cheers, Unreflective.

The first two seem to suggest “because Humans are the most intelligent creature on Earth there must be a creator”, in which case I don’t follow your reasoning.

The third suggests because Christianity has outlived other religions, there must be a (Christian) god. How exactly is this evidence?

The fourth point you make suggests there is a God because Jesus has been proven to be God, a statement which isn’t true. Jesus could be God but it hasn’t been proven.

Your fifth and sixth points suggest the success of the Bible and Christianity prove God exists.

All of these things may show why you believe God exists, but none of them are evidence. Truth is not a democracy, it isn’t dependent on what the majority believes.

Have faithin your God if it makes you happy, but don’t forget what faith is: belief based on something without proof.

Have a lovely day,

Lucy

poppies wrote:
You can’t allow how someone’s actions will or will not spread goodness as your measure of goodness, that’s begging the question.

If by ‘measure’ you are insinuating that I am defining goodness by what it spreads, then that is incorrect. There are plenty of actions that ‘spread’ that I would never label as ‘good.’ The effects of a person’s actions will exist regardless of whether or not I label them as such. Until we label anything, it is simply data. Observe how I said, “At a basic level, what is good is that which leads to happiness and does not cause suffering.”

I defined goodness there, and based on that definition, proceeded to document which effects would tie in with my definition of goodness. It is no different than labeling a certain colour red, and then noting which objects are red in my surroundings. The objects would still be the same colour even if I called them by another word. The first step to understanding anything in this world, is to first document the characteristic of a singular object, label it, and then expand one’s view in search of anything that matches the characteristics of my point of reference.

This is what I did with goodness. The characteristics of my reference are still ‘good’ even if there are no other objects/subjects that mirror it. I spoke of charity spreading more goodness, and that was an observable phenomenon. Charity to oneself is good. Charity to more than one person is better. Why? One can objectively observe that evil or actions that cause suffering, destroy, whereas the reverse tend to build. Unless we value the destruction of humanity, one cannot reasonably say that spreading evil is just as acceptable as spreading goodness.

You erroneously concluded that I measure goodness by what it spreads. To repeat this once again, I determine what is good based on “that which leads to happiness and does not cause suffering.” Once this is done, what I measure, is how much goodness ‘good’ actions generate—in other words, quantity.

To illustrate this using my previous analogy, it is the same as taking a large container and filling it with ‘red’ objects. Twenty red objects will cumulatively contain more ‘redness’ than four. Goodness can be measured by the effects it has on the environment, and in the case of humans and morality, it is most often a social environment.

It is important to note too, that certain ‘sources’ (actions) will tend to possess more ‘goodness’ than others but due to limited scope (such as less humans involved), will cumulatively be equal in goodness to a source that is more diluted (in terms of goodness) yet is of greater scope (affects more humans).

poppies wrote:
Similarly, judging actions as good if they would benefit a “healthy” mind is circular reasoning, since a “healthy” mind is ostensibly one possessed by a person who does “good”. If racists (or any other group which you find immoral) ever manage to rule the world, I think you’d find your conceptions of minds that function well considered outmoded.

Being racist is not immoral—it is just misguided. There is no evidence to suggest that certain human races are mentally superior to others. And even if there is, that is no valid reason to treat other humans not of that race poorly. Racism is only a problem when it ceases to be internal, and since our beliefs govern our actions, most racists are going to seek to spread less happiness and more suffering to those not of their race.

In fact, in the event that they ever manage to rule the world, whatever reins on their actions are being currently imposed by our society, will be dramatically loosened if not obliterated altogether. The increased parallel between thought and action will illustrate my point even more. Their penchant for exacting punishment and suffering on those who disagree will not be ‘good’ even if their delusions tell them so.

Science determines what a healthy mind in through numerous methods, two of those are by what is natural for the species in question, and what is most likely to ensure its survival. For obvious reasons, any species that has survived for a decent time period, will experience both criteria as one.

Scientific studies indicate that humans in a ‘natural’ environment will share a strong predisposition for ‘goodness.’ We can be very thankful for this, because a greater predisposition for evil and violence would have ensured our destruction long ago.

A ‘healthy mind’ is therefore, not inclined to racism. Children are not born racist. They are taught to be so. That the racists in your hypothetical, are by chance rulers of the world, is in no way evidence of equal or superior goodness.

What it objectively indicates, is that they are going against human nature. This is neither new, nor shocking. I am sure that there are bound to be individuals who spread evil in their lifetime and were never punished, caught, and were even greatly rewarded by those they forced their will on. Citing exceptions, in no way strengthens your argument. Their success, whilst unlikely, is still within the realm of probability.

poppies wrote:
These are classic problems when you try to claim that rights come from man; you always end up with might-makes-right.

Might only makes right in the minds of the deluded, whether they believe those rights come from their deluded peers/ancestors, or from an invisible being(s). Thankfully, no matter the circumstances, at any given point in history, there have always been individuals who value evidence and reason.

How can you say you do not believe blindly. You are blind to the reality of this world. A world and a universe that give us NO reason to believe in god. You can come back all day with the classic christian arguments, but they have been overdone and defeated. Sorry…there is no god.

Thanks for responding thoughtfully. You’re deeply mistaken about an important biblical point, here is a site which clearly discusses the context of the theocracy laws of the Old Testament which were binding only in that time and for specific purposes: http://www.letusreason.org/7thAd26.htm

Forgive any presumptuousness on my part, but it sounds like you’ve been poisoned by some pretty arrogant, compassionless and insincere people claiming to represent Christianity. Your statement about our “age of comfort” really struck me, because I’ve been thinking about that quite a bit lately; I hope that theists like myself and atheists like you can disagree honorably and work together to serve those in need.

Thanks for allowing a dissenting voice on your blog; you’re always welcome at my place, too.

satoruvash,

You’re wise to distinguish between explanation and justification, but your response still reeks of moral relativism. You can’t allow how someone’s actions will or will not spread goodness as your measure of goodness, that’s begging the question. Similarly, judging actions as good if they would benefit a “healthy” mind is circular reasoning, since a “healthy” mind is ostensibly one possessed by a person who does “good”. If racists (or any other group which you find immoral) ever manage to rule the world, I think you’d find your conceptions of minds that function well considered outmoded. Finally, your references to risking “undesirable repercussions” wouldn’t apply very well to powerful individuals; I don’t think Mao risked much at all in his sadistic actions.

These are classic problems when you try to claim that rights come from man; you always end up with might-makes-right.