Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Atheists Unveil Their Monument to Atheism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A month or so ago, I alerted UD readers that atheists in Florida were about to place their stone monument of the Ten “commandments” of atheism.  Well, today they have unveiled their monument to atheism in front of the Bradford County, Florida, courthouse, right near a monument listing the traditional Ten Commandments from the Old Testament scriptures.  Personally, I have no problem with the monument itself being placed in a public square.  We’re a pluralistic society, all ideas are welcome and open for debate.  That is what freedom of speech is all about.  (As a side note, contrast that with Nick Matzke, the suppressor!)

“When you look at this monument, the first thing you will notice is that it has a function. Atheists are about the real and the physical, so we selected to place this monument in the form of a bench,” said David Silverman, president of American Atheists.”

So, now we know that atheists define the real as what is physical.  I guess there’s no real surprise there.  But it would be interesting to see what scientific evidence they have to show that real and physical amount to the same thing. I guess numbers aren’t real?  How about love?

On the different sides of the monument, we now have, literally carved in stone, what atheists actually believe.  For example, on one side is this quote:

“An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated.”
– American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O’Hair
One wonders that if everything is the the result of materialistic processes, as an atheist must believe, then on what basis does an atheist want “disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated”?  No doubt most atheists do think the elimination of those things is a good thing.  But, what isn’t clear is why they think it is good in the first place.  Good compared to what standard?  There is an inherent major contradiction here, and now they’ve made it official by having it carved in stone.  So much for logic and reason!
Apparently the monument also includes some of the Old Testament punishments for certain sins.  Besides the selective editing involved in picking out what offenses and punishments should be carved in stone for all time, it is interesting to note that they haven’t quoted anything from the Koran about, say, what ought to happen to infidels.  One has to wonder why.

 

 

Comments
Re your #189, KN, unchecked capitalism is one of the ultimate effects of materialism, however informal the individual's adherence to it.Axel
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
BP: Pardon but I think you are a bit personal there, beyond need. KFkairosfocus
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT
JWT: I see you are insistent, so pardon a little OT remarking, BA. In a world in which ruthless evildoers from hardened criminals to demonic dictators disposing of armed forces exists, has the following from Rom 13 escaped your notice?
Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
The first thing here is that we see that there is such a thing as the civil authority acting as God's protective servant to defend the civil peace of justice from evildoers who would prey upon the innocent. That starts with the policeman on the corner. And if the civil authority is God's servant of justice armed with the sword, there is no good reason to infer that to be such a servant is to be out of God's will. yes, abuse is possible and must be guarded against. indeed, other texts such as Dan 1 - 2 and Exodus make it plain that there is a legitimate principle of interposition by lower magistrates and by representative spokesmen who may also be called of God in a situation. The case of Exodus is actually that of a revolution leading to the formation of a new national polity, initiated against a tyrant by God acting with and through his spokesmen. That is, we see in essence the emerging pattern of government and nationhood under God, of rulers as acting in light of a double covenant: nationhood under God, just Government of the people under God. Where also we see in Moshes the difference between personal meekness and the need to act with due humility but also determination, in roles of civil leadership in the name of justice, as representative then as magistrate. David is another striking case, and there are more. (Cf my discussion here on.) And so forth. There is much more to the story than you have been taught. Good day. KFkairosfocus
July 4, 2013
July
07
Jul
4
04
2013
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
This, which was ignored by E. Liddle from another post: E. Liddle said: “Modelling the expected distribution under some kind of process in which each “draw” is independent from prior “draws” is clearly not a model of Darwinian processes.” Bpragmatic responded: I don’t believe that in the OOL phase of “evolution”, the laws of physics and chemistry (darwinian processes are beholding to) would be anywhere near as charitable to the material formation requirements as would “independent draws” as you seem to imply with the above statement. In fact I would propose that there is a clear cut scientific case for asserting that some sort of guiding intelligence is required to overcome the IMPOSSIBILITY of certain component relationships from developing guideded purely by the laws of physics and chemical reactions. Liddles response: NOTHING. Why deal with reality questions when you can continue to pull the "discussions" down the rabbit trail to nowhere. Especially when it achieves the personal goals of: ????? Lizzy, come clean. You have no clue when it comes to applying your alleged "expertise" regarding probabilities and mathematical conclusions towards requirements of OOL. I know that if you don not respond to my statements, it might be because you think you have "bigger fish to fry". I really dont know. But, if you can respond to this post in a way that scietifically supports your position, I am looking forward to that. I hope your sink is clean. Another question: Can the paid nde propoganda machine come up with some one who can really demonstrate valid arguable positions on these issues?bpragmatic
July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
@kf:
Inasmuch as this does not significantly affect the Judaeo-Christian stance on morality, it is irrelevant to this thread.
Not significantly? I repeat: "Let’s see… What society refuses to take part in any war… Hm? - Atheists? - Trinitarians? - Muslims? - Jehovahs Witnesses?" Killing Darwin doesn't solve anything. The hypocracy is rich in the lands of Trinitaria.JWTruthInLove
July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
F/N: Thirty years ago, when Francis Schaeffer warned us about the trends we have been facing, he was widely dismissed, now with "post birth abortion" being advocated in major ethics journals, we should heed his warnings. Similarly, I find the following by Will Hawthorne, significant in light of the want of a worldview foundation IS in evolutionary materialism capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT and given what has been going on:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . We've conformed to standard principles and inference rules of logic and we've started out with assumptions that atheists have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion: therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism [= evolutionary materialism] is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible . . . . Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions) . . .
It is time to wake up and realise the fires that have been set in our civilisation by ruthless radicals intending to abuse the colour of law to demonise, intimidate and even possibly destroy those who on point of principle disagree with them, and try to put the fires out before they blaze utterly out of control. KFkairosfocus
July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
JWT: You may find this on the sins (and blessings) of Christendom, something you need to bear in mind in future. Debates over Unitarianism in theology are off topic for UD, but I can point here for those who are interested in why this is and has long been the orthodox Christian position. Inasmuch as this does not significantly affect the Judaeo-Christian stance on morality, it is irrelevant to this thread. Also, I will not delve on debates regarding particular peculiarities of sects, which can be explored elsewhere. KF PS: Onlookers would be well advised to note that a known -- and in key parts INTENDED (kindly note onwward links) -- implication of the ongoing push to homosexualise marriage in the name of equality and rights (demonstrably falsely, in some cases willfully counterfeitly so) is that the Judaeo-Christian creation-order, naturally evident ethics of family and sexuality are progressively being smeared falsely as hate speech and proscribed under false colour of law. As a direct consequence, under misappropriated civil rights law, principled Christians and others who have principled and informed concerns regarding the radical homosexualist agendas, assertions and trends (cf. here for a sampler, and note also the historically anchored, fulfilled prophecy-driven core warranting case for the Christian worldview as truth anchored in Messiah who was prophesied, came in love, liberated, died for us and rose with over 500 witnesses who could not be shaken, in fulfillment of the prophecies of Scripture) will predictably progressively be unjustly stereotyped as the moral equivalent of racists [hence the slanders at TSZ about nazism and EL's attempts first to deny then to defend . . . ] and driven out of employment and positions of responsibility; including especially in education as the next step of morality taken captive to radical relativism and might makes right anti-ethics driven by the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialism is pushed through. (There are already significant cases on record in several major jurisdictions that make this quite clear; cf here.) Our civilisation is at a terrible watershed and some pretty ruthless might and manipulation make 'right' radical tactics have been used to bring us here. Cultural civil war knife fight is an unfortunately accurate description of what we are facing: a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing an unwavering design that points to ever increasing persecution of people of principle rooted in slander, scapegoating and marginalisation. And, of course one of the talking points being used here is to say that to speak out frankly about what has been going on and where it points is "fear mongering." Sorry, I am not going to be intimidated by that.kairosfocus
July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT
StephenB, I put your comment on a facebook discussion page and it ignited a a long debate,,, you might want to check it out; http://www.facebook.com/groups/unbelievablejb/permalink/409085492525306/bornagain77
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
bornagain77, DonaldM, Elizabeth, thank you for the kind words.StephenB
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
KN: With all due respect, your rhetorical tack is disappointing. Let us suppose -- for argument -- the sort of typical "received" view of Alcibiades in say Plutarch's Lives and other sources (you will note I specifically exclude the evidently spurious dialogues, though they reflect an obviously ancient view and has not a few interesting thoughts such as the ignorance that has conceit of knowledge), is completely wrong, and that my reading of the tenor of the hints of Plato's resentments over the death of Socrates in the above cited passage in The Laws is wrong. It would mean that I am wrong on a relatively minor point and wrong in good company. However, it would have not one whit of difference on the analysis of the tendency of avant garde evolutionary materialist thought c 400 BC, and the logic that makes that summary apt. (I agree, Democritus does seem a source for the line of thoughts, and Lucretius' poem from much later does speak in quite similar terms to what Plato painted. Plato's summary can be taken as saying this had a time when it was an avant garde fashion rather roughly c. 400 BC.) For it was and is true that there is a tendency to reduce reality to matter interacting by chance and necessity, dismissing design. It would remain so that a characteristic result of such a basis is a radical relativisation of law and morality leading to the inference that "the highest right is might." It would still be so that when such views are fashionable there is a tendency for ruthless nihilist factions to arise on this claimed advanced view, and it would still tend to domineering and destructive statecraft. It would still be the case that Alcibiades is an apt example of the manipulative, self-centred scheming politician who rises from allegedly promising youth and becomes dominant, a living scandal, a cynical manipulator and a glib operator always on the lookout for no 1 who turned coat at least twice over. One who was evidently targetted by Socrates to try to point him to a nobler path, who despite great positive potential went a very different way that echoes the warning themes Plato sounded. And, it would still be true that c. 360 BC, all of this that sounds ever so eerily familiar was anticipated in a major work by one of the all time top ten philosophers in our civilisation's history. Which is the main context of my citation: it is the WORLDVIEW of evo mat not the currently favoured lab coat it wears, that drives its characteristic socially relevant conclusions and tendencies, and this was pointed out on the record 2350 years ago. In short, on my worst case, you would still be setting up and knocking over a strawman. So, it seems to me that you need to put things back in due proportion, and address the worldview foundations and tendencies problems highlighted 2350 years ago by Plato. And no, my citation is not a blind appeal to Plato as substitute for scriptural authority. Instead, I find it highly significant to see the issues put on the table from 2350 years ago. Issues we still need to face today. KFkairosfocus
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
I'm pressing this point because it goes to Kairofocus' appeal to Plato's authority for the claim that "materialism" is a cause of moral corruption. Axel: the complaints raised @ 186 look much more to me like symptoms of unchecked capitalism than anything else.Kantian Naturalist
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
I'm not disputing that Plato saw Alcibiades as a warning of the dangers of the wrong (i.e. Sophistic) education, nor that Socrates wanted to distance himself from Alcibiades; what I'm disputing is that Plato saw Democritean atomism as a cause of Alcibiades' moral corruptionKantian Naturalist
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
KN: I am sure you are very familiar with the fate of Socrates and the pattern of charges that led to his demise, along with just who would have been the no 1 youth in question. Similarly, with the history of Alcibiades [and note I speak to his path as a young man of potential spoilt . . . Plato's focus, not childhood], including how he was able to gain a favourable and even seductive impression when it suited him (until he went too far), which is of course duly noted in the summary above. But all along he was a cynical self-serving, narcissistic manipulator, who ended badly indeed, having started from a very favourable position. He is of course exhibit no 1 on the way Athens' leadership went from bad to worse in the run-up to the Peloponnesian war then onwards to the unjustified attack on Syracuse that he championed [it is suspected to gain fame and fortune by success] and which in the end was so disastrous when with Spartan advice Athens was defeated decisively. In that immediate context the charge against him which led him to be recalled to Athens was sacrilege, which is what led him to skip town and turn traitor. Where, he could not resist seducing the queen of Sparta, then he turned traitor to all of Greece. Astonishingly, reflecting his abilities as a manipulator, he was indeed able to win back favour in Athens, and so on to the point of his sticky end. This is the dark triad in action indeed, which is my point. Compare that to what Plato makes the Athenian Stranger say in The Laws, bearing in mind Socrates' ghost at his shoulder. KFkairosfocus
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
Elizabeth B Liddle states: 'And the fear-mongering that KF seems to be indulging in, of what terrible things will happen to society if the “materialists” come to dominate, is, in my view, just that – fear-mongering. It's not 'fear-mongering', it's knocking heads together, because it's already here. It's not 'will happen'. Our world has become increasingly anomian and dystopian since WWII. It's now front and centre. The bitterest irony, (familiar to our ID tribe on here) is that the claims made by atheists, the nihilists responsible, are beyond bizarre in that they are the precise antithesis of the truth. For example, since the inception of sex-education classes, school-girl pregnancies have been rocketing. Below, is a very brief conspectus of the state of US society, after rampant hedonism has taken over, and its liberal-atheist leaders have taken to mocking Christian values. (Orlov speaking on his blog, cluborlov.com, under the sub-heading, A Healthy Sense of Shame. He's a brilliant, very original, atheist polymath): 'Here is a specific example: I recently told an audience a few things about their own country (the United States). I pointed out that their country is number one among developed countries in quite a few categories, such obesity (Mexico is number two), divorce rate, one-person households, children being raised fatherless, child abuse death, sexually transmitted disease infection rate, teenage pregnancy rate, incarceration rate, depression and stress-related ailments. I pointed out that one-third of the children in the US are fatherless, that one-quarter of teenage girls in the US have at least one sexually transmitted disease, that a quarter of the women in the US are prescribed antidepressants at one point or another, that a third of all the employees suffer chronic debilitating stress and one-half experience stress that causes insomnia, anxiety and depression. I told them that they are killing themselves in record numbers, suicide being the leading cause of injury death, ahead of the also plentiful car accidents and gunshot wounds. I told them that the extent of their social inequality and societal neglect is worthy of a third-world banana republic. And I told that audience what they, according to numerous opinion polls, think of their government: their Congress is less popular than cockroaches, lice, root canals, colonoscopies, traffic jams, used car salesmen and Genghis Khan. And they took all that on board and even chuckled. Yes, it's all true.' In fact, things happen today quite regularly, which no-one could have imagined in the fifties, e.g. infertile women ripping babies from the womb of expectant mothers. Weird stuff. 9 year old rapists etc. We are sometimes told that the US is the most Christian country in the West. Well, there's formal Christianity and there's actual Christianity. 'By their fruit, you shall know them.' I see some of you on here are shocking partisans of the most vicious right-wing economics. It never ceases to amaze me. And I'd bet heavily you are not short of a bob. ----------- 'If we are to live in peace as a society, we need to respect each other’s moral worth. I suggest that both sides of the atheist-theist debate could help by not denigrating the moral capacity of the other side.' Ironically, the above statement by Liddle is almost a facsimile of Orlov's next sentence, which I excised. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on, from the viewpoint of mainstream Christianity. There can be no question of peace. Atheists would certainly not cease in their struggle against Christianity and its values until they were crushed - which is perfectly consistent with one of our fundamental tenets, namely, that we are all caught up in a spiritual battle of unimaginable scope and ferocity.Axel
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
How much do we really know about Alcibiades' education and about the Alcibiades-Plato relationship? If Alcibiades is a good example of the kind of person Plato is talking about in Laws X, how do you explain the much more sympathetic portrayal of Alcibiades in Symposium? Do we have good reason to believe that Alcibiades was deeply influenced by Democritus, the only Greek materialist from that period of history? What's the basis for believing that Plato had Alcibiades in mind at all when he wrote Laws X?Kantian Naturalist
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Now, let us see just how Plato warned us in The laws Bk X, about the sort of evolutionary materialism that our civilisation is again enamoured of: __________ >> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny. )] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them. >> ___________ Talk about cossetting an asp to the bosom under the foolish impression that the snake has become lamb-like because it has TOLD you so cleverly. KF PS: I see KS trying the cynical 1984 doublespeak game. He knows full well how a reasonable remark was foully twisted in the fever swamps surrounding UD, and he is seeking to slyly smear by making that allusion. For his information, sparing the rod and spoiling the child (which is not to be equated to sadistic child abuse -- yet another slander used by the foul) is a major part of the mess our civilisation is in.kairosfocus
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Let me describe a model for so much of what we are seeing, Alcibiades [the model in the back of Plato's mind in the remark in The Laws Bk X], by clipping a nice summary discussion by Gabriella Arcan: ______________ >> According to Thucydides, Alcibiades was an immoral man. He was never able to be loyal to his country, his wife or his friends. As a teenager, he was Socrates’ protégé and pupil but was not faithful to him. Alcibiades also liked to be flattered, and indulged himself in sensual pleasures. He was famous for his parties which scandalized the citizens of Athens . . . . Alcibiades showed no respect for other people’s feelings, and for them as human beings all together. Sometimes he did certain things to redeem himself, but not because he was sorry for the wrong he caused, but because he realized that even he needed to maintain a certain level of decency in the public eye. People of Athens tolerated his behavior for two reasons. First, he was a good general, and they needed him, and he knew how to get their clemency, by being very eloquent. He was a very charming man, and knew how to use that. But a time came when even the Athenian people had enough, and one day Alcibiades, having too many enemies, was accused of a religious sacrilege. He escaped to Sparta where the most unforgivable example of his immoral character occurred. Alcibiades convinced the Spartans that he was their friend, and indeed helped them, against his own city, but in the meantime he was very busy himself, seducing the wife of his Spartan protector King Agis. Incredibly, Alcibiades seduced King Agis’s wife to have a successor to the Spartan throne. He thought that he was able to manipulate everything. She gave birth to a baby boy, and even if according to Plutarch, the boy’s name was not Alcibiades, she used to call him that when she was in a circle of good friends. Word got back to King Agis, and he got suspicious of Alcibiades. The king knew that the baby was not his own, since he hadn’t been with his wife for about ten months prior to the child’s birth. When he realized the boy’s father was Alcibiades, he planned to get revenge. Alcibiades, who up to then had pretended to be the king’s friend, being scared, fled Sparta for the chief enemy of all the Greeks, The King of Persia and his satrap Tissaphernes. Once there, he behaved unscrupulously. But what should not be forgotten is he left behind to who knew what sort of dangerous fate his own son and the woman with whom Alcibiades conceived him. He never thought of the king’s wife’s situation, or the child’s. But Alcibiades had never proved himself to be faithful before that time or afterward. He committed evil deeds because he thought he would be manipulating a situation for his own self-interest or simply because of whatever short-term pleasure it offered and he did not care about the harm that he caused. If he actually cared, he could have taken the mother, or at least the child with him. Of course, he did not. He did not go back to get them, or attempt to . . . . As a result Alcibiades ultimately had to flee for his life to the king of Persia’s minister, or satrap. Turning traitor a second time, Alcibiades advised the Persians how to best defeat the Spartans. Later on, having worn out his welcome with the Persians, Alcibiades took advantage of a pair of revolutions in Athens, the first of which overthrew the democracy and the second of which overthrew the oligarchy that had taken over. Alcibiades participated in the revolution that returned the city to democracy and then came back to Athens . . . >> _______________ Resemblance to to much of what is happening in our civilisation today, is NOT coincidental. More on that in a moment. KFkairosfocus
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
KF,
Isn’t it interesting to see how KS tries to push the twisting of a reasonable statement on discipline [where too much of what we are seeing here is plainly a case of narcissistic overgrown spoiled brattishness] into an accusation.
What accusation? All I did was link to a comment you wrote in your own words, in response to your comment about teddy bears and knife fights! Dude, you are entirely too wound up these days. That Supreme Court decision really got to you, didn't it?keiths
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Isn't it interesting to see how KS tries to push the twisting of a reasonable statement on discipline [where too much of what we are seeing here is plainly a case of narcissistic overgrown spoiled brattishness] into an accusation. This speaks volumes on the exact point about nihilistic dark triad ruthlessness I have pointed to; which we do need to be prepared to deal with, especially the other two components. And right now the only positive contribution KS is making is by way of inadvertently providing an example of the problem. let's just say that high machs will try to get away with anything they think they can at others' expense and sociopaths are unfeeling thus low on the empathy that EL is presuming upon to carry the ethical load, a gap she does not understand. I doubt that she has had experience of having to deal with cold hearted, calloused killers. KFkairosfocus
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Your #170, JDH, the basic assumptions of our world-view are a great leveler, for sure; well, scripture indicates somewhat more than that. The reason, of course, is that such primordial assumptions are more abstruse, and their implications for us so personal that we make such choices with our hearts. For the Christian, there is ample confirmation of the wisdom of this faith/knowledge, not least today from the convergence of science, of all kites and crows. Beauty and self-giving love, the goal, the be-all and end- all of the Judaeo-Christian faith, seem almost to be aspects of the same thing. There is a Mosaic law which seems on the face of it, quite footling and anomalous: 'a proscription against seething a kid in its mother's milk'; but pondering on it, it doesn't seem so obscure. Don't we speak of 'the milk of human kindness'. Is not a mother's milk not a powerful symbol? The thing is: there is a moral ugliness about seething a young animal in its own mother's milk, which, if indulged, would coarsen our sensitivity to moral beauty and ugliness, the ultimate implications of which could lead to, well, the sort of thing that goes on in the name of our atheist science today, which the Nazis might well have blenched at.Axel
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
KF, What you don't seem to understand is that a "right" is: 1) Whatever Dr. Liddle's particular mass of ineteracting materials computes as output, and/or 2) Whatever definition or claim happens to "emerge" from the vague processes that generate what other processes refer to as KN's thoughts. Garbage in, garbage out (or, garbage source, garbage emerges). Rights need not be attached to any absolute moral grounding because we just make up our rights as we go along - whatever we feel like should be our right, and whatever we can get others to agree with - those are our rights, man. I have a **right** to medical care, a **right** to a cell phone, a **right** to a share of the fat cat's profits ... I have the right to claim as my right whatever I feel like I deserve, ... maaaaannn.William J Murray
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Sure it’s my view that “we” – meaning human beings – have discovered that societies based on reciprocal altruism work better than those that don’t. Although it’s true that a few people haven’t got the memo.
"Work better" according to what standard, utilizing what evaluatory metric?
Name a society in which reciprocal altruism doesn’t lie at the heart of the law, of social duties and taboos, or even at the heart of the economy. There may be some, historically, but most modern societies seem to work like that.
You made the positive claim; name a society which centrally employs "reciprocal altruism" - especially in the law.William J Murray
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Elizabeth B Liddle said “Name a society in which reciprocal altruism doesn’t lie at the heart of the law, of social duties and taboos, or even at the heart of the economy. There may be some, historically, but most modern societies seem to work like that.” All the actual europeans countries do not allow free immigration, is that based on “reciprocal altruism” or shelfishness? There is plenty of people without a job in eropeans countries is that because at the heart of the economy works the reciprocal altruism? Irak and Afghanistan have the presence of eropeans armies, Siria do not. Cuba is under an US embargo China not. That decisions are taken because reciprocal altruism is at the heart of economy? US is conditioning their help to africans countries to the implementation of birth contro policies, free abortion policies and recognition of gay unions, is that reciprocal altruism? Elizabeth B Liddle said “Well, yes, which is why we develop laws and criminal justice systems to reinforce the moral code. So to give my full version of what I think underpins most human society: reciprocal altruism + justice tempered with mercy. “ Sorry but the laws do not inforce reciprocal altruism. You are immagine that. Elizabeth B Liddle said “Who is compelling you? Not that I said it was “just” an evolved capacity. As I said, I think our cultural heritage plays a role. So in your view, why do people do the right thing?” Elizabeth B Liddle said When the right thing do not like to me you mean? In order to comply with the authoritie. Elizabeth B Liddle said “It’s not as bad as you fear.” How do you know? Never have been tested. Elizabeth B Liddle said “Well, the Golden Rule would be a good start. Unselfishness. As I say, I think it’s a mixture of what is innate, and what we (i.e. human beings and the culture they pass down) have figured out works.” Can you elaborate better? I have to do to others what I want others do to me. That is your definition of goodness?Chesterton
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
JDH There is no objective morality is not a statement about what you should do. It is a statement about the nature of the justification for what you should do. I think almost everyone agrees you should minimise the suffering of others. It is just some of us have different ideas about the justification for that statement.Mark Frank
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
KF,
Sorry, I am not taking a teddy bear to a knife fight...
Yes, ditch the teddy bear. Bring "Mr. Leathers"!keiths
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
LT: Slanders, evasive denials of same while harbouring, accusations of racism that are unwarranted, outing tactics, censorship and career busting, all of which have been well documented, are ruthless nihilistic tactics and all are being used even routinely by darwinist evo mat advocates. Sorry, I am not taking a teddy bear to a knife fight being perpetrated even on innocent members of my family. And it is time you realised what you are enabling by your own behaviour. KFkairosfocus
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
You are using the majestatic “We” to hide that what you are saying is nothing more than your particular view of human society.
Sure it's my view that "we" - meaning human beings - have discovered that societies based on reciprocal altruism work better than those that don't. Although it's true that a few people haven't got the memo.
There is no societies that have “moral codes”.
Of course there are.
Societies have laws and autorities that enforce the laws.
Yes, indeed, and those who trangress a law are generally deemed to have "done wrong".
Reciprocal altruism never was a rule of a society.
Name a society in which reciprocal altruism doesn't lie at the heart of the law, of social duties and taboos, or even at the heart of the economy. There may be some, historically, but most modern societies seem to work like that.
Yes, there people that follow moral codes based on mututal respect and reciprocal altruism, also there is people that follow moral codes based on non reciprocal altruism, but the majority of that people follow that codes because thinks that they are accountable for what they do and will be a reward or a punishment.
Well, yes, which is why we develop laws and criminal justice systems to reinforce the moral code. So to give my full version of what I think underpins most human society: reciprocal altruism + justice tempered with mercy.
So no, “We” do not discovered nothing.
I think we have.
Elizabeth B Liddle said “And while theists may attribute that “innate” sense to God and societal wisdom to religion, while atheists attribute it to our evolved capacities for empathy and social cohesion plus the collective accrued wisdom embedded in our culture, the core is the same.” The core looks the same but it isn´t. If our perceptions of what is right or wrong is just an evolved capacity I´m compelled to do the right as far is useful to me.
Who is compelling you? Not that I said it was "just" an evolved capacity. As I said, I think our cultural heritage plays a role. So in your view, why do people do the right thing?
Elizabeth B Liddle said “And the fear-mongering that KF seems to be indulging in, of what terrible things will happen to society if the “materialists” come to dominate, is, in my view, just that – fear-mongering.” Not fear-mongering, fear to the unknow. I prefer not to test the change, fortunatly it will not happen during my life time.
Well, perhaps it is fear of the unknown. In which case I say: take courage. It's not as bad as you fear.
Elizabeth B Liddle said “It seems to me far sounder to recognise what is of God because it is good, than to recognise good because someone is convinced that it is of God.” Well, then give us a definition of good.
Well, the Golden Rule would be a good start. Unselfishness. As I say, I think it's a mixture of what is innate, and what we (i.e. human beings and the culture they pass down) have figured out works.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Elizabeth B Liddle said “ I absolutely agree that as a people we have discovered that “Societies just do better” when they honour a moral code based on mutual respect and reciprocal altruism.”. You are using the majestatic “We” to hide that what you are saying is nothing more than your particular view of human society. There is no societies that have “moral codes”. Societies have laws and autorities that enforce the laws. Reciprocal altruism never was a rule of a society. Yes, there people that follow moral codes based on mututal respect and reciprocal altruism, also there is people that follow moral codes based on non reciprocal altruism, but the majority of that people follow that codes because thinks that they are accountable for what they do and will be a reward or a punishment. So no, “We” do not discovered nothing. Elizabeth B Liddle said “And while theists may attribute that “innate” sense to God and societal wisdom to religion, while atheists attribute it to our evolved capacities for empathy and social cohesion plus the collective accrued wisdom embedded in our culture, the core is the same.” The core looks the same but it isn´t. If our perceptions of what is right or wrong is just an evolved capacity I´m compelled to do the right as far is useful to me. Elizabeth B Liddle said “And the fear-mongering that KF seems to be indulging in, of what terrible things will happen to society if the “materialists” come to dominate, is, in my view, just that – fear-mongering.” Not fear-mongering, fear to the unknow. I prefer not to test the change, fortunatly it will not happen during my life time. Elizabeth B Liddle said “It seems to me far sounder to recognise what is of God because it is good, than to recognise good because someone is convinced that it is of God.” Well, then give us a definition of good.Chesterton
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Mark Frank @166 Mark, I have read some of your comments before and respect your intellect. But please explain to me how, "There is no objective morality" is not an objective, moral statement. 1. Is it objective. Well in my mind objective U subjective form a complete set. There is no statement which is in the excluded middle. I may be wrong there. So is the statement "There is no objective morality" subjective. It certainly is not. It has no subject that is showing any personal preference. It is a declaration of something that is not true only for some subjects. It claims a universal truth. Therefore it is objective, not subjective. 2. It is moral. In my understanding a moral statement is about how one "should" behave. The statement,"There is no objective morality" implies behavior and "should". It implies that there is no objective scale to judge someone else's morality. So if you are judging someone else's morality, you are doing something you "SHOULD NOT" do. 3. Since the statement "There is no objective morality" is both objective and moral it is an objective, moral statement. If you can find a hole in this argument then please present it, else please admit you were wrong.JDH
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
KN - you also confirm the Word of God to me. Because for God to make it so a man of well honed intellectual prowess could never reject him, but the man of weak intellect could, would be in my mind unfair and not consistent with God's declared impartiality with respect to persons. Alan Fox may make an internally inconsistent statement that boldy displays the truth of "'The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God'”. But your ability to hide behind large constructs of obfuscation and depend on such vague concepts as "emergence" and "compatibilism" to rationalize your disbelief shows that both the man of shallow thinking, and the man of deep intellectual exercise can reject God.JDH
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply