"The Benefits of Belief" - Video

[Gray]

44 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, but when these dogmatic personal views are seen as superior to other's, then it becomes like religion.  When people of similar views group together to penalize anyone who choses to listen to Justin Bieber, then it becomes oppressive to freedom. 

It sounds like you've got a pretty negative view of religion, or at least that's the view you're trying to represent for discussion purposes. But the scenario you lay out is actually played out in a lot of high schools. I remember it.

 

Quote

Any social construct that places your personal views above that of another is what will not stand in modern society.  Ultimate freedom - raw creature freedom, is the only logical conclusion and the only thing that can stand up to unbiased questioning.  Every other world view is emotional, it is biased, it is irrational, it is dogmatic when enforced upon others.

Edit to add: More to respond to, but it will have to wait.

Obviously you don't believe the opinions that you're talking about here, correct? So whose opinion are you trying to represent here? It seems like a strawman. Who believes this way?

Edited September 10, 2018 by Gray

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It sounds like you've got a pretty negative view of religion, or at least that's the view you're trying to represent for discussion purposes.

I am presenting the modern attitude that questions the superiority of worldviews that are based in emotion, bias, and subjectivity.  

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Obviously you don't believe the opinions that you're talking about here, correct? So whose opinion are you trying to represent here? It seems like a strawman. Who believes this way?

  I have already presented many quotes.  Such emotionally subjective and biased views are rejected as "anti-intellectualism".

I would say that it is a fairly common secular position which questions and rejects subjective presuppositions which impose moral obligations on the human behavior of other's.  They often target their criticism at religion without realizing the irony that their own moral presuppositions are subject to the same criticism. 

[Glenn101]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

And why is God's morality so inconsistent?  

It is not God's morality that is inconsistent. It is the humans that try to interpret it.

[Glenn101]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Then why do faithful members of the church disagree on moral issues?

See my answer to California Boy

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Quote

Why should we accept these presuppositions of health, happiness, and well-being for all human beings? 

If you're like me, you feel on an emotional level that these things are important, not only for yourself, but for the people you care about. If you're like me, you don't like to see other people suffer. Barring some kind of emotional disorder, most people do experience empathy, which leads to at least some shared values across many different belief systems.

Feeling empathy is one thing.  Arguing that we have a moral obligation to do something about suffering is another.  Why should anyone who believes in a god-less subjective moral support any moral other than self-interest?   I call BS on anyone who pretends to practically support the presuppositions of health, happiness, and well-being for all human beings.  Most people in America do not really care in any practical way about the suffering of others.  They may feel a fleeting empathy, but that is as far as it goes for most.  It is all about self-interest.  Most will not sacrifice $1/day to feed a starving child in West Africa because then they would have to sacrifice their morning coffee.  It is impractical to sustain that presupposition.  If it infringes upon ones self-interest and becomes impractical, most will not practice such idealistic morals even if they pretend to believe them.  We are by nature competitive. We are by nature selfish. We are also empathetic by nature, but we don’t have any moral obligation to help others by nature. The only reason we are cooperative is because it serves our self-interest - according to science.

Edited September 10, 2018 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Do not agree with that. But I know that we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that we do have such access.

Glenn

 

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Then why do faithful members of the church disagree on moral issues?

 

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

It is not God's morality that is inconsistent. It is the humans that try to interpret it.

So we have access to God’s Objective Morality, but no one has managed to interpret it correctly yet? Sounds like a distinction without a difference. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

What about the existential nihilist?

Values and meaning cannot stand on logic alone (as opposed to emotion) - they are based entirely on bias, they are emotional, they are subjective, they are irrational.  I don't know how any atheist (existentialist or not) can argue otherwise.  So, I do stand by the statement that "the only logical conclusion of atheism is nihilism."  Of course, atheists can come to other irrational, emotional, biased, and entirely subjective conclusions other than nihilism, but there is no objective, unbiased, logical foundation for it.  Once society insists on the unbiased questioning of all social dogmas, nihilism will prevail, because it will be seen that values are biased and to enforce those values on others who hold unpopular biases will be seen as oppressive. 

I think you fundamentally don’t understand human nature. Taking into account human emotions is not irrational. In Harry Potter, Harry’s mother is offered the chance to live, yet she stays to futilely shield her son. Was this a rational choice? What choice would you make if someone threatened your only child? Said they were going to kill them regardless, but were willing to let you go? What is the rational thing to do? People aren’t sociopathic robots looking to maximize their own utility function. Long ago economists abandoned the idea that people behaved only in ways to maximize their own wealth because it just didn’t match up with the data on the ground. Perhaps it’s time for you to move on too?

 

People have the ability to love and do selfless acts. Engaging in selfless acts or even witnessing them triggers feelings of elevation. Give people a choice between a society that works for the benefit of all or one where at any moment people can kill with impunity and you think the only thing holding people back from choosing the latter is because they believe there is some supreme being out there waiting to punish misdeeds? 

Edited September 10, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Feeling empathy is one thing.  Arguing that we have a moral obligation to do something about suffering is another.  Why should anyone who believes in a god-less subjective moral support any moral other than self-interest?   I call BS on anyone who pretends to practically support the presuppositions of health, happiness, and well-being for all human beings.  Most people in America do not really care in any practical way about the suffering of others.  They may feel a fleeting empathy, but that is as far as it goes for most.  It is all about self-interest.  Most will not sacrifice $1/day to feed a starving child in West Africa because then they would have to sacrifice their morning coffee.  It is impractical to sustain that presupposition.  If it infringes upon ones self-interest and becomes impractical, most will not practice such idealistic morals even if they pretend to believe them.  We are by nature competitive. We are by nature selfish. We are also empathetic by nature, but we don’t have any moral obligation to help others by nature. The only reason we are cooperative is because it serves our self-interest - according to science.

And is it the godless atheists that want to build a wall or is that the god fearing conservatives? Why is this do you think? Why do atheists who don’t give a crap about anything other than themselves more often vote for social programs to help the poor?

Edited September 11, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[pogi]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think you fundamentally don’t understand human nature. 

First, I didn't say anything about human nature in that post   Second, I didn't know that there was only one human nature.  Third, I am human and I have a nature, so don't exclude me (or, are you presuming to understand my nature better than myself?) .  In that post, I am talking about the subjective presuppositions upon which morals are formed.  But you bring up an interesting point - "human nature".  Humans and nature.  Can you really disentangle the two?  If there is no God, then humans are of nature - the universe, the cosmos, it is all that exist. As Carl Sagan put it, "the Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be."  The cosmos are indifferent.  Anything else is irrational and illusory.

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Taking into account human emotions is not irrational.

I don't know what you are talking about.  Taking human emotions into account of what?  Again, I am talking about the subjective presuppositions that are the foundation of human morals. Taking human emotions into account of understanding human morals is not irrational at all, you are right.  However, saying that other morals are wrong simply on the premise of your personal bias and emotions is not rational - it is fundamentally emotional.  For example this article takes about how "anti-intellectualism is killing America".  It argues that racism, hate crimes, and hyper patriotism is based in emotional bias rather than rational thinking.  The ironic thing is that all morals are biased and emotionally based - you can't escape it!  So how can one argue that hate and gun violence is wrong when there is no objective right?  Why is your emotion superior to mine?  Where is the logic in that?  It is irrational!  If all morality is subjective, then how is it fair to penalize the subject who is the author of their own morality, which is entirely subjective?

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 Long ago economists abandoned the idea that people behaved only in ways to maximize their own wealth because it just didn’t match up with the data on the ground. Perhaps it’s time for you to move on too?

 Wealth isn't the only determining factor in well-being.  In fact it is very low on the list.  Some people find personal satisfaction from serving others.  The point is that they wouldn't do it if there was no personal satisfaction in doing so.  You can't avoid it.  It is true that some people are capable of making altruistic decisions at the sacrifice of their own well-being.  I am not saying that humans are not capable of such altruistic sacrifice, they obviously are, what I am saying is that such decisions are seen by science as either irrational to the point of being un-natural actually, or else it is self-serving in some way.   

Quote

Charles Darwin regarded the problem of altruism—the act of helping someone else, even if it comes at a steep personal cost—as a potentially fatal challenge to his theory of natural selection. 
https://www.wired.com/2012/02/the-paradox-of-altruism/

Scientists have devised all sorts of ways to suggest that the only possible explanation for altruism is that it is self-serving in the-long-run in some way or another.  Purely altruistic behavior with no self-interest or survival utility through DNA promotion or other means is rejected by science as truly irrational and paradoxical to darwinism. 

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And is it the godless atheists that want to build a wall or is that the god fearing conservatives? Why is this do you think? Why do atheists who don’t give a crap about anything other than themselves more often vote for social programs to help the poor?

You don't understand my argument.  This is not about who is more moral.  I am not arguing that atheists can't be moral.  I am not saying that atheists don't give a crap about anything. I have explained this very clearly over and over, why is it so hard to accept this?

But out of curiosity, you bring up the wall and social programs as if they are objectively more moral than anything else.  How so?  I thought morality is subjective?

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

It is not God's morality that is inconsistent. It is the humans that try to interpret it.

You mean it is ok to kill someone if they have something you really really need?  God couldn't have figured out another way for Labin to give up the brass plates?  How about just a deep sleep?  Or an entire race of people from not having priesthood  blessings?  Or murdering women and children who were not of the house of Israel?  All of these acts and countless more are coming from men who claimed to have direct access to God and His morality.  If they don't know what God's morality is, then who would?

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

You mean it is ok to kill someone if they have something you really really need?  God couldn't have figured out another way for Labin to give up the brass plates?  How about just a deep sleep?  Or an entire race of people from not having priesthood  blessings?  Or murdering women and children who were not of the house of Israel?  All of these acts and countless more are coming from men who claimed to have direct access to God and His morality.  If they don't know what God's morality is, then who would?

Laban...deep sleep...what would happen when he woke up?  Would he just let them go off without pursuing?  Would he not have punished his other servants, possibly by death, for losing valuable property...perhaps his most?  The guy was willing to kill at the sight of a gold coin if Nephi is semiaccurate.  Not some guy you want to leave at your back, for your own safety and those he will take his anger out on if he can't get to you.  I don't have any problem with the execution of Laban.

Genocide, Priesthood restrictions, slavery...tons of other issues for me.  Not Laban.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Laban...deep sleep...what would happen when he woke up?  Would he just let them go off without pursuing?  Would he not have punished his other servants, possibly by death, for losing valuable property...perhaps his most?  The guy was willing to kill at the sight of a gold coin if Nephi is semiaccurate.  Not some guy you want to leave at your back, for your own safety and those he will take his anger out on if he can't get to you.  I don't have any problem with the execution of Laban.

Genocide, Priesthood restrictions, slavery...tons of other issues for me.  Not Laban.

God could not have put him in a sleep to last long enough for Nephi to get away?   Is it ok to murder someone you think might kill someone?  Whether Laban would have actually killed someone is pure speculation.  Maybe the likelihood is high.  Should we adapt the position that murdet is justified if there is a likelihood of future bad behavior.  Honestly I can’t justify Nephi’s murder as being moral.  

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

God could not have put him in a sleep to last long enough for Nephi to get away?   Is it ok to murder someone you think might kill someone?  Whether Laban would have actually killed someone is pure speculation.  Maybe the likelihood is high.  Should we adapt the position that murdet is justified if there is a likelihood of future bad behavior.  Honestly I can’t justify Nephi’s murder as being moral.  

Execution may be justified in the case of robbery and attempted murder, past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour

Quote

And it came to pass that we went down to the land of our inheritance, and we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things.
23 And after we had gathered these things together, we went up again unto the house of Laban.
24 And it came to pass that we went in unto Laban, and desired him that he would give unto us the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, for which we would give unto him our gold, and our silver, and all our precious things.
25 And it came to pass that when Laban saw our property, and that it was exceedingly great, he did lust after it, insomuch that he thrust us out, and sent his servants to slay us, that he might obtain our property.
26 And it came to pass that we did flee before the servants of Laban, and we were obliged to leave behind our property, and it fell into the hands of Laban.
27 And it came to pass that we fled into the wilderness, and the servants of Laban did not overtake us, and we hid ourselves in the cavity of a rock.

They would have been dead if they hadn't be faster on their feet.

Does this sound like someone who is new to murder...no second thinking, instant sending off to kill and his servants know him well enough not to stop and question him, but obey?

Would it have been justice to protect Laban from any blowback from his robbery and attempted murder by having him sleep through it until .Nephi was too far gone?

 how long would that be?  3 days, 4?  How much of a headstart would it have taken for the brothers to travel back...possibly on foot, possibly not, warned the family to gather up and leave the vicinity far beyond Laban's reach and anger.  Lehi already had one death threat hanging over...and now no gold that others might have seen him as someone with influence.  Laban might have been joined by others, others willing to fund a long term hunting of Lehi and family to recover the plates and prevent any rebellion fomenting he might need them for (assuming plates were old school, they gave credibility to Lehi's condemning of the current system).

Edited September 11, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Execution may be justified in the case of robbery and attempted murder, past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour

They would have been dead if they hadn't be faster on their feet.

Does this sound like someone who is new to murder...no second thinking, instant sending off to kill and his servants know him well enough not to stop and question him, but obey?

Would it have been justice to protect Laban from any blowback from his robbery and attempted murder by having him sleep through it until .Nephi was too far gone?

 how long would that be?  3 days, 4?  How much of a headstart would it have taken for the brothers to travel back...possibly on foot, possibly not, warned the family to gather up and leave the vicinity far beyond Laban's reach and anger.  Lehi already had one death threat hanging over...and now no gold that others might have seen him as someone with influence.  Laban might have been joined by others, others willing to fund a long term hunting of Lehi and family to recover the plates and prevent any rebellion fomenting he might need them for (assuming plates were old school, they gave credibility to Lehi's condemning of the current system).

Except Laban wasn’t murdered because of the robbery.  His execution certainly wasn’t legal in any kind of criminal court. 

Kinh Lamoni was put in. Sleep for days. How can you say that would not be a possibility for God to do?  How can you suggest that God could not protect them from pursuers?  Have you not read the story of the Israelites fleeing Egypt?

Murder the only option available for God or Nrphi?  I think not.

Edited September 11, 2018 by california boy

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Except Laban wasn’t murdered because of the robbery.  His execution certainly wasn’t legal in any kind of criminal court. 

Kinh Lamoni was put in. Sleep for days. How can you say that would not be a possibility for God to do?  How can you suggest that God could not protect them from pursuers?  Have you not read the story of the Israelites fleeing Egypt?

Murder the only option available for God or Nrphi?  I think not.

Killing Laban is the option that God took.  Whether you agree with God (if it actually happened as the BOM says) is irrelevant.  If God exists, then He was operating with more knowledge about the situation, and about Laban, than you (or any of us) have any hope of ever having.  We all basically make arguments from ignorance, whenever we compare what we would do in any situation to what God has done.

But this whole exchange between you and Calm is a good example of how reason cannot be applied to settle differences in issues of morality.  Both you and Calm are reasonable, good, kind, loving, etc, people and yet you disagree on whether or not it was moral for Nephi to kill Laban.

Edit--I'm doubting that you actually know whether or not it was 'legal' for Nephi to kill Laban.  Remember, Nephi lived in a different time than now, and he lived under different laws.

Here's a good link with some considerations on the story, including one with an example of a reaction from a student in Jordan when he heard the Nephi/Laban story for the first time and couldn't understand why Nephi took so long to kill Laban, given his understanding of the laws in that culture.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Nephi's_killing_of_Laban/Ethical_considerations

Edited September 11, 2018 by bluebell

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Except Laban wasn’t murdered because of the robbery.  His execution certainly wasn’t legal in any kind of criminal court. 

Kinh Lamoni was put in. Sleep for days. How can you say that would not be a possibility for God to do?  How can you suggest that God could not protect them from pursuers?  Have you not read the story of the Israelites fleeing Egypt?

Murder the only option available for God or Nrphi?  I think not.

Biblical law allowed for it.

"Falsely accusing a person of a capital offense was a capital crime under biblical law (Deuteronomy 19:19), as it had been in the ancient Near East since at least the time of Hammurabi (Code of Hammurabi 1). Since Laban had falsely accused Laman of being a "robber" (a serious capital offense)43 and had sent his soldiers to execute the sons of Lehi on this pretext (1 Nephi 3:13, 25), Laban effectively stood as a false accuser. Such an accusation, coming from a commanding officer of the city, was more than an idle insult; it carried the force of a legal indictment. Since Nephi and his brothers were powerless to rectify that wrong, God was left to discharge justice against Laban."

So Laban had committed two capital crimes that he likely would never stand trial for, robbery and false accusation of robbery.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=jbms

Edited September 11, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

  Have you not read the story of the Israelites fleeing Egypt

So you would think it would be more moral for soldiers who are acting under Laban's orders to murder the Lehities to get all wiped out by an act of God rather than the one man responsible for their action of pursuit being killed by a man acting under the direction of .God?

[california boy]

Both of you have done an excellent job of proving beyond reason my very point I was making.  This is what I said in response to the following post.

18 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

It is not God's morality that is inconsistent. It is the humans that try to interpret it.

 

9 hours ago, california boy said:

You mean it is ok to kill someone if they have something you really really need?  God couldn't have figured out another way for Labin to give up the brass plates?  How about just a deep sleep?  Or an entire race of people from not having priesthood  blessings?  Or murdering women and children who were not of the house of Israel?  All of these acts and countless more are coming from men who claimed to have direct access to God and His morality.  If they don't know what God's morality is, then who would?

You both have explained how God's morality is inconsistent.  You have both rationalized how such a murder was perfectly moral to God.  Would it be ok with God today if someone had something you really really wanted to kill them in the same way as Nephi did?  Would it be considered moral if God told the son of the prophet of the church to kill someone if that person had something the church really really needed?  And back to the original statement.  Is God's morality really never changing?  Or does God follow man's laws to determine morality such as what Calm brought up about the laws during that time justifying Nephi's murder?  

It is certainly an interesting thoughts to consider.

Edited September 11, 2018 by california boy

[Gray]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

I am presenting the modern attitude that questions the superiority of worldviews that are based in emotion, bias, and subjectivity.  

Yes, that's a viewpoint that exists. Just one of many.

 

22 hours ago, pogi said:

  I have already presented many quotes.  Such emotionally subjective and biased views are rejected as "anti-intellectualism".

I think the viewpoint you're representing is a fairly naive viewpoint, certainly not the only viewpoint that exists among atheists. What's the point in representing it though? Why not represent your own views? Or should I try to represent fundamentalist Christians? Should we all start role playing now?

 

22 hours ago, pogi said:

I would say that it is a fairly common secular position which questions and rejects subjective presuppositions which impose moral obligations on the human behavior of other's.  They often target their criticism at religion without realizing the irony that their own moral presuppositions are subject to the same criticism. 

I don't think it's that common. You find it in a lot of eager beaver new atheists, but most "secular" people aren't radical empiricists.

 

[Gray]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

Feeling empathy is one thing.  Arguing that we have a moral obligation to do something about suffering is another. 

Why?

 

20 hours ago, pogi said:

Why should anyone who believes in a god-less subjective moral support any moral other than self-interest?   

Because helping other people altruistically is also in our self-interest.

 

20 hours ago, pogi said:

I call BS on anyone who pretends to practically support the presuppositions of health, happiness, and well-being for all human beings.  Most people in America do not really care in any practical way about the suffering of others.  They may feel a fleeting empathy, but that is as far as it goes for most. 

So cynical!

 

 

20 hours ago, pogi said:

It is all about self-interest.  Most will not sacrifice $1/day to feed a starving child in West Africa because then they would have to sacrifice their morning coffee.  It is impractical to sustain that presupposition.  If it infringes upon ones self-interest and becomes impractical, most will not practice such idealistic morals even if they pretend to believe them.  We are by nature competitive. We are by nature selfish. We are also empathetic by nature, but we don’t have any moral obligation to help others by nature. The only reason we are cooperative is because it serves our self-interest - according to science.

Does it actually matter how we come by our altruism? We get a little chemical reward when we do something altruistic, even if we never perform the calculus in our heads that by helping others we are improving our own environment. This applies to everyone regardless of theological beliefs or lack thereof.

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

I am presenting the modern attitude that questions the superiority of worldviews that are based in emotion, bias, and subjectivity.  

Yes, that's a viewpoint that exists. Just one of many.

Just to clarify, you don't think this attitude is very common?  You think that most atheists/secularists accept the superiority of white supremacist morals without question?  Or, do they see their own subjective morals as superior to white supremacists?  If so, on what grounds?  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Quote

Feeling empathy is one thing.  Arguing that we have a moral obligation to do something about suffering is another. 

Why?

Why? Because feelings are not a good rational argument for moral obligation.  Anger and hatred are also common emotions.  Should we also make it a moral obligation to act on those emotions?  

[Calm]

Quote

You have both rationalized how such a murder was perfectly moral to God.  

If this is in part directed to me, I was just passing by and got distracted by the reference to Laban's death.  I always find it interesting how it gets taken out of the context of its time and place and details such as his robbing, false accusations, and attempting murder are generally ignored, while in that time they were capital offenses and there were acceptable legal arguments of taking action based on perception of God's involvement.  You probably shouldn't use me for anything for the greater argument since I haven't read the thread except a few posts here and there when my eye catches something. (Not in the mood for philosophy at the moment)

If I detailed with my comments, my apology...

If you meant bluebell as well as glenn, just ignore the above.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Calm

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Quote

Why should anyone who believes in a god-less subjective moral support any moral other than self-interest? 

Because helping other people altruistically is also in our self-interest.

Which takes us back to ground zero...self-interest.