10 Things Christians and Atheists Can and Must Agree On....

[Riverwind]

Why should humans treat other humans humanly? Because it is in our own self interest to do so.

Sounds like a rehash of the golden rule argument to me. You don't explain why human rights are in the self interest of every human all of the time. In fact, you cannot make such a claim unless you appeal to some higher notion of humanity which more important than the desires of the individual (i.e. turn 'humanity' into a deity).

Simply appealing to self interest is not sufficient because the are many situations where treating other humans humanely is _not_ in the the self interest of some groups. For example, the owners of the plantations benefited from the system of slavery and had no fear of being enslaved themselves. Ending slavery was most definitely not in their self interest. Furthermore, the white soldiers from the north that marched to their deaths trying end the practice also derived zero benefit from 'human rights' for blacks.

[kuzadd]

Why should humans treat other humans humanly? Because it is in our own self interest to do so.

Sounds like a rehash of the golden rule argument to me. You don't explain why human rights are in the self interest of every human all of the time. In fact, you cannot make such a claim unless you appeal to some higher notion of humanity which more important than the desires of the individual (i.e. turn 'humanity' into a deity).

Simply appealing to self interest is not sufficient because the are many situations where treating other humans humanely is _not_ in the the self interest of some groups. For example, the owners of the plantations benefited from the system of slavery and had no fear of being enslaved themselves. Ending slavery was most definitely not in their self interest. Furthermore, the white soldiers from the north that marched to their deaths trying end the practice also derived zero benefit from 'human rights' for blacks.

"You don't explain why human rights are in the self interest of every human all of the time."

Human rights are in the self-interest of humans all the time, because we are ALL human's ,all of the time

see it's as simple as that!!!!!!!!!!

[Riverwind]

Kant most certainly did not "construct a rational framework to justfy his beliefs". As I have already noted (and you apparently have ignored) Kant was a devout Christian-theist. His moral system is not dependent upon God in any way. The two are entirely independent of each other.

I never claimed to have read Kant (other than Wikipedia). I am simply addressing the logical contradictions in your arguments that refer to Kant.

You have claimed that:

1) Kant developed a moral framework that does not depend on a belief in god.

2) Kant believed that "God logically existed outside of human reasoning and it cannot be otherwise".

Those two statements contradict each other. 2) is clearly a statement of Kant's beliefs when it comes to god. If he had different beliefs regarding god then his moral framework would probably be different. For example, as a devout Christian, he could have started with the assumption that god was knowable and intervened directly in human life.

It is not possible to develop a moral framework without making some assumption about the nature of god. That assumption could be that god does not exist or that god is not relevent (which is what Kant appears to say). However, that assumption always exists. I realize that you would like to treat Kant's assumptions regarding god as a statements of fact because they happen to co-incide with your own belief system.

I did address it. Cognitive dissonance is quite common amongst humans. Humans can apparently go through life with various cognitive dissonances on various issues or another. It does not apparently affect their health or state of mind.

You don't understand what Cognitive Dissonance is. From wikipedia:

The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.

In other words, any contradiction between a metaphysical and moral beliefs would lead to a change of those beliefs.

[Riverwind]

Human rights are in the self-interest of humans all the time, because we are ALL human's ,all of the time

That is an assertion - not an argument. Why should one human sacrifice their immediate self interest to assist other humans? i.e. Why should the slave owner give up his slaves?

[M.Dancer]

Human rights are in the self-interest of humans all the time, because we are ALL human's ,all of the time

That is an assertion - not an argument. Why should one human sacrifice their immediate self interest to assist other humans?

When they can exploit them for fun and profit?

[Mad_Michael]

Why should humans treat other humans humanly? Because it is in our own self interest to do so.

Sounds like a rehash of the golden rule argument to me. You don't explain why human rights are in the self interest of every human all of the time. In fact, you cannot make such a claim unless you appeal to some higher notion of humanity which more important than the desires of the individual (i.e. turn 'humanity' into a deity).

I didn't make the claim.

And no, it is not the same as the golden rule. The golden rule states that one ought to treat others humanly in order to get others to treat ourselves the same way.

The argument I gave is not predicted on so narrow an interest. Self interest can be rather widely defined. My argument is not necessarily predicted upon the actions of others.

Simply appealing to self interest is not sufficient because the are many situations where treating other humans humanely is _not_ in the the self interest of some groups.

I'm not concerned with the self interest of some groups. Self interest is mine alone (by definition).

For example, the owners of the plantations benefited from the system of slavery and had no fear of being enslaved themselves. Ending slavery was most definitely not in their self interest.

That just proves that slave owners were immoral since their self interest was harmful of other humans.

Furthermore, the white soldiers from the north that marched to their deaths trying end the practice also derived zero benefit from 'human rights' for blacks.

Huh? I don't see any point here.

The good soldiers of the North followed their own self interest in enlisting in the Union Army.

Likewise, the good soldiers of the South followed their own self interest in enlisting in the Confederate Army.

So what's the point?

[Mad_Michael]

Kant most certainly did not "construct a rational framework to justfy his beliefs". As I have already noted (and you apparently have ignored) Kant was a devout Christian-theist. His moral system is not dependent upon God in any way. The two are entirely independent of each other.

I never claimed to have read Kant (other than Wikipedia). I am simply addressing the logical contradictions in your arguments that refer to Kant.

You have claimed that:

1) Kant developed a moral framework that does not depend on a belief in god.

2) Kant believed that "God logically existed outside of human reasoning and it cannot be otherwise".

Those two statements contradict each other. 2) is clearly a statement of Kant's beliefs when it comes to god.

No. It is a logical conclusion based upon epistemological reasoning.

If he had different beliefs regarding god then his moral framework would probably be different. For example, as a devout Christian, he could have started with the assumption that god was knowable and intervened directly in human life.

God is knowable? According to which Christian doctrine please?

It is not possible to develop a moral framework without making some assumption about the nature of god. That assumption could be that god does not exist or that god is not relevent (which is what Kant appears to say). However, that assumption always exists. I realize that you would like to treat Kant's assumptions regarding god as a statements of fact because they happen to co-incide with your own belief system.

I'm not going to continue this silly game. You are butchering Kant, quoting Wiki and insulting me.

[Riverwind]

For example, the owners of the plantations benefited from the system of slavery and had no fear of being enslaved themselves. Ending slavery was most definitely not in their self interest.

That just proves that slave owners were immoral since their self interest was harmful of other humans.

Immoral by who's standard? Yours? Why is your standard any less arbitrary than a standard written down in a musty old book?

The slave owners never believed that they were doing something wrong. They usually convinced themselves that they were looking after the slaves and giving them a life that they would be incapable of providing for themselves.

You more or less proved my point. You cannot make a case for human rights unless you make an appeal to some higher moral order which supersedes the self interest of individuals.

[Riverwind]

No. It is a logical conclusion based upon epistemological reasoning.

It is an assertion based on his personal beliefs in god.

God is knowable? According to which Christian doctrine please?

St. Thomas says, God is knowable because of His manifestations -- "whence we know God's relations to creatures because He is the Cause of all, and how He differs from creatures since He is none of those things He has caused."{2}

http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/kog08.htm

Not all Christian scholars agree that God is knowable but some definately do. I brought up the example to demonstrate that Kant's statement is, in fact, an assumption and not an absolute truth.

I'm not going to continue this silly game. You are butchering Kant, quoting Wiki and insulting me.

Any insults were unintentional and I apologize. However, the more I read of Kant the more I believe you are misreprenting his views.

For example:

Moral order (Kant)

The summum bonum is where moral virtue and happiness coincide.

We are rationally obliged to attain the summum bonum.

What we are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain.

If there is no God or afterlife, it is not possible to attain the summum bonum.

God (or the afterlife) must exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality

He appears to be using his moral beliefs to validate his metaphysical beliefs instead of using his metaphysical beliefs to validate his moral beliefs (as most theists do). However, this example does illustrate that Kant's moral and metaphysical beliefs are dependent on each other.

[Drea]

That is exactly what I mean.

Religies are so brainwashed into thinking everything is a "beleif".

With all due respect, it is statements like this that feed the animosity between 'believers' and 'non-believers'.

Religious people do not need 'brainwashing' to think everything is a 'belief'. It is a logical process of projection that almost all humans are guilty of.

Accusing religious folks of being 'brainwashed' is not helpful or condusive to a meaningful discussion.

You are right and I apologize -- just getting a tad frustrated trying to reason with some folks... my bad.

here are those links I promised:

Age of Reason

Click on the "Age of Reason" link in red... and then go to "what's new" -- some good articles IMO

From the Article -- Those Fanatical Atheists:

Atheists see our lives and the world we live in as the most important thing we have. There is no afterlife; there is no "great reward." This is our life and the greatest reward we can get is to make this world a better place for everyone and for our children; that is what these "militant" atheists are trying to achieve.

[kuzadd]

Human rights are in the self-interest of humans all the time, because we are ALL human's ,all of the time

That is an assertion - not an argument. Why should one human sacrifice their immediate self interest to assist other humans? i.e. Why should the slave owner give up his slaves?

The answer, is so simple, yet clear, it flew right over your head, that is not an assertation, that is a fact.

"Human rights are in the self-interest of humans all the time, because we are ALL human's ,all of the time"

Why should a slave owner, give up his slaves?

because by enslaving others it is equally as easy for the slaveowner to be enslaved ( tablesturned)

If we guarantee, as a human right freedom from slavery for all, it sure goes along way to ensuring we are not ourselves enslaved.

[Riverwind]

because by enslaving others it is equally as easy for the slaveowner to be enslaved ( tablesturned)

That is the 'golden rule' argument.

But the 'golden rule' argument is not effective when you have groups of humans with the power to impose their will on others. A white slave owner does not fear being enslaved because only 'blacks' can be slaves according to the rules created by the society he lived in. These race based rules also protected that white non-slave owners. As a result, no white person in that society could justify opposing slavery simply in the name of self interest. That is why the opposition to slavery gad to came from outside the society and was imposed by people motivated by a belief in a higher moral order.

I don't see a problem with making a case for human rights by appealing to a higher moral order. However, I think it is ridiculously hypocritical for self-styled atheists to claim that their belief system is substantially different from the belief system of any theist.

[Drea]

Because "moral code", religious or otherwise, stems from human beings.

The ten commandments are a good example -- except for the ones about worship -- the rest are simple human rights. Don't kill, don't steal, etc. are products of humanity being humane.

[Figleaf]

... I don't see a problem with making a case for human rights by appealing to a higher moral order.

The problems are:

1-the higher moral order may be false, inefficient, or not a net benefit;

2-it suggests that the 'higher moral order' is required for human rights, which might lead to (a) the suspension of the rights if the 'higher order' becomes discredited or out of fashion, and (b ) the characteristics of the 'higher moral order' might be imported (inappropriately) into formation of the characteristics of the rights.

3-it is unecessary, therefore possibly dilatory or distracting, to bother with a 'higher moral order' in establishing a sound regime of human rights.

However, I think it is ridiculously hypocritical for self-styled atheists to claim that their belief system is substantially different from the belief system of any theist.

Yes, thank you, we know that's your opinion. We also know that your opinion has been shown, soundly and thoroughly, up and down this thread, to be seriously lacking in merit.

[Figleaf]

Human rights are in the self-interest of humans all the time, because we are ALL human's ,all of the time

That is an assertion - not an argument.

That's not merely an assertion, it's an observation of facts and/or a conclusion of logic and/or a consequence of definition.

Why should one human sacrifice their immediate self interest to assist other humans?

Your rhetoric there confuses the issue (probably on purpose). But let's unravel it... there are two issues convoluted into your question -- 1. why should someone sacrifice their immediate self interest; and 2. why should someone sacrifice their self interest to assist others.

Broken out like that, the answers are not too difficult:

1. To enhance their medium or longer term self interest.

2. They should not. But the question is, do they perceive their self-interests correctly?

[Figleaf]

In your highly contrived hypothetical, his expectation of the efficacy of the prayer method for helping his rage is experientially based and reasonable. However, the attribution of that effect to the action of a 'higher power' has no such basis.

First, the example is not contrived. Millions - if not billions of people use prayer or meditation in similar ways every day and do get similar, tangible results from the activity.

What is contrived about it is that the non-theist's method didn't work.

Second, the hypothesis that the intervention of a deity is perfectly rational given the experiment and the results.

Absolutely not. The results fail to exclude the possiblity/likelihood that the method works quite independently of its religious* connotations. (That problem should have been obvious to you. Your biases seem to very easily cloud your ability to apply reasonable methods of inquiry. )

Rejecting an alternative out of hand because it has theistic connections may be 'placing faith in reason' if you want to define it so.

An atheist would have rejected the alternative out of hand because of its theistic connections.

SOME atheists might, but atheism would not require them to. You are guilty of either fallacious imputation there, or gross stereotyping.

*Note, I use my definition of 'religion' and specifically repudiate yours.

[Figleaf]

Any statement about god is, by definition, a statement of metaphysical beliefs.

What utter dreck.

Look:

"Muslims refer to their God by the term 'Allah'."

What metaphysical belief did I state there? None.

"Some Christian theology emphasizes that God is a trinity, comprising three equally divine entities or characteristics."

What does that tell you about what I believe? Nothing.

"If accepted, any definition of God that describes it as beyond human understanding, necessarily implies that all human efforts to conceptualize God are incomplete at best."

Does that statement require a belief about God? Nope.

Riverwind, your litany of absurd assertions on this topic is really quite astounding.

[gc1765]

Would you insist that this person abandon his belief in a deity because it does not conform to your opinion on what is scientific?

If it is in fact a sincere belief in God that is causing the effect, then no. In this case, it is perfectly rational to believe in a deity in order to cause the desired effect.

[Figleaf]

Would you insist that this person abandon his belief in a deity because it does not conform to your opinion on what is scientific?

If it is in fact a sincere belief in God that is causing the effect, then no. In this case, it is perfectly rational to believe in a deity in order to cause the desired effect.

Yes, but that should be impossible in River's view because the belief would rife with the cognitive dissonance of believing something that's not true just to secure the benefits.

[gc1765]

You don't explain why human rights are in the self interest of every human all of the time. In fact, you cannot make such a claim unless you appeal to some higher notion of humanity which more important than the desires of the individual (i.e. turn 'humanity' into a deity).

It's like I said earlier, humanity is a result of evolution. It doesn't matter whether it's in my self interest or not, because sometimes you can't fight biology. It's not in the best interest of an obese person to eat a cheeseburger but often they do so anyways, because they evolved a sense of hunger.

[Riverwind]

it is in fact a sincere belief in God that is causing the effect, then no. In this case, it is perfectly rational to believe in a deity in order to cause the desired effect.

Yes, but that should be impossible in River's view because the belief would rife with the cognitive dissonance of believing something that's not true just to secure the benefits.

Cognitive dissonance actually works to re-enforce the belief in deity because the belief produces a desired outcome. This means that over time the belief would become sincere and there would be no dissonance.

[Riverwind]

1-the higher moral order may be false, inefficient, or not a net benefit;

Who decides if a human right is true? What happens when these conflict with each other? What happens when people start making up human rights to further their own economic agendas (e.g. the lawyers trying to claim that access to tax free legal services is a 'human right')?

2-it suggests that the 'higher moral order' is required for human rights

Asking humans to agree on a set of human rights is the same as asking them to agree on a higher moral order.

I have already explained why the 'self-interest' argument for human rights is basically bogus because it presumes that all humans have the same self interest. Constructing a 'sound regime of human rights' requires the construction of a 'moral framework' that can be used to arbitrate conflicts and decide what should be a human right and what is not.

Frankly, I don't understand why you resist acknowledging the obvious parallels between your own system of beliefs and that of many theists. Theists represent the majority of the human race and are not going to go away. You have no choice but to live in a society ruled by people that believe in some sort of deity. If you were really rational you would look for a common ground instead of insisting that your belief system is inherently superior. In fact, you are demonstrating many of the negative behaviors that you criticize theists for.

[Riverwind]

It's like I said earlier, humanity is a result of evolution. It doesn't matter whether it's in my self interest or not, because sometimes you can't fight biology.

Exactly. I think humanity has evolved a need to believe in a deity and most people derive a benefit from this belief. I won't speculate on whether this need is a side effect of other attributes or an attribute that was directly selected. I don't think it makes a difference.

However, the benefits of this belief are confined exclusively to an individuals mind and and emotions. People that believe a deity can help them deal with their anger will likely get results. People who believe that a deity will give them winning lotto numbers will be invariably be disappointed. A chronically obese person could appeal to a higher power for help with cravings for that cheese burger. On the other hand, the higher power is not going to do much to fix an overloaded heart and clogged arteries.

[Figleaf]

I don't see a problem with making a case for human rights by appealing to a higher moral order.

1-the higher moral order may be false, inefficient, or not a net benefit;

Who decides if a human right is true? What happens when these conflict with each other? What happens when people start making up human rights to further their own economic agendas (e.g. the lawyers trying to claim that access to tax free legal services is a 'human right')?

I fail to see how your questions are relevant to the point at issue there.

2-it suggests that the 'higher moral order' is required for human rights

Asking humans to agree on a set of human rights is the same as asking them to agree on a higher moral order.

No, its not. *

I have already explained why the 'self-interest' argument for human rights is basically bogus because it presumes that all humans have the same self interest.

Ridiculous. We don't need precisely the SAME interests, we merely need to acknowledge that we all have self-interest at all.

Constructing a 'sound regime of human rights' requires the construction of a 'moral framework' that can be used to arbitrate conflicts and decide what should be a human right and what is not.

Okay. And?

Frankly, I don't understand why you resist acknowledging the obvious parallels between your own system of beliefs and that of many theists.

We haven't discussed MY beliefs.

The reason I 'resist' your position is that it is nonsensical. You are attempting to equate opposites -- It's an absurdity. It's an affront to logic, reason and meaning. It's silly.

Theists represent the majority of the human race and are not going to go away.

Likely true, but it does nothing to help your argument.

You have no choice but to live in a society ruled by people that believe in some sort of deity.

That's not true.* But it's also irrelevant.

If you were really rational you would look for a common ground instead of insisting that your belief system is inherently superior.

That comment confirms that your understanding of rationality is profoundly faulty.

*There's a flat denial for your bald assertion.

[kuzadd]

because by enslaving others it is equally as easy for the slaveowner to be enslaved ( tablesturned)

That is the 'golden rule' argument.

But the 'golden rule' argument is not effective when you have groups of humans with the power to impose their will on others. A white slave owner does not fear being enslaved because only 'blacks' can be slaves according to the rules created by the society he lived in. These race based rules also protected that white non-slave owners. As a result, no white person in that society could justify opposing slavery simply in the name of self interest. That is why the opposition to slavery gad to came from outside the society and was imposed by people motivated by a belief in a higher moral order.

I don't see a problem with making a case for human rights by appealing to a higher moral order. However, I think it is ridiculously hypocritical for self-styled atheists to claim that their belief system is substantially different from the belief system of any theist.

actually it's not, except to you.

but it is the logical basis of a number of geneva conventions, on prisoner treatment and torture, as an example.

It comes first and foremost from the position that all human are equal, and goes from there.

"I don't see a problem with making a case for human rights by appealing to a higher moral order. "

I do. What is a higher 'moral order'?

is it easily corrupted, or free from corruption??

Is it rational?

" I think it is ridiculously hypocritical for atheists to claim that their belief system is substantially different from the belief system of any theist.

and yet it is, IMO for this one reason alone , they worship NO outside supernatural or divine deity/ies.