April 14, 2015 by makagutu

on morality and pure practical reason

Fear is the mother of morality. Friedrich Nietzsche

In his post, Howie quoted a comment by a christian who believes whatever god commands, is good regardless of what we think about it. If anything, the christian in question is consistent. In this post, the theist thinks he has shown that reason is helpless in guiding us on how to live with each other.

He writes

Objective morals are those morals that are based outside of yourself. Subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, your culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person. This is the best that atheism has to offer us as a worldview.

and I must ask that he lists just one such objective moral. I am patient and will wait.

In talking of pure practical reason, I can only believe he is referring to Kant who argued

act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law

there are no mentions of deities.

When James writes

Because when you remove God from the equation, you remove the standard by which all moral truth is established.

I must say he has gone off the rails completely. Morality, whatever it is, only makes sense to organisms living in community. It is relational. And only a blind person would be unable to see this. Men, having formulated morals made gods speak the same laws in order they be obeyed. When Solon and Lycurgus, the great lawgivers of the Greeks, formulated laws, they didn’t claim divine assistance.

I can only say he misrepresents atheists when he writes

To an atheist, lying, cheating, stealing, not harming others, and maximizing utility have to be reduced to mere phenomena that can, if the atheist so decides, have subjective moral values assigned to them. Yes, atheists can say that we all should want to help society function properly, and that it does not benefit society as a whole to lie, cheat, steal, harm others…

which as you can see are relational. Without relations, such things as lying, stealing and harming others make no sense. It is such accusation that makes me wonder are some people so blind? Any society where harming others is the norm is one that would not survive. Natural selection will eliminate it.

He says reason cannot guide us and then presents this

For example, I think everyone reading this, including those who shun objective morality, would agree that a judge sending a man he knew was innocent to prison would be wrong, especially wrong if you consider that prisoners often suffer needlessly horribly at the hands of other prisoners.

and why? Because reason tells us it is unjust to punish an innocent person, especially when you know them to be so unless of course you are god then you can kill all firstborn sons for the infractions of the king and command rapine because you can. If you are god, stopping the sun for a few hours so your favourite can massacre a whole population is very much moral.

Morality, I submit, only makes sense without gods because then we are able to understand that it is relational. We have no way of knowing what gods want but we can know how to relate with one another. Only a person blinded by his religion would not see this. So When Wally Fry comments thus

I am so far from a philosopher it is not even funny. These deep debates everybody has about the philosophy of morality just zips over me sometimes. On the other hand, deep philosophy is not needed to get the gist of morality; even a child can get it. No standard=equals no true morality. Standard=standard giver=God. It’s really not difficult to comprehend.

I can confidently say he is dumb as soup [Thanks Ark].

April 13, 2015 by makagutu

The solution to the problem of evil

We are, because the world is what it is, and not that the world is because we are.

It must have been Einstein who said he has been able to see far by stepping on the shoulder of giants and the same can be said of any one who has made mental progress by drawing from the accumulated knowledge of the race.

So one wonders if some Christians and religious apologists start always by inventing the wheel. Do they think their balderdash is so original? Is it so hard to try and find out what others have said on a particular topic before you add your 2 cents?

In there is no god, an attempt is made to resolve the problem of evil and the theist is confident he has solved the problem for all time.

It cannot be stated enough that Epicurus wasn’t trying to disprove the existence of god. His whole thesis is based upon the conception of god as good and in the final sentence asks why call this thing god if it can’t do anything we would expect from a good being. If one could conceive of a god that isn’t good, then Epicurus question is defeated before it can walk but no religious person thinks of their god as being anything less than good.

But I digress. I know you are waiting for the final solution to the problem.

And the answer is

Does evil exist? It does not

And some added information

Does free will exist? It does

Free Will exist, that we are all given the ability to choose for ourselves. It is, free and independent choice or a voluntary decision.

And if you didn’t know

One does not simply stop believing in God. In fact, even atheists at the core believe in a god, whether it is themselves, another person, an institution, a system, or even a set of beliefs. All of humanity cling to something. All of humanity worship something.

and finally if you should so find yourself in the other place, remember

Just as a good and loving parent would enforce consequences on a disobedient child, so God does the same. God has given us options, by having options, He has given us the ability to choose. If a parent does not punish it’s child due to disobedience, that parent is not a loving parent, they are instead enabling a self destructive attitude. By not helping to teach their child that there are consequences, both good and bad to every decision.

and that my friends is unassailable logic. You can’t beat it, I can’t even if I tried.

April 13, 2015 by makagutu

On christianity

I would like to know from any Christians who visit this site how many of them believe in miracles because of the evidence adduced in their support.

I also would like to know how many of them believe in god because of the design argument?

April 12, 2015 by makagutu

psychology 101

as taught by yours truly.

In my last post, I asked what was the difference between

1. in my dreams I saw him

2. I saw him in my dreams

and I will start by admitting the answers I got were really creative.

This two statements mark the difference between the civilized and the savage mind. In the first case, the speaker recognizes that it is just a dream. That the happenings is in his brain.

And in the second scenario, the dream becomes a separate existence, just as real as his waking realities. He believes in doubles that move out of the body during sleep. To such a person, should a person be found dead in the morning they would say his soul left and didn’t return.

End of class.

I apologise for not responding sooner to most of you. I had traveled.

April 10, 2015 by makagutu

Open thread

Most times on this blog, I tell you what I think you would like to hear. Today, I will change tact, I will allow you to tell me what to write about. Just write them in the comment thread and yours truly will choose which ones to write about.

While at it, here is a question. What is the difference in meaning in the two statements below.

1. I saw him in my dream

2. In my dream I saw him

April 9, 2015 by makagutu

against war and religious instruction, in support of the rebel

Those with good memory remember a nitwit described me as having a predilection to violence when in every instances I have written in opposition to war, punishment and violence. I have another reason to oppose war, and I don’t know how best to put it other than to say it is a stupid way to resolve a dispute. That war between nations is only the duel either with gun or sword between individuals that has been transferred to nations and that soldiers are pawns in this game whether they know it or not.

Religious instruction has no value to society other than perpetuating the spread of false ideas as truths. And we must ask with Cohen Chapman

whether we are to permit the priest to hold the future to ransom by permitting this control of the child, or whether we are to leave religious beliefs, as we leave other beliefs of a speculative character, to such a time as the child is old enough to understand them.

And still with Chapman, we must note

it is the function of the true teacher to make his pupil independent of him. The aim of the priest is to keep one eternally dependent upon his ministrations. The final and fatal criticism upon religious instruction is that it is not education at all.

And now finally, in support of rebellion, especially rebellion to received religious dogma.

The Christian church has been tolerant towards the criminal, and has always been intolerant of the heretic and the freethinker. The church could forgive those who were responsible for the horrors of the English factory system but she could never forgive the writer of the Age of Reason.

And we can say finally with Chapman that

history, looking back through the ages, is bound to confess that it is to the great rebels, from Satan onward, that the world mainly owes whatever of greatness or happiness it has achieved.

April 8, 2015 by makagutu

the christian argument against reincarnation

The one thing I like about religious discussions is how each religion/ religious person is able to see the absurdity in the other though in this case, I think the Christian is a little confused. So without boring you fine people to death, I present the best argument against reincarnation I have found.

For us Christians, that idea is not possible ever no matter how hard you look at it and here is why. All of the facts you stated above is true for a lot of people but isn’t proof to anything. There is a scientific explanation to them that does not involve supernatural stuff, just ask any good psychologist and the will tell you how. Ecclesiastes 1v9 the world is a circle things come and go and that’s just the way it.That being said that does not mean reincarnation is involved. Humans have been the same since the begin we make the same mistakes over and over again. As christian we live and die and go to heaven (assuming we died in the hands of God). Just think simple logic here people. if we just kept reincarnating over and over then what was the point of Jesus coming to die on the cross to save us from sin? He wouldn’t have to because we could have saved ourselves by just coming back over and over again until we lived a good life. Revelation 5v4 and with so many and many another verse in the bible shows us that no one and I mean no one is worthy to go heaven or see God because we are so sinful. I could spend all day telling of verses in the bible that tells us that we can’t make it alone no matter how hard we tried. No one can save us but God. If that wasn’t enough proof to bury your little theory God specifically said to let the dead bury the dead in Luke 9v60. Do you know why he said that? because once you are dead there is nothing you can do to save yourself because it’s all over. Read Psalm 115v17 or even Isaiah 38v18 to help you understand how wrong you are about all of this. It does not get much clearer than that. We should read our Bible to find the answer to tell of our questions or else we get confused. I pray that God opens your eyes to more questions that troubles you 🙂

That will be all for today.

April 7, 2015 by makagutu

the company I keep

A beef witted lout said this of me and the company I keep

Mr Magoo is a clear a Statist utopian Progressive with all the requisite predilections towards violence. And true to all Leftists ( gays, democrats, environmentalists, Race-baitors and the rest of the Communist Circle-jerk club) his own ‘allies’ include a die-hard muslim ( calling itself “inspiredbythedivine” … while spewing hatred ).

Same cast of disreputable characters…

and we already know tildeb is a bleeding heart militant right wing commie-pinko fascist Leftie Islamophobic meat-eating liberal atheist.

Can we each one be kind enough to describe their persona, I could then update and confirm to the halfwit that he was half correct.

Fire away

April 6, 2015 by makagutu

what is truth

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective not the truth.

Marcus Aurelius

My friend Rom[ liberty of thinking] gave us a definition of truth that am willing to work with, that is,

In ancient Greek culture, 225 (alḗtheia) was synonymous for “reality” as the opposite of illusion, i.e. fact.

In her post, what is truth? Xandra gives the impression that we can each have our own truths and call it truth. Taken to its logical conclusion, we must accept that a donkey talked and snakes spoke and walked upright for this is held as true by some people. In the same vain we must accept that Mo, piss be upon him, went to heaven, Mecca and Jerusalem on a single night aboard a Pegasus because this is true for many people.

I think, she doesn’t do justice to the question when she writes

Truth by it’s very nature is ever elusive. To explain, for a believer in God, the tenets of their religion may be truth.

In my view this is akin to the argument by some religious apologists that religion has its own language and we can’t critique it with the same common everyday words.

If truth has to make any sense, I think as a quality it has to have a universal applicability. There is no world where I think 2+2=4. This is true regardless of if you are Muslim, Hindu or Christian, well maybe not for the christian for 3=1 and 1=3 but that is a discussion for another day.

While am not a defender of Dawkins, I think attacking him because you disagree is unnecessary. It makes no sense to say you personally don’t dislike him and then describe him in not so favourable terms. But that isn’t our point here.

I take her at her word that she has

actually been told by some atheists that paranormal research is incompatible with atheism

I know I wouldn’t tell her to not study any subject of her choice. For all it’s worth, I may want to study aliens and I don’t want anyone telling me it is incompatible with godlessness.

You will allow me, since she has moved from what truth is, to what other atheists do or say and as an atheist, I can have a word or two to say.

She writes

Equally there are atheists who try to say that you cannot be an atheist and spiritually-minded or a believer in spiritualism, ghosts, or hauntings. Equally bunkum, as they are immediately equating these subjects with belief in god(s), Heaven and Hell, which may not necessarily be the case.

and I grant that maybe but ask the atheist to tell me what they mean by spirit, ghost or haunting. And if possible, show me the evidence and I will believe. I want to know if the atheist who believes in ghosts, spiritualism and so on has ventured to find out the origins of such beliefs. Don’t get me wrong. Am not say anything about whether one is a true atheist or not, I want to know what they can tell me and others what they think the paranormal is.

Nobody denies that Sir Isaac Newton was religious. We know he was also an alchemist. In his Laws of motion, there is no room for gods to play. Citing him as an example of a religious person who was a scientist doesn’t do justice either to his science or his religion and further it doesn’t tell us anything about the truth value of his religious belief. All we can deduce from it is he was religious.

I am trying to wrap my head around

However, if it is, then it logically follows that to bring a child up as an atheist is equally indoctrination.

How would this be?

Do religions deserve respect. Of course not. They are ideas and ideas ought to be criticized, ridiculed if they are worthy of ridicule but never respected. The claim that religion should be respect is one of the major reasons it gets perpetuated as a virtue. I find

Some atheists ask whether we should even respect religions, and some downright refuse to do so. Their argument is that the religious faiths in the world have nothing of value to offer. I find such intransigence to be narrow-minded, arrogant, ignorant and confrontational. There are in fact many truths within faiths which are good guides for life, and which one need not believe in god(s) to follow.

to be an impediment to enquiry. It’s not any different from saying before you critique my bible, revere it. It can’t start from reverence to critique. I should, after reading, find the book worthy of reverence but not before.

And to claim

Christianity has given us the Golden Rule; “Do unto others as you would have them treat you.” Islam teaches that practising undue usury upon an individual is corrupt but charity unto others is fruitful. Hindu and Buddhist beliefs give us Karma – that we reap exactly that which we sow.

is to me to play with the facts.

In conclusion, I respectfully disagree with Xandra on most of her accommodationist views. I don’t begrudge her for being a pacifist. I want us to have more pacifists but while at it, we can’t get there by spreading half-truths. We can’t claim that truth is culturally dependent. I don’t claim to know what truth is or whether it is desirable. And the claim that religions have given us morality is not supported by fact. We agree on so many other things with Xandra and I was hoping she would elucidate more on truth than she did attacking atheists.

God in exodus tells its chosen people[ already a case of preferential treatment without basis] not to kill and shortly after to kill their neighbours.

If we can’t be truthful, let us at least be honest both in our beliefs and criticisms.