authority that we need, an authority that protects human rights.
But what if the highest law in the world was applied by those who were prosecuted at the Nuremburg trials? What if those who had the ultimate authority on Earth did not think human rights were important? What if their version of justice was that weak, sickly, or non-Aryan human beings "ought" to not exist?
Would that be justice? Would it still be unjust to eliminate the genetically inferior, even if everyone on Earth believed it to be just?
Anonymous
07/20/2011 12:45
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't "justice" happen when that student appeals to the professor's superiors and gets a grade change and the teacher is chastised or fired for grading like that?
Indeed. But that would involve a...Higher Authority.
No, but you make a good point. I was joking about the popular pre-Enlightenment argument that the power of authority figures necessarily derives from God. And that without God, there is no such thing as authority. Of course, that was before Rousseau and Locke. And I'm not talking about "Lost".
I'm not talking about the divine right of kings
But I am talking about an Authority beyond any authority figures on Earth.
Hume and Kant had more to say about this question than Rousseau and Locke. Nietszche, too.
Right, but since the "believers" on this thread have pretty much conceded that there's no evidence for a capital-A "Authority", we're stuck at the position that an appeal to that Authority is just wishful thinking.
As Thucydides put it "[I]t is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire."
The only argument we've seen on this thread in support of a God of Justice is "if there weren't, that would be really sad." That's not an argument.
Anonymous
07/20/2011 12:41
Subject: Why don't you believe in God?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't "justice" happen when that student appeals to the professor's superiors and gets a grade change and the teacher is chastised or fired for grading like that?
Indeed. But that would involve a...Higher Authority.
No, but you make a good point. I was joking about the popular pre-Enlightenment argument that the power of authority figures necessarily derives from God. And that without God, there is no such thing as authority. Of course, that was before Rousseau and Locke. And I'm not talking about "Lost".
I'm not talking about the divine right of kings
But I am talking about an Authority beyond any authority figures on Earth.
Hume and Kant had more to say about this question than Rousseau and Locke. Nietszche, too.