Author Topic: Why do atheists refer to the Laws of Moses, or the Torah Law to try to prove Ch  (Read 6614 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
On what basis do you accuse me of not understanding what cognitivce dissonance is? I hope there's more basis to it than you disagreeing that you experience it.
Go on up you baldhead.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12553
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Just read through some of the threads addressing the issue of objective morality if you want to see just how much cognitive dissonance is possible. Read those threads, then spend some time reading through all the accusations of 'evil' levelled at God on this website. Read those threads, then spend some time honestly asking yourself if a theoretical conclusion about morality matching your belief in a godless world measures up in any way shape or form to what you feel, see and experience every day.

Cognitive dissoance my arse.

Which standard of evil do you use when you use the word?  Your god's?  Yours?  Well, when I use the word, I use my standard.  Or that of the person I'm talking to.  Usually they align pretty well.

Have a clue of what you're talking about.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
In order for your post to even be slightly consistent with the concept we have to assume the participants to simultaneously hold to the idea that morality is solely the dominion of godhood, which I would assume they don't... there's no hint of a second idea they supposedly hold to that is in conflict with the first, just disagreement over how morality should be assessed.

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
In any case, shall I take your spiraling off into irrelevance as a concession that an appeal to "emotional needs" is indefensible?

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Just read through some of the threads addressing the issue of objective morality if you want to see just how much cognitive dissonance is possible. Read those threads, then spend some time reading through all the accusations of 'evil' levelled at God on this website. Read those threads, then spend some time honestly asking yourself if a theoretical conclusion about morality matching your belief in a godless world measures up in any way shape or form to what you feel, see and experience every day.

Cognitive dissoance my arse.

Which standard of evil do you use when you use the word?  Your god's?  Yours?  Well, when I use the word, I use my standard.  Or that of the person I'm talking to.  Usually they align pretty well.

Have a clue of what you're talking about.

I have a very good clue of what I'm talking about. I know, for instance, that you and many others claim to assess evil at an individual level. (and that assessments tend to be matching). And that is where I strongly, very strongly, suspect there is an awful lot of cognitive dissonance.

Because when you hear of a horrific crime, I don't believe your reaction synches with what you claim to believe about evil. Can the absolute horror and hatred, the desire for justice to be meted out, that you experience with certain crimes be adequately explained as a reaction to someone merely holding a different point of view to you? I know it's natural to feel anguish at the thought of someone suffering, but why don't you accept that the perpetrator has every right to act on their assessment of what's evil? Why do you want them punished?

To maintain the efficient operation of our society? Something as unfeeling, practical and calculated as that? No #$%@ way.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
In any case, shall I take your spiraling off into irrelevance as a concession that an appeal to "emotional needs" is indefensible?
No.
Go on up you baldhead.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12553
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
I have a very good clue of what I'm talking about. I know, for instance, that you and many others claim to assess evil at an individual level. (and that assessments tend to be matching). And that is where I strongly, very strongly, suspect there is an awful lot of cognitive dissonance.

Then this is another instance where you claim to know what others are thinking better than they do, for no reason other than that it suits you to do so.  It must help when justifying your judgments of them.

Because when you hear of a horrific crime, I don't believe your reaction synches with what you claim to believe about evil.

If that is true, then you really don't have a clue of what you're talking about, despite your protest to the contrary.

Can the absolute horror and hatred, the desire for justice to be meted out, that you experience with certain crimes be adequately explained as a reaction to someone merely holding a different point of view to you?

No, it can be explained as a reaction to something that offends one's own morality.  Funny you'd missed that.

Funny, too, that you have expressed intense disgust in the past at others having a different point of view than you.  It's not what usually tends to trigger my disgust-reaction, but it is apparently something that at times triggers yours.

I know it's natural to feel anguish at the thought of someone suffering, but why don't you accept that the perpetrator has every right to act on their assessment of what's evil? Why do you want them punished?

From his perspective, depending on his values, perhaps he does have that right.  That is not the perspective from which I am acting and thinking.

This is very basic.  You implore others to read those threads about morality yet you've clearly read and understood little of their content yourself.

To maintain the efficient operation of our society? Something as unfeeling, practical and calculated as that? No #$%@ way.

Off-topic.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12553
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
I feel I should point out, mm, that I don't necessarily disagree with the point you were trying to make re: cognitive dissonance.  The example you tried to use just happened to be a really poor one.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
From his perspective, depending on his values, perhaps he does have that right. 


Bolded mine.

Is there room for 'perhaps'? If he (or she) can justify the act to themselves? I mean apart from any legal right.
Go on up you baldhead.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12553
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
I say "perhaps" because he or she might be acting against his or her own morality for some reason.  I don't pretend to know what's going on in his or her head, especially since this is hypothetical and we don't have a real person to examine.  Hence, "perhaps".
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Well, I'm sort of tempted to unleash a heap of hypotheticals. But they rarely achieve much.

I'll drop it. For now. ;D
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
I see Jetson has joined us. I didn't deliberately ignore your post, it just sort of fellb y the way-side. Do you want me to respond?
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7314
  • Darwins +171/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
I see Jetson has joined us. I didn't deliberately ignore your post, it just sort of fellb y the way-side. Do you want me to respond?

No worries mate...just checking in. 

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
The fact that you can impose your own understanding upon someone else's does nothing to make light of an inherent conflict between the individual's own ideas. At best, you're left with the conclusion that they're wrong, which isn't even close to what cognitive dissonance is.

In any case, I really don't appreciate such a blatant derail and being dragged into a completely different topic. I'm sure there's plenty here who would be happy to discuss the subject with you, but I really have no drive to commit to it. Sorry. Unless you have something to add to what we were actually discussing I'll just assume we're done here.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
I don't think we were 100% on the same page even when discussing Christianity and emotion. I'm willing to look at it further, but probably not for a day or so.

I think we stopped at some unscheduled stations more than de-railed the train.

Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
That's fine.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6223
  • Darwins +412/-5
  • Gender: Male
But doesn't the cure only exist to meet a need? Do you really think, from your experience of the world, that people are just itching to be told that they're broken? Isn't the opposite true?

I suspect that the escalating trend away from Christianity over the last few decades is for preceisely this point.  From feudal systems all the way through to around the early 1900s, the majority of people were told precisely that.  You are useless, obey your betters, you deserve the squalor in which you live.  Its not a great stratch for the Victorian factory worker on a 12-hour shift for a pittance to accept that he IS a terrible sinner and that he gets just what he deserves from god as well as man (c.f. Ragged Trousered Philanthropists for a readable look at working conditions at the time).

But for the last few decades, we've seen an end to that general "working class=scum" mentality.  Social mobility has increased, people are increasingly aware of their own worth as indivuduals.....and church attendance (and declarations to Christianity) have toppled.

So actually I think you're BOTH right.  Christianity sells really well to those who already believe they are broken.  And that's why so many star systems are slipping through its fingers - because these days people believe they have worth.

Of course, there seems to be a significant slice of those who want to blame "someone else" for all their troubles - perhaps that is the new growth area for the church?  "It's not YOUR fault, it was Adam and Eve - but pray and their sins will stop affecting your life".
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?