I - an atheist - have an objective standard for Good

[Electric Skeptic]

Can you cite the Bible passages that you think support your position?

How can I post bible passages that support my position that a particular point of view is not biblically supported?

[Diogenes]

In that case, a militant antinatalist could become a negative utility monster and, in the least, go around kidnapping, sedating (presumably before the kidnapping to avoid suffering), and sterilising people to prevent any suffering of future "conscious creatures".




Our negative utility monster would argue that all suffering in life is, in aggregate, unnecessary, as life itself is unnecessary. Furthermore, our (friend/fiend) could argue that there is greater number of non-human conscious creatures that are unnecessarily suffering due to human activity than there are humans thus their aggregate unnecessary suffering is quite high compared to the aggregate unnecessary human suffering. In the interest of the aggregate amount of unnecessary suffering, human-attributed unnecessary suffering should be ended.




It's more in a gray area of "objective" as it's not "objective" in the strictest sense of ontological objectivity. We can say the moon's existence is objective as it's not dependent on a mind for it's existence. Also, basing morality on qualia will run afoul of hard physical monism. If we are p-zombies, then we don't actually suffer. We may have specific neural patterns, but there's not qualia of suffering present.

a bump for utility monsters and Whateverman

[MaxVel]

No, it's not. No more than is Islam or Buddhism.


Completely unsupported, both logically and biblically.

Can you cite the Bible passages that you think support your position?

[MaxVel]

The majority of people in so-called Christian societies are merely cultural Christians - just as those in Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim societies have been socially acculturated into the dominant social values of their society.

Correct. Ditto most western secularists like yourself, raised in secular societies.

A trivial observation, from which nothing of real significance follows about the truth or otherwise of any of the mentioned beliefs.

[Juvenal]

Each person has to make a personal decision to become a Christian at some point in their life, even those raised in Christian families, who are brought up and taught the evidence. You are also ignoring 2000 years of apologetics and study of Christianity.

Growing up in a community of donut people, raised by donut people, some of them well versed in the science of donut making, I'm impressed by how many instead choose bagels.

But not surprised that most still choose donuts.

After all, says here their people have been doing donuts for thousands of years.

[Starlight]

Faith has always meant "belief despite the absence of evidence" in a religious context. It's how religionists use it - whenever questioned about something they can't answer, the response is "You just have to have faith" (ie., belief despite the absence of evidence). It's how everybody uses it.

Well it wasn't how I used it when I was a Christian - I viewed the Greek word as meaning "faithfulness" i.e. obedience and perseverance. But I'm an atheist now as I followed the absence of evidence to its logical conclusion.

[Tassman]

No. You are trying to misrepresent Christianity and how it works. It is based on evidence. A person can't just be raised in it and be a Christian. They have to examine the evidence themselves and make a personal decision to become a Christian.

The majority of people in so-called Christian societies are merely cultural Christians - just as those in Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim societies have been socially acculturated into the dominant social values of their society.

[Electric Skeptic]

No. You are trying to misrepresent Christianity and how it works. It is based on evidence.

No, it's not. No more than is Islam or Buddhism.

A person can't just be raised in it and be a Christian. They have to examine the evidence themselves and make a personal decision to become a Christian.

Completely unsupported, both logically and biblically.

[JimL]

No. You are trying to misrepresent Christianity and how it works. It is based on evidence. A person can't just be raised in it and be a Christian. They have to examine the evidence themselves and make a personal decision to become a Christian.

Then I suggest that, relatively speaking, there are very few true believers in the world.

[Sparko]

You're ignoring the fact that most all christians were raised as christians, most all muslims were raised as muslims etc etc. The decision is impressed upon them. What you call teaching is actually indoctrination of the young uncritical mind.

No. You are trying to misrepresent Christianity and how it works. It is based on evidence. A person can't just be raised in it and be a Christian. They have to examine the evidence themselves and make a personal decision to become a Christian.

[JonathanL]

Semantics.

Not even close.

[Tassman]

Each person has to make a personal decision to become a Christian at some point in their life, even those raised in Christian families, who are brought up and taught the evidence.

[JimL]

As I said, "Christians who have never bothered doing any serious study in their own faith and what it's doctrines entails" might define faith that way. The same people you term "religionists". But faith in a religious context isn't determined by majority usage, but by how the doctrinal texts of the religion (or how a particular denomination, if you're interested in what that specific denomination believes) defines the term.

And no, it's not how "everybody" uses it, you have absolutely zero basis to make that claim, except for anecdotal experience.




Faith, at least in a Protestantic context, is closer to `trust` rather than belief. Belief comes from faith, but is not equivalent to it.

Semantics.

[JonathanL]

Faith has always meant "belief despite the absence of evidence" in a religious context. It's how religionists use it - whenever questioned about something they can't answer, the response is "You just have to have faith" (ie., belief despite the absence of evidence). It's how everybody uses it.

As I said, "Christians who have never bothered doing any serious study in their own faith and what it's doctrines entails" might define faith that way. The same people you term "religionists". But faith in a religious context isn't determined by majority usage, but by how the doctrinal texts of the religion (or how a particular denomination, if you're interested in what that specific denomination believes) defines the term.

And no, it's not how "everybody" uses it, you have absolutely zero basis to make that claim, except for anecdotal experience.

Again, if 'faith' just means 'belief', why use it? Why not just use 'belief'? Because faith is a particular type of belief; belief despite the absence of evidence.

Faith, at least in a Protestantic context, is closer to `trust` rather than belief. Belief comes from faith, but is not equivalent to it.

[Electric Skeptic]

No that's what faith means when clueless internet atheists are asked to give a definition of the word. Faith has never meant "belief despite the absence of evidence" in a religious context, save for in atheistic caricatures or when being given as an answer by Christians who have never bothered doing any serious study in their own faith and what it's doctrines entails.

Faith has always meant "belief despite the absence of evidence" in a religious context. It's how religionists use it - whenever questioned about something they can't answer, the response is "You just have to have faith" (ie., belief despite the absence of evidence). It's how everybody uses it.

Again, if 'faith' just means 'belief', why use it? Why not just use 'belief'? Because faith is a particular type of belief; belief despite the absence of evidence.