Is the moral standard of humanists better than God's?

[sayak83]

Ethically my kid shouldn't shoplift. If they do, and not get caught, they would certainly think whatever they stole contributes to their survival. Since they are a juvenile there will be no legal, ramifications. So why should I bother with it as a parent ? Perhaps the kid learned a valuable lesson in not getting caught the next time. From the evolutionary standpoint, I see no harm to anyone but perhaps the store owner. No threat to society, just a kid stealing a pack of baseball cards. A kid who the odds are will never become a true criminal. Since I am A Christian, my stand on this is obvious, and the kid is going to be marched back to the store and spend a lot of time grounded. In the Hitchkins world of humans dancing to their genes, why would this even matter ?

The likely hood of him getting caught and being thrown in jail is far higher than him getting away unnoticed, especially if he does it several times. Could you point me to any example of a successful and prosperous shoplifter and how many such people exist as fraction of poor and jailed shoplifters? If you look into the life profile of people who have committed crimes and how they and their kids fared in terms of prosperity, family stability, violent death rates etc. against those who haven't, I am sure the logical course of action as to how to instruct your kid for maximal success in property, marriage and family will be quite clear.

 

[shmogie]

The likely hood of him getting caught and being thrown in jail is far higher than him getting away unnoticed, especially if he does it several times. Could you point me to any example of a successful and prosperous shoplifter and how many such people exist as fraction of poor and jailed shoplifters? If you look into the life profile of people who have committed crimes and how they and their kids fared in terms of prosperity, family stability, violent death rates etc. against those who haven't, I am sure the logical course of action as to how to instruct your kid for maximal success in property, marriage and family will be quite clear.

I spent 25 years in law enforcement, 17 as Director of Public Safety over a 42 person Dept. and I assure you there are many many skilled and successful shoplifters. There are entire transient communities, men women and children all trained in the skills of theft. They rove from state to state, town to town and steal everything they can. They have a network of lawyers to defend them if they get caught. We used to know one particular group, whose slice of the country our town was in would arrive every two years, or so. There are many thousands, , maybe more, who are career criminals, successful, some wealthy.

My point is, from the standpoint of evolution (social evolution ?) these folks have adapted and evolved their own method of survival right in the middle of a population that says what they are doing is contrary to the well being of the community, and sadly, they thrive and reproduce. Although based on religious principles, our laws are presented as being un religious in the humanist form. So, a failure in the evolution of society ?

 

[sayak83]

I spent 25 years in law enforcement, 17 as Director of Public Safety over a 42 person Dept. and I assure you there are many many skilled and successful shoplifters. There are entire transient communities, men women and children all trained in the skills of theft. They rove from state to state, town to town and steal everything they can. They have a network of lawyers to defend them if they get caught. We used to know one particular group, whose slice of the country our town was in would arrive every two years, or so. There are many thousands, , maybe more, who are career criminals, successful, some wealthy.

My point is, from the standpoint of evolution (social evolution ?) these folks have adapted and evolved their own method of survival right in the middle of a population that says what they are doing is contrary to the well being of the community, and sadly, they thrive and reproduce. Although based on religious principles, our laws are presented as being un religious in the humanist form. So, a failure in the evolution of society ?

A society with certain amount of people who make a living through parasitic means is expected. See the natural world itself and every ecosystem has such a parasitic niche. Host parasite co-evolution is an important driver of evolutionary development. A successful society minimizes the number of people who can exploit its resources outside of its mutual cooperative systems, less successful ones are not so able. This drives social evolution and competition among cultures and groups. That is how one can see that the level of prosperity in a society is strongly correlated with net corruption and crime in it. Consider for example, Mexico vs Canada.

However if you belong to a group who has great skill in exploiting others, it's rational to teach it to your kids. And if you belong to the majority who wish to check exploitation, it's rational for you to teach ways of detecting such fraud etc. In such cases the two groups have entirely opposite interests and are in a state of zero sum game war. Moral logic does not apply in war. All is fair in war.

 

[ChristineM]

Hmmmmm. Instead of defining atheists, you ought to learn what a world view is.

Do you always move the goalposts when you are proven wrought?

The definition is specific, your making up bs to mollify your dubious world view of atheism is indicative of deliberate ignorance of the subject

 

[shmogie]

Do you always move the goalposts when you are proven wrought?

The definition is specific, your making up bs to mollify your dubious world view of atheism is indicative of deliberate ignorance of the subject

Please, atheists have world views, most of the most vocal ones share the same world views. Are you always so nasty when in conversation with people ? Is it your purpose here to be totally obnoxious to people with whom you disagree ? your anger about whatever is always on display. Back when you said Neanderthals were a species, incorrectly, I don't recall responding with this kind of guff. I am about to block you, your choice, be civil or get dumped, I don't care which you choose

 

[ChristineM]

Please, atheists have world views, most of the most vocal ones share the same world views. Are you always so nasty when in conversation with people ? Is it your purpose here to be totally obnoxious to people with whom you disagree ? your anger about whatever is always on display. Back when you said Neanderthals were a species, incorrectly, I don't recall responding with this kind of guff. I am about to block you, your choice, be civil or get dumped, I don't care which you choose

The world view of an atheist is irrelevant to their atheism. Atheism is ONLY relevant to their lack of belief in a god

Only i wasn't incorrect about Neanderthals and provided citation to prove it. I seem to remember you disappeared from the discussion.

You insult atheism with your ignorance of atheism then whine when shown to be wrong. You don't like being proven wrong then you are free learn by your errors and not repeatedly chant the same insulting mantra or ignore them and hide in any way you feel fit.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Sorry, but you are wrong. Go to the NT and read what a Christians believes and the resultant required behavior to be a Christian. It cannot be squared with what some alleged Christians have done, ergo they aren;t Christians.

You use a different definition of Christian than I do. For me, it's pretty much anybody that calls himself one. That's also the definition that people who tell us how many Christians there are in the world use.

Perhaps you need to develop a label like "professed Christians" or "alleged Christians" or " self identified Christians " for recipients of your vitriol.

Vitriol?

You don't take sincere criticism of your church well, do you? I warned you before about posting about these topics in mixed company. You're probably accustomed to a protected church-like environment where you get a lot of atta-boys for the comments that unbelievers challenge. Since you can't abide disagreement, perhaps you'd be more comfortable elsewhere.

Telling a child to be careful of strangers because they might be harmed is also child abuse by your standard.

Nope. That's not coercive language intended to instill terror.

BTW, The national manhunt a few weeks ago for a guy who burglarized a gun store and made threats to kill people, was a vocal supporter for his worldview/faith, atheism

No kidding? Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep my ears open for more news on that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't understand your point. Atheism is a world view. It says that there is no ultimate right or wrong, no afterlife, no final judgement.

You don't understand what atheism is. Atheism makes no such claims. It is simply a rejection of the unsupported claims of those who say that there is. Those claims might be correct, but there is no reason to believe them. And even if they are, you can't know it.

That's the difference between true belief and knowledge. Knowledge is confirmed belief. True belief that has not been confirmed is not known to be true until it is confirmed.

In my view this has encouraged the brutal behavior of the atheists I have noted

There is nothing about atheism that encourages brutal behavior or behavior of any kind. That's what Christians tell one another as part of a centuries long campaign to marginalize and demonize atheists.

And that attitude is part of why you are hearing from atheists about your religion. Antitheism is a just and rational reaction to that.

Incidentally, believing that your god wants you to kill for Him, however, does encourage brutal behavior. There is no equivalent in atheism or humanism. I know countless humanists, and most if not all are gentle, thoughtful, constructive, beneficent, and law abiding.

An atheist is an atheist and what ever they do individually or in a group they are still atheists.

No argument there.

 

[shmogie]

You use a different definition of Christian than I do. For me, it's pretty much anybody that calls himself one. That's also the definition that people who tell us how many Christians there are in the world use.
Hyperbole sometimes emphasizes a point. I have been an apologist for Christianity a long time, if Criticism really bothered me, I surely would do something else. Here is the problem for me. Jesus himself said "many are called, few are chosen", or something like the path to perdition is broad and many many, choose it. The path to salvation is narrow and few choose it, a paraphrase but the meaning is the same. He said much like this. Paul used the term "the wolves are already among the sheep", so Christianity( those who believe truly) expected and predicted many professing to be believers, but doing evil things. Christ gave one and only one way of knowing a real Christian, by their fruit ( actions, beliefs, words) you shall know them. That is why I get frustrated when someone posts'" Christian terrorist kills 35 zoo workers a hippo and anteater. By the very rules of Christianity this person could not possibly be a Christian, so he is a mass murderer and also a liar and EVERYBODY believes his lie ! It is intellectually dishonest and and immoral to me. That is why some descriptive word before "Christian" WOULD be intellectually honest


Vitriol?

You don't take sincere criticism of your church well, do you? I warned you before about posting about these topics in mixed company. You're probably accustomed to a protected church-like environment where you get a lot of atta-boys for the comments that unbelievers challenge. Since you can't abide disagreement, perhaps you'd be more comfortable elsewhere.



Nope. That's not coercive language intended to instill terror.



No kidding? Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep my ears open for more news on that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What I object strongly to is 1) demonstrably erroneous conclusions from the Bible then touting them as truth.

You're not the arbiter of what is erroneous or true. You're just one opinion.

2) Taking Christian teachings and beliefs and lumping them together with evil actions of alleged Christians into an evil erroneous stew to cook and smear Christians

I don't care about Christian teachings or what they claim to believe - just actions, evil or otherwise.

Dawkin's whining

You just complained about smearing Christians. Now this from you demeaning Dawkins.

Like I said, I don't care what one claims to believe. I care how he behaves - the values that he incorporates into his choices.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How could they be Christians and do what they did ?

Easy. Being a Christian is holding certain core metaphysical beliefs about gods, sin, redemption and the like. If you hold those beliefs, you are a Christian. If you commit acts of terrorism while holding those beliefs, then you are a Christian terrorist.

Unbelievers have no problem with these ideas, and I'd bet many if not most believers don't either.

Every one of those dead terrorists is in heaven now according to Christian doctrine if they repented before death. I'd suggest that if your god considers them Christian enough to be invited into heaven, that you do as well.

Once again, please understand that you have no authority in these matters. What you believe is irrelevant to everybody here but you. It's what you know and can demonstrate that matters. You don't demonstrate anything. You just express opinions that obviously are chosen to defend your faith.

 

[shmogie]

Easy. Being a Christian is holding certain core metaphysical beliefs about gods, sin, redemption and the like. If you hold those beliefs, you are a Christian. If you commit acts of terrorism while holding those beliefs, then you are a Christian terrorist.

Unbelievers have no problem with these ideas, and I'd bet many if not most believers don't either.

Every one of those dead terrorists is in heaven now according to Christian doctrine if they repented before death. I'd suggest that if your god considers them Christian enough to be invited into heaven, that you do as well.

Once again, please understand that you have no authority in these matters. What you believe is irrelevant to everybody here but you. It's what you know and can demonstrate that matters. You don't demonstrate anything. You just express opinions that obviously are chosen to defend your faith.

Nonsense. If the Church et,al considers them non Christian, why should you ? Those core beliefs include not doing what they did. Thereby, by your own method they cannot be Christians. I couldn't care less about "authority" and why you even brought it up I don't know. However I do care about logic, and your position, and everyone else who holds it is illogical and irrational. The truth be told I think you and others know this, but it is important to you to condemn the few by by lumping them with the many, I also believe you are totally hostile to the principles and beliefs of Christianity, and thus to those who hold them and practice them. The corporate mud slinging is your tactic to do this. Like the Russian prosecutor who says " one of these ten committed murder, so we will execute all and be sure we execute the one we want". A logic syllogism proves how wrong you are. Christians cannot commit murder, Bill committed murder, therefore Bill could not have been a Christian when he committed murder. The simplest syllogism, but it proves how illogical your position is. You know, and I know that this is much more than an exchange of idea's. This is a small battle field of words in a war with many battlefields all over the nation. A clash of ideas and beliefs very hostile to one another. No problem for me, bring it. You hate Christianity and what it represents, I think many of your humanist/atheist ideas are destructive and even depraved. So, there it is. I don't demonstrate anything, pray tell what do you demonstrate I haven't seen much. You talk of opinions yet you are full of them. So..................................................

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm afraid that that one is yours as well. In 1973, the year that Roe v Wade was decided, all seven justices voting for abortion rights in the 7-2 were Christians

1973 Supreme Court:

Blackmun Methodist
Burger Presbyterian
Brennan Catholic
Douglas Presbyterian
Marshal Episcopalian
Powell Presbyterian
Renquist Lutheran
Stewart Episcopalian
White Episcopalian

And who's getting these abortions?

70% of Women Who Get Abortions Identify as Christians, Survey Finds

@shmogie

I notice that you declined to respond to this.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The promise of economic freedom with the neoliberal policies has backfired

Liberal policies made it possible for me achieve economic security. They provided me with a free public education, student loans for university, and the GI Bill.

What's backfiring is what's in place today.

we are seeing poverty in so-called wealthy countries who are not really wealthy because they are borrowed up to their eyeballs.

Not a smart choice whether you're talking about America's national debt or individual, private debt.

We are seeing the rise of racism and discrimination

I already mentioned my thoughts about the present state of America and recent trends: "Currently, America, which has lately become increasingly conservative and its government increasingly Christian, is dominated by a selfish ideology, which, as a a secular humanist and a liberal, is one I reject."

Those are not my values, and I feel increasingly estranged from the land of my birth. It's not the America I grew up in.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There's a pretense about a philosophical way of life being good when it's not and is probably the cause of most of the problems which will only get worse.

Wouldn't that depend on the philosophy? Mine has served me well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think, but couldn't say for sure, that Christians
give more per person.

The answers are available:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/nonreligious-children-are-more-generous

Atheists are the most generous—even without heavenly reward!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ethically my kid shouldn't shoplift. If they do, and not get caught, they would certainly think whatever they stole contributes to their survival. Since they are a juvenile there will be no legal, ramifications. So why should I bother with it as a parent ? Perhaps the kid learned a valuable lesson in not getting caught the next time. From the evolutionary standpoint, I see no harm to anyone but perhaps the store owner. No threat to society, just a kid stealing a pack of baseball cards. A kid who the odds are will never become a true criminal. Since I am A Christian, my stand on this is obvious, and the kid is going to be marched back to the store and spend a lot of time grounded. In the Hitchkins world of humans dancing to their genes, why would this even matter ?

You seem to be saying that without a god belief, one has no reason to be a good person. You should think about the ramifications of that idea. What does it say about your own motivation to behave ethically?

If the only thing coming between you and berserking is your god belief, then please keep the faith.

In the meantime, we'll continue living good, decent, hard working, law abiding lives without that. I don't need the promise of heaven or threat of hell to want to be a good person. I don't need anybody to be keeping score to have a reason to do the right thing.

 

[shmogie]

You seem to be saying that without a god belief, one has no reason to be a good person. You should think about the ramifications of that idea. What does it say about your own motivation to behave ethically?

If the only thing coming between you and berserking is your god belief, then please keep the faith.

In the meantime, we'll continue living good, decent, hard working, law abiding lives without that. I don't need the promise of heaven or threat of hell to want to be a good person. I don't need anybody to be keeping score to have a reason to do the right thing.

No, I am not saying that at all, We were talking about evolutionary theory and ethics being the result of that process. I was simply pointing out that if this process was at work, unethical people people evolved to have quite nice survival. You read too much into what is written, and draw very erroneous conclusions. Actually I believe that a certain amount of good/ethical behavior exists in all people, to a greater or lesser extent. It can be seen in all cultures around the globe. Your erroneous conclusion prompted a smart *** statement, childish

 

[shmogie]

@shmogie

I notice that you declined to respond to this.

Only God knows if they were Christians,

Liberal policies made it possible for me achieve economic security. They provided me with a free public education, student loans for university, and the GI Bill.

What's backfiring is what's in place today.



Not a smart choice whether you're talking about America's national debt or individual, private debt.



I already mentioned my thoughts about the present state of America and recent trends: "Currently, America, which has lately become increasingly conservative and its government increasingly Christian, is dominated by a selfish ideology, which, as a a secular humanist and a liberal, is one I reject."

Those are not my values, and I feel increasingly estranged from the land of my birth. It's not the America I grew up in.

I think you said you lived in Costa Rica. If so, you made a wise choice. If only more who are feeling estranged would leave, the country would be better off, as would they,

 

[shmogie]

@shmogie

I notice that you declined to respond to this.

Only God knows if they were Christian's. Roe v Wade actually wasn't about abortion, it was about the unenumerated right of privacy. This was how the court avoided the question of unlawful killing. The issue of murder will be addressed in the future, guaranteed.