Jem: >It was Bertram Russell the atheist who once >said, "Unless you assume the existence of God, >then the purpose and meaning of life is irrelevant." One man's opinion and it sure as hell doesn't match mine. >Which then leads you to the power theory. Well, perhaps that is where it leads YOU, but not me. >If you do not believe in God. Then you really can not >say Michael Jackson is wrong for sleeping with boys >or Osama bin laden is wrong for blowing up buildings >with people in them. What a load of crap! First off, treating people the way that you would wish to be treated does not require belief in a higher power. In fact, that very belief often interferes with that principle (see second) Second, you CAN believe in god and believe that Osama is RIGHT for blowing up buildings with people in them. A belief in god in no way precludes such a position as proven by millions upon millions upon millions of people in this current world. >If you think about it there is only >one intelligent choice. If believing in god IS the intelligent choice, then there are as many intelligent choices as there are gods, not the "one" choice that you proclaim. JB
That's the opinion of one atheist. One I certainly don't share. jem, you were/are a lawyer, right? Do you really that's any kind of argument? It was Bertram Russell the atheist who once said, "Unless you assume the existence of God, then the purpose and meaning of life is irrelevant." It's not irrelevant in the sense that it is something we needn't pay any attention to. Obviously we all feel that our lives have some kind of meaning and purpose, even if such meaning and purpose are only intelligble to us alone. Russell may be right that on a 'cosmic scale' our meaning and purpose is 'irrelevant'. If you do not believe in God. Then you really can not say Michael Jackson is wrong for sleeping with boys or Osama bin laden is wrong for blowing up buildings with people in them. John doesn't believe in God and believes blowing up innocents is wrong because of reasons x, y and z. Jack does believe in God and believes blowing up innocents is wrong because of reasons x, y and z. According to you, Jack's opinion on blowing up innocents is valid while John's isn't. Well, you could be right, maybe belief in God does indeed endow one with the power to decide what is right and wrong (and it's just a massive coincidence that both atheists and theists seem to largely agree on what is and isn't). On the other hand it seems to me that theists (in general) just take whatever their moral position is on an issue and ascribe it to 'God's will', and bingo, their position becomes "really" right/wrong.
>One man's opinion and it sure as hell doesn't match mine. Yeah but russell was a very prominent thinker. And I thnk the argument would be better served if you negated it with a reasoned argument. Because I can very easily support it. Without an absolute right or a higher authority. What you think is right - is not more right that what michael jackson thinks etc. There are smart people on elite who argue the difference between right and wrong is only cultural. I suspect and may even believe that Russell is right. I sort of "feel" for people who do not have a belief that there is an absolute right and wrong. Now I am not claiming I or anyone else knows what it is at all times. Only that it exists and it is my job to come as close to it as possible. So for now I just do not see how Russell is in error. >Which then leads you to the power theory. >Well, perhaps that is where it leads YOU, but not me. Well an explanation of why not would be welcome >If you do not believe in God. Then you really can not >say Michael Jackson is wrong for sleeping with boys >or Osama bin laden is wrong for blowing up buildings >with people in them. What a load of crap! O.K explain away. It just that your beliefs are no better than OBL's without natural law. The only way I know to leave out God is the way Plato did. Which is pretty close to the same thing. First off, treating people the way that you would wish to be treated does not require belief in a higher power. In fact, that very belief often interferes with that principle (see second) I agree but this misses the point. What you belive is meaningless as what I believe. It is essentially a steaming load, if there is no God. (I believe Dark was alluding to as well. I mean without God the most true ideal would be to be like Mick Jagger and have as many kids as possible in all the right schools. (as best as I can tell.) Second, you CAN believe in god and believe that Osama is RIGHT for blowing up buildings with people in them. A belief in god in no way precludes such a position as proven by millions upon millions upon millions of people in this current world. Yes, my statement did not refute this fact. You could believe in God and perhaps choose the wrong one. (so you are full of shit) But perhaps after due diligence or luck or God's grace you got the right one. So to me the due diligence is essential. But some or all God believers could be wrong. In which case it seems we are all nothing. >one intelligent choice. If believing in god IS the intelligent choice, then there are as many intelligent choices as there are gods, not the "one" choice that you proclaim. Again, what I proclaim, which I did not in this thread, is irrelevant to the thread. Why does what I proclaim even come into this. I quoted a noted atheist. It does not really matter what I belive and in fact it sort offensive. I did not state you must belive what I believe. Why do you assume that? What I have always said to my scentific friends is that you should be able to rule out what respectable thinkers believe just in case they are right. I have even stated this to other people on threads. (probably gg many times) If you do solid job checking out the concepts then in my mind you are where I believe you should be. I really do not care what you believe as long as you leave me alone. __________________
jem, you were/are a lawyer, right? Do you really that's any kind of argument? I think it is very provocative and if you follow the reasoning to the end, it may be correct. >It was Bertram Russell the atheist who once said, "Unless you assume the existence of God, then the purpose and meaning of life is irrelevant." >It's not irrelevant in the sense that it is something we needn't pay any attention to. Obviously we all feel that our lives have some kind of meaning and purpose, even if such meaning and purpose are only intelligble to us alone. Russell may be right that on a 'cosmic scale' our meaning and purpose is 'irrelevant'. I agree the statement is correct on many dimensions. But the critical one to me is: (as stated above) if all beliefs are valid then they are also equally meaningless. Which is why the criminal quote is so provocative. It is actually scary. >If you do not believe in God. Then you really can not say Michael Jackson is wrong for sleeping with boys or Osama bin laden is wrong for blowing up buildings with people in them. >John doesn't believe in God and believes blowing up innocents is wrong because of reasons x, y and z. >Jack does believe in God and believes blowing up innocents is wrong because of reasons x, y and z. >According to you, Jack's opinion on blowing up innocents is valid while John's isn't. Not really, my belief is that in any given time there is an absolute truth or correct behavior or best behavior. Only God really knows what it is. It may even have a little subjectivity in it. But at least I know that George Bush could be doing the right thing or attempting to do the right thing. And I am 100% sure what OBL di was wrong. (or else my world view is dead wrong) A non-natural law believer has no right to judge believe think or ( if there is no God) be more right or more just than OBL. It all comes down to the power theory. You cede your rights to be a criminal at any time you want in order to have your society prosper. So without a objective "correct or right or truth" how can you say OBL is wrong. He has a much right to his belief systems as you. And they must be just as valid. (Bythe way this is sort of what the U.N. proclaims and then rejects at the same time) >Well, you could be right, maybe belief in God does indeed endow one with the power to decide what is right and wrong (and it's just a massive coincidence that both atheists and theists seem to largely agree on what is and isn't). On the other hand it seems to me that theists (in general) just take whatever their moral position is on an issue and ascribe it to 'God's will', and bingo, their position becomes "really" right/wrong. Not what I stated. (although you could be right). Just because I believe in natural law or god, does not mean that I think I or anyone on earth is the arbiter of it. Like I said it is our job to discern it as best we can. I think societies should be set up to find politicians and judges who can come as close to discerning it as they can. Very much like Plato's just society.
In other words, theists use exactly the same techniques of moral reasoning as atheists. And the best theists can do is settle on a moral position and then 'hope' that it is the one God wants too. So, given that you too could be mistaken (maybe God doesn't like your moral position), how you can you then claim your theism gives you the right to then tell other people (with 100% certainty, no less) that they are wrong?
If you noticed I did not even say that what OBL did was dead wrong. Only that what he did was dead wrong or else I am dead wrong. To me that is the difference. If I were an athiest, I would probably not be able to argue the existence of an absolute right. So OBL is a right as I am. We would both be what. Stupid meaningless. ? please respond. Power theory. criminal strength. You guys have gotten me interested. Please elaborate. But we have gotten off the point. who cares what I believe. I am more intrerested in refuting what bertram russell stated. (and perhaps the point of what darkhorse was saying)
To be honest, I really don't understand that "power theory" you're referring to. But as for OBL, surely you're aware that he, by all accounts, is quite the devout believer himself, aren't you? I'm quite certain he believes just as strongly as you that what he is doing is right. So belief in God doesn't seem to be much of a help in deciding moral positions, does it? (In fact, some may go as far as to say it's a hindrance.) It appears the only thing that belief in God allows you to do (with respect to morality) is to say that "if I'm right, then I'm really right".
Well yes. But I can state that I believe what OBL did was wrong categorically including morally. If I were to meet him I could look him in the eye and tell him he is wrong. How can an atheist tell him he is wrong if that atheist is living with him in the mountains of some muslim country. To what can someone appeal to if they believe we are all just cosmic accident? Same question goes to every other abuse. That is why the criminal or victim quote is so provocative. I would still like to see it explored rather, than me explaining my little take on things. Regarding the power theory. "He who has the power makes the rules". It can be more elegantly stated in international law books but that is what it boils down to.
JEM:I suspect and may even believe that Russell is right. I sort of "feel" for people who do not have a belief that there is an absolute right and wrong. Now I am not claiming I or anyone else knows what it is at all times. Only that it exists and it is my job to come as close to it as possible. Nice unsupported assertion JEM. You call this an argument? Care to PROVE that your "source of absolute right and wrong" even exists??? Oh thats right... you cant JEM:So for now I just do not see how Russell is in error. Turoks point is that all atheists do NOT believe as Russel does, including me. I can prove that by simply disagreeing with him and being an atheist. Which I just did. You setup a strawman by assuming that he asserted Russel is wrong, which he did NOT. JEM:Which then leads you to the power theory. TUROK:Well, perhaps that is where it leads YOU, but not me. JEM:Well an explanation of why not would be welcome Hilarious!!! You call yourself an attorney?!?!? YOU ASSERT the power theory, and then try to reverse the burden of proof?? LMAOOO JEM:If you do not believe in God. Then you really can not say Michael Jackson is wrong for sleeping with boys or Osama bin laden is wrong for blowing up buildings with people in them. Wow.... are you really this clueless? This is complete hogwash. Are you telling me you are not aware of a SINGLE philosophy that deals with MORALITY that is not theistically based? You REALLY need to study more philosophy. This is a mere argument from IGNORANCE. TUROK:First off, treating people the way that you would wish to be treated does not require belief in a higher power. In fact, that very belief often interferes with that principle (see second) JEM:I agree but this misses the point. What you belive is meaningless as what I believe. It is essentially a steaming load, if there is no God. (I believe Dark was alluding to as well. I mean without God the most true ideal would be to be like Mick Jagger and have as many kids as possible in all the right schools. (as best as I can tell.) Another huge unsupported argument. You really like empty assertions huh? Taking the HUGE LEAP from "no god" ----> "meaningless" is a non-sequitur. I dont believe in god and I find meaning in my life everywhere, otherwise I would just end it today. Submit your formal PROOF or drop this nonsense. JEM:If believing in god IS the intelligent choice, then there are as many intelligent choices as there are gods, not the "one" choice that you proclaim. Obviously false. The one TRUE god could be pissed that you chose the WRONG god. Choosing ZEUS as your god, for example, probably wont cut it with Jesus if he is truly the one true god. Since there are THOUSANDS of gods invented by humans, chances are, YOUR SCREWED. If however you are ASSERTING that there really is only ONE god and people just percieve him in different ways then this is ANOTHER EMPTY ASSERTION. To make such a claim, you must first prove GOD EXISTS, and THEN you must prove that he is simply viewed in multiple ways. Good luck, because no one has ever accomplished this. You will be WORLD FAMOUS JEM:I did not state you must belive what I believe. Why do you assume that? What I have always said to my scientific friends is that you should be able to rule out what respectable thinkers believe just in case they are right. Another Pascals Wager. This has been refuted a million times already. Find some fresh material JEM:I have even stated this to other people on threads. (probably gg many times) If you do solid job checking out the concepts then in my mind you are where I believe you should be. I really do not care what you believe as long as you leave me alone. Agreed. But I did check out the Jesus myth. And its just that, a myth. The bible was written by unknown authors, and this jesus supposedly performed all these miracles, was the son of god, and changed the world, yet he is mentioned by ZERO contemporary historians during a time when historians in HIS OWN HOME TOWN kept accurate records. It seems you failed to do your own job checking Tisk tisk... peace axeman