Bachmann’s campaign hires reflect far right-wing Christianity

She probably can’t find anyone rational to work for her anymore. I have a feeling we’ll be hearing that Bachmann’s campaign is broke soon. With her poll numbers sliding down it’s going to be harder and harder for her to raise money.

She’s toast. End of story.

But I’m still very happy she’s heading even farther over the cliff when it comes to all this morality and religious crap. Go for it Michele!! Go as extreme as your little brain can take you. Start wearing a halo or something. Maybe, just maybe those brain-dead 6th District zombies will FINALLY see, you gotta go. I doubt it, but we can hope.

Oh the sweet sweet sounds of an extremely narrow minded Republican GOP runner who has little to no idea what she’s talking about. I believe her Anti-Gay campaigns will be her downfall; because she stands solely for teaching children that lifestyle is “unhealthy and wrong”. Being unable to accept the fact that the world is changing is an unhealthy lifestyle; and Bachmann seems to be living the unhealthiest life possible

Extremist, hostile, unhappy, and full of rage. Promoting a faith agenda full of hate, intolerance and myths is hardly a recipe for Presidential success.

Mary,

And…what was your point exactly?

Wow, sounds like a very godly and righteous person. She could never be elected in this depraved country though. Too bad, because God isn’t going to “bless America,” when it is a wicked nation.

Bill,

Why is this country a ‘wicked nation’?

Yes, this country is turning wicked – more and more daily! We have turned out back on God, and believe me , He will turn away those who do not know Him! This country was founded on a strong belief in God. A loving kind God – not one filled with hate, discrimination against 1/2 of his children, stoning, beheading, torturing, and slashing the throats of those that love Him!! He has said he will “not know those who do not know Him” – and you can bank on it! Sheer POWER, not love has taken over this country, and Power corrupts.

There is no known connection between belief in gods, or the god of Christianity in particular, and a) moral behavior, b) ethical knowledge and awareness.

And let’s be honest here–few god believers agree on many important moral questions–abortion, homosexuality, sexuality in general, protecting the environment, and much else.

Therefore, one might be forgiven for thinking that looking for some reliable source of moral understanding in god belief to be rather futile.

Eric, you are such a jackass. I’m sure that you cannot define morality or ethics
and have little idea hoe either came about.

Funny thing about the whole Christianity business; one must act, serve, love, think and forgive like Christ to truly be a “Christian”…it’s odd that those who think they are somehow the gatekeepers to the Christian Club are obsessed more with sabotaging other religions rather than following the example of the One they claim to revere. You oughta look up how many time Christ addressed hypocrisy in the New Testamant.

First of all, with the GOD of the BIBLE there is no morality or ethical knowledge. HE defined it. Therefore, if he does not exist, there can be no absolute morality or absolute ethical knowledge because there is no more ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY. Everbody is able to decide for himself, and no one can say otherwise in a GODLESS society.

Second, lets be clear on this … all churches are not churches that uphold the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN ethics or beliefs just like all CHRISTIANS are NOT FOLLOWERS of JESUS CHRIST. So to assume otherwise is frankly … insane and no observant.

Therefore, There is such as MORAL UNDERSTANDING because we do have a MORAL LAW GIVER GOD who has absolute authority. And praise GOD we are not at the hands of athiest and cult who have to create to themselves thier own morality, and then try to impose it on us so that we now have to accept there moral code of,
acceptance of faggots ,
killing children in the womb, FOR ANY REASON, is justifiable
etc

This article is just another instance of the intolerance of those who consider themselves tolerant. Many people in America share the views of Bachmann and her staff. We still have the right to think and make decisions on issues of homosexuality, the forced acceptance of HPV Vaccines, and many other moral issues. This is what democracy is about.

Rutiger wrote,

“Eric, you are such a jackass. I’m sure that you cannot define morality or ethics
and have little idea hoe either came about.”

Instead of responding to my claim that there is no empirical connection between god belief and moral conduct and knowledge–if this were so we’d find god believers behaving more ethically than atheists, but no such evidence exists–you bring out an ad hominem.

You also wrote,

“I’m sure that you cannot define morality or ethics and have little idea hoe either came about.”

You’re sure about that, eh? Not knowing me you sure seem confident in your claim. Do you often make statements on the basis of inadequate evidence?

James wrote,

1) “First of all, with the GOD of the BIBLE there is no morality or ethical knowledge. HE defined it. Therefore, if he does not exist, there can be no absolute morality or absolute ethical knowledge because there is no more ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY. Everbody is able to decide for himself, and no one can say otherwise in a GODLESS society.”

Please explain how you deal with this dilemma.

a) If morality as defined by your god is true and correct simply on account of your god saying that it is, and if we then follow that criterion alone (morality is what your god makes it), then presumably murder could be considered moral simply because your god said that it is moral. In several parts of the Bible your god indeed sanctions murder, and in the 10 Commandments prohibits it. The conclusion is that one set of moral values applies to humanity, whereas moral relativism is the prevailing standard for your god.

However, we know, regardless of what the Bible or your god says, that murder is wrong. So, human moral intuition appears to be a superior standard to your god’s morality if you assume that morality is true and correct only on the basis that your god says that it is the case.

b) If on the other hand you claim that your god’s morality is true and correct because this moral system is outside of your god, then it’s clear we don’t need your god to determine what is moral and what isn’t.

Lastly, it doesn’t follow that if morality stems from your god (let’s pretend the above dilemma somehow doesn’t exist), that this morality is absolute. One can always doubt and question even your god. Second, it may even be the case that human generated morality is superior, more intellectually consistent and grounded in experience, than anything to be found in the Bible. Nothing you’ve written suggests that this can’t be the case.

2) “Second, lets be clear on this … all churches are not churches that uphold the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN ethics or beliefs just like all CHRISTIANS are NOT FOLLOWERS of JESUS CHRIST. So to assume otherwise is frankly … insane and no observant.”

Who defines what is Christian and what not? Oh yes, you. But why should anyone believe you? Others may have different reasons and criteria for defining what is Christian and what not.

3) ” Therefore, There is such as MORAL UNDERSTANDING because we do have a MORAL LAW GIVER GOD who has absolute authority. And praise GOD we are not at the hands of athiest and cult who have to create to themselves thier own morality, and then try to impose it on us so that we now have to accept there moral code of, acceptance of faggots , killing children in the womb, FOR ANY REASON, is justifiable etc”

You may not realize this or even like it, but you can’t escape it: many Christians are pro-choice and support gay marriage.

Bachmann is just another selfish, immoral freak that has found comfort in a cult that believes in a version of God even more mosterously inhuman and unthinking than herself.

@Jake She just cherry-picks anyway. If she applied her own book to herself half as much as she tries to force it, through big government, on others she wouldn’t, as a woman, even be allowed to speak about it …

If murder is wrong, then taking an innocent life in the woman, FOR ANY REASON, is wrong, and America has been doing WRONG at the count of 50 MILLION and counting…. all in the name of their god called CHOICE.

But the main issue here is … he who sets the rules gets to define how the rules are used. If there is no GOD, then you do what YOU want. If there is a GOD of the BIBLE, then you do what HE wants … plain and simple.

You can say anything is right, wrong, good, or bad if there is no GOD of the BIBLE because it would all be your opinion. Therefore, one kills (and he is wrong), and another guy kills ( and it gets his rocks off). If there is no GOD, then you can’t logically say …. well they cant have thier own opinion, and live by it. they have to live by man’s moral code ….. what code? who decided it? and why should I follow it if there is no absolute ruler to tell me not too? … you simply can’t do it and be consistent logically.

Therefore if you shed man’s blood intentionally, then you should die according to the GOD of the BIBLE. If you are an enemy of GOD, he can destroy you just like we can take out our enemies. IF GOD does not want people killing each other just for any reason, then GOD can set a law to say so, just like man does today.

Next, CHRISTIAN by definition means a follower of the tenants and teachings of JESUS CHRIST. I have nothing to do with that. So if a person says they are a CHRISTIAN, then they are saying that they are following the teachings and tenants of JESUS CHRIST as laid out in the book we call the THE BIBLE.

Who cares what other people may make up. Therefore, all you have to do is look at a person’s life to see if they are what they say they are. I can call myself anything, but that does not mean I am what I say … unless my actions and lifestyle confirm it.

Others very well may have different reasons and criteria for what they define as CHRISTIAN, but it does not mean they are.

For example, I could say I am a Natural born US citizen all day long, but if my birth says otherwise, then I am not a Natural Born US Citizen. I can even falsify my birth certificate, make a lot of people believe me, have huge followings where ever I go of people saying it …. but it still does not make it so.

Now, I will agree one item … many SO CALLED CHRISTIANS do accept pro-choice views, and same-sex views on marriage. BUT again, that does not mean … by any stretch of the imagination …. that CHRIST supports thier views, teaches thier views in scripture, or will back them when they die before the father of glory.

Finally, a real Christian candidate who has everything right and isn’t afraid to say so! She’s definitely got my vote! We need to make sodomy illegal again. Mormons are NOT Christians. Their god is a god who BECAME what he is. The true God just IS and never changes. Thank you for your report outlining all the strengths of Michele Bachmann. I will increase my support.

James,

You completely avoided addressing the logical dilemma I laid out. Care to try again?

You made other points, which I’ll address. You wrote:

“But the main issue here is … he who sets the rules gets to define how the rules are used. If there is no GOD, then you do what YOU want. If there is a GOD of the BIBLE, then you do what HE wants … plain and simple.”

Actually, it’s not quite so simple.

1) You claim that whomever makes the rules decides on their application. This is merely an assertion, and doesn’t follow from any prior logically compelling reason. Assuming for the sake of argument that your god did devise a moral system for humanity, it doesn’t follow that there’s any rationally compelling reason for anyone to follow it. In fact, the very act of arguing FOR following that moral system is based on human reason. You have to make a decision, and if this decision is going to be something more than, let’s say, a coin toss, then you will at some level and to some degree be using reasons for doing so. And if that’s the case–if it’s the case that you can decide whether this god’s moral system is worthy of being followed by some kind of ordered decision process–then surely this is indicative of some ability to make reasonable moral decisions WITHOUT any reference to this god’s alleged moral system. In fact, I would argue that this is what Christians do anyway. (There’s much more to be said on this last point, but I’ll leave it at that for now.)

2) You wrote, “You can say anything is right, wrong, good, or bad if there is no GOD of the BIBLE because it would all be your opinion.”

In theory one can say anything, have any opinion, but when we’re discussing the basis for morality I assume we’re using as a background set of assumptions the way the world actually works. Your statement makes the irrational assumption that regularities of human experience throughout history don’t count as evidence. In other words, you seem to dismiss the obvious facts of, for example, the universal response to murder–outrage, anger, fear, anxiety, terror, a thirst for revenge, the sense of injustice, and so forth. On your account of morality, none of this would exist if morality were nothing more than a personal preference. These facts either don’t exist (absurd), or they do. And if they do, we’re well on our way to understanding why morality without god would be very likely to exist.

“Therefore, one kills (and he is wrong), and another guy kills ( and it gets his rocks off). If there is no GOD, then you can’t logically say …. well they cant have thier own opinion, and live by it. they have to live by man’s moral code ….. what code? who decided it? and why should I follow it if there is no absolute ruler to tell me not too? … you simply can’t do it and be consistent logically.”

You don’t seem to realize that the position of the amoralist is also a problem for the person who believes in a god. It’s logically possible for a god believer to nevertheless reject that this belief forms any basis for morality–the position of some deists perhaps. Further, it’s entirely possible that this person can reject all morality as so much nonsense, opting to simply satisfy his ego. It’s not possible to logically prove to anyone who rejects a normative claim that they should in fact accept it, whether they believe in a god or not. The reasoning (to us) might be compelling for someone to abide by a moral system, but this won’t matter to the moral skeptic who rejects any a priori belief in morality.

Your case for the necessity of god belief would be helped considerably if you could demonstrate that atheists were somehow less moral than god believers. However, no such evidence exists. The nature of humanity is flat-out not how you seem to think it is–that once god belief is abandoned, anything goes. That’s not how the world works. Also, to be sure, simply because you disagree with other Christians or atheists about certain moral questions, that doesn’t mean that these other Christians or atheists don’t have good reasons for their moral views.

Lastly, god belief historically has given much evidence that it has been unable to live up to its view of itself as a force for good rising above culture. In fact it’s very easy to point to historical examples of immoralities justified on the basis of god belief–keeping women in subjugation, the use of torture to extract confessions, the use of the death penalty for blasphemy, the Biblical justification for slavery, and on and on.

Ironically, rather than being the ultimate source of “absolute morality”, Christian theism based morality has proven itself to be quite malleable over time.

3) You wrote, ” Others very well may have different reasons and criteria for what they define as CHRISTIAN, but it does not mean they are.”

But, the question is, who decides? Neither you nor anyone else knows what the view of Jesus was about homosexuality or same sex marriage. (Some serious theological scholarship argues that Jesus himself was at least bisexual, if not gay: see the book, The Man Jesus Loved. I make no claim either way.)

Who are these “so-called” Christians? Simply those YOU claim to be “so-called” Christians? Are people false Christians if they disagree with your pastor on any given issue? Your church? Your particular sect or creed? I’ve met plenty of Christians who would find your beliefs not very Christ-like.

Lewis Seaton wrote,

“Finally, a real Christian candidate who has everything right and isn’t afraid to say so! She’s definitely got my vote! We need to make sodomy illegal again.”

On the contrary, my friend.

What America needs is a revolution in anal sex awareness. Indeed, we need citizens taking a moral stand for the joys of anal intercourse.

Have you ever experienced the pleasures of butt sex? A rhetorical question–no need to answer.

Not being gay, I’ve never had anal sex with another guy, only with my wife. However, if I had been born gay, I can assure you I wouldn’t hold back. A gay friend tells me it can be great, and I take him at his word.

Yes. What we need is a sexual ethic that celebrates the capacities of the body, in any consensual way, for pleasure.

Lewis–sodomy is here to stay, I’m happy to say. Some might even say that anal sex is more important than The Bible.

Eric,

To say something is good … how do you define good? You have to depend on some absolute somewhere to say … so and so is good. Without that absolute authority, you cant claim anything is good, bad, right, wrong, or anything else for that matter. You must have something to compare too … So I am saying that something is GOD’s LAW.

If majority ruled, then when the rule would be changing all the time because majorities change over time… and therefore it would not be an absolute would it?

So therefore I did address your question. The issue is who has the final authority. Who makes the final say? And why is that the basis for judging anything. If you are proposing that there is no GOD, you can’t tell me to do or think anything … and have it stick.

I say without GOD you can’t even reason. We all accept Numbers, Letters, concepts, ideas, laws of logic and equations. BUT are not all of these invisible entities that people take for granted on a daily basis? You can’t taste, see, feel, hear, or look at “2″, you can only see representations all over the place.

I say the invisible mind established an invisible code. That code was used to create all we see and use today. Therefore, if there was no GOD, who are you to judge anybody to say … well murder is or is not justified? Is or is not moral? On what possible basis can you even make such an claim, and why do I have to accept that basis?

Where did the idea come from if there is no GOD? who defines it, and why do I have to accept it if there is no GOD? basically your case is mute because you are assuming a law that is absolute when there is no absolutes in a GODLESS universe. You can’t say anything is moral, right, wrong, good, bad, or even criticize somebody for having done a moral/immoral, right/wrong, good or bad action, choice, thing. YOU HAVE NO BASIS OUTSIDE OF YOUR OPINION TO EVEN MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT.

In a truely, GODLESS universe, you can’t call me anything, blame me for anything, or even try because its all based on your opinion. If everybody lived consistent to thier thought life, we would see instantly that there has to be absolutes somewhere. Just because we don’t live according to our changing thought life does not make our thought life that less absurd.

We have to have some way of making a moral decision. It has to be more than just your opinion or mind. It has to be steadier than … majority rules because the majority can change in any given time or period.

Can one reject GOD foundation, sure. That does not mean he is not still using his foundations.

My basic point is that its only your opinion, or anybody else opinion of whats right and wrong if they do not use GOD’s standard. Therefore I don’t have to follow or accept your standards as my standards in a GODLESS universe. just because the world does not live consistant to that does not negate the fact of the truth. Just because we don’t live … anything goes … does not mean people don’t try to live that way.

I say they can’t live that way. They must have an absolute somewhere, and it has to be above them, or someone elses opinion. I say that standard is laid out in the bible, If you chose not to use GODs standard for right and wrong, then you need to justify what standard we should use, and why should I have to accept that standard. If that standard is the same as GOD’s then why not use GOD’s?

GOD says do not kill … you say murder is wrong … they look the same to me. however, if GOD or GOOD is whatever feels great to you … then killing gets some people off. That is GOOD or GOD to them, and you can’t say otherwise. I am sticking strictly with principles here. You must justify the principle first before trying to apply it to life. Life does not justify principle. We don’t experience first, and then develop a principle, we choose based on the principles we already have. PRINCIPLES ultimately come down to us through people or teachings we accepted as foundations or assumptions that are never tested, just assumed to be true. Else how does a baby learn anything.

You stated … “The reasoning (to us) might be compelling for someone to abide by a moral system, but this won’t matter to the moral skeptic who rejects any a priori belief in morality.”

I say in order to accept or reject ANYTHING, he ALREADY HAS TO HAVE A SET OF A PRIORI beliefs to begin with. Otherwise what mechanisms can he even use to choose and say yeah or nay? Its these A PRIORI beliefs that I am challenging Eric.

I say they come from GOD, and you say they don’t . You are within your rights to say so, but you must show how they can even exist uniformally and universally. Then on top of that, you must me show me why they MUST BE APPLIED TO EVERYONE if there is no absolute law giver.

James,

Thanks for your reply.

1) First, I note that once again you didn’t respond to the substance of my claim about the dilemma of justifying morality on theistic grounds.

The issue doesn’t stop with who has “final authority”, as my original expression of the dilemma should make clear. To repeat, if a moral position is moral only on account of the fact that it issues from a final authority, then it’s still possible that that final authority will issue moral rulings that we humans will find to be morally wrong. I gave the example of murder being sanctioned in some instances by your god in the Bible. In other instances (e.g. the 10 commandments) he/she/it apparently takes the opposite view.

So what are we to make of this? Is murder wrong or isn’t it? We can’t tell from the alleged source of “moral absolutes”–your god or his text–since his position appears to be internally contradictory. So, since we as humans feel it necessary to make moral judgments, we would be compelled to make one in this instance. But if we just said, “Sometimes murder is ok, sometimes not, it all depends on what our god decrees,” very few people would find this satisfactory. Why then would the vast majority of people, regardless of what your god decreed, still come down on the side of holding murder to be wrong even if you god decreed it? It can’t be because your god was against murder, because there’s Biblical evidence he’s played both sides of the fence on that moral question. It must be because humans have a moral intuition that murder is wrong. If one then replies that this moral sense was somehow implanted in us by your god (the mechanism of this is never explained (in face you can’t point to any evidence this happened at all), then your god becomes unnecessary, since our natural instincts can, in part, inform our moral outlook.

2) You claim that without the assumption of your god it isn’t possible to reason. This strikes me as a ludicrous non sequitur. Perhaps you’d like to clarify what you mean by that.

3) You wrote,

“Where did the idea come from if there is no GOD? who defines it, and why do I have to accept it if there is no GOD? basically your case is mute because you are assuming a law that is absolute when there is no absolutes in a GODLESS universe. You can’t say anything is moral, right, wrong, good, bad, or even criticize somebody for having done a moral/immoral, right/wrong, good or bad action, choice, thing. YOU HAVE NO BASIS OUTSIDE OF YOUR OPINION TO EVEN MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT.”

What justifies your claim that moral absolutes exist if your god exists? Your missing a premise in your argument. Further, it’s not necessary for ethics to be grounded in absolutes for ethics to be a valid basis for moral action. Also, belief in moral absolutes probably has no bearing at all on moral behavior–except possible for the worse. One of the biggest difficulties with moral absolutes is that in many moral situations multiple moral rules apply, and moral absolutes alone don’t tell you which rule to apply. A quick example: a Nazi platoon is looking for a Jew that you are hiding. You know that if you lie to the Nazis, you will save the Jew from a concentration camp and death. If you tell the truth, the Jew will die. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve discussed this with Christian fundamentalists and have been told that one should NOT lie, even if that means the Jew will be discovered by the Nazis. The fetish for moral absolutes, it seems to me, leads to as much error in moral judgment as any good they might, somehow, someway help produce.

Without moral absolutes, without god belief, there’s obviously much more to ethics than just opinion. To hold otherwise is nothing more than unlettered ejaculation. Current secular ethical thought is rich in its sources and encompasses various branches of psychology, neuroscience, history, philosophy, anthropology–hell, the sciences in general–exploration of ethical issues through the arts, not to mention cumulative lived experience and ongoing observation and analysis.

Thus, to make the claim, “In a truely, GODLESS universe, you can’t call me anything, blame me for anything, or even try because its all based on your opinion”, is not a serious claim. I think it simply demonstrates an utter lack of familiarity with a somewhat enormous body of literature and research. That you are not familiar with it is no mark against it, only yourself.

4) You wrote,

“My basic point is that its only your opinion, or anybody else opinion of whats right and wrong if they do not use GOD’s standard.”

You don’t realize that this is one of the least stable ethical standards humanity has ever devised. How many different sects of Christianity are there? How many different faiths are there? There is a huge diversity in moral opinion among them all, and–it’s bizarre that this elementary truism is not seen for what it is–they *all base their moral views in varying degrees on belief in a god and his/her/its/their alleged holy scriptures*. You yourself know there are plenty of Christians who have very well thought out reason for holding that their god SUPPORTS same sex marriage. How can this be if belief in this god is the only source of moral absolutes? Must it be mentioned that if moral absolutes were the gold standard of this god, isn’t it a little odd that such standards are virtually impossible to agree on? If this god did design the universe, he/she/it could have designed it in such as way as to make such moral absolutes easily discoverable. But this is not what we see. How could this be?

Why don,t you devout Christians just stop having abortions and let the rest of us who disagree with you continue to have access to them? I don’t understand why you have to impose your beliefs on me. Go ahead and believe whatever you want, but don’t try and take away my choice. No one is trying to take away your right to believe and do what you want. Why do you want to take away my right to choose and impose what you believe on me? I believe in choice, and you should too. Can’t you be happy just saying no fou yourself based on your beliefs?

And by the way who are you to tell me what is right or wrong?

Okay lets looks at this further …

You said …”The issue doesn’t stop with who has “final authority”, as my original expression of the dilemma should make clear. To repeat, if a moral position is moral only on account of the fact that it issues from a final authority, then it’s still possible that that final authority will issue moral rulings that we humans will find to be morally wrong.”

This is true, but again, you have to at least HAVE AN ABSOLUTE to even disagree with it. You can’t disagree with something that does not exist can you?
Also, even if you disagree, then that means you have a DIFFERENT ABSOLUTE. Where does that absolute come from? Why should I even acknowledge it as having any credibility? In a GODLESS unlverse, I don’t have too.

You said … “I gave the example of murder being sanctioned in some instances by your god in the Bible. In other instances (e.g. the 10 commandments) he/she/it apparently takes the opposite view. So what are we to make of this? Is murder wrong or isn’t it?”

Kill – The act of taking someone life
Murder – the act of taking a person life by pre-meditation (thinking about doing it before you do it)

The issue is why are thinking about killing. Is it okay to kill your enemies? Is it Okay to kill in self defense? Is it okay if you killed accidentally (gun when off by falling off shelf or something)? i can’t afford to support this baby, and I don’t want this baby looking at me later saying why “why did you give me away’ … so I am going to kill them now? man you can go on and one …

Tell me eric, is there a one size fits all to this ERIC ?

If you say yes, all should die because killing is wrong … period … then that is one view point. If you say, no … one size does not fit all. Then ONE has to make a call as to when KILLING is allowed, and when KILLING is not allowed.

So the bottom line is WHO makes the CALL? Why should the make the CALL? And then finally, why should I obey what CALL they made ?

In a GODLESS universe, i make the call. So whatever makes sense to me is fine regardless what you say. In a GOD universe, we go by his rules. We go by when he says its acceptable to kill and not acceptable to kill. The bible says that if a man kills accidentally, that there should be santuary cities for him to go, and not be killed himself.

Now if it was planned … therefore it is murder because it is premeditated. So now we have to go deeper don’t we. We have all kinds of reasons for premeditated murder….
he did me wrong,
i don’t like them,
I want what he has and therefore he has to go,
etc. etc.

Does one size fits all here ERIC? One could say self defense is a good reason to kill. One says …. revenge for sleeping with my wife is a good reason. Well, are they or are they not good reasons? Who makes the CALL? Why do they make the CALL, and not me? then finally … why do I have to accept there CALL as my own?

To me murder is not a …. “ONE SIZE FITS ALL ANSWER”, but again you said …

In other instances (e.g. the 10 commandments) he/she/it apparently takes the opposite view.So what are we to make of this? Is murder wrong or isn’t it?

You tell us ERIC. Is murder wrong in all circumstances or not? YES OR NO ONLY since this is your line of reasoning.

Who are you to make the call for us on this issue ? Then finally, why should I accept your CALL as my own and make it universally accepted ? Why not accept GOD’s call and rules on this issue. Why should have to listen to you… or anybody else for that matter… on this CALL?

I am a member of the LDS Church, and I believe that Christ is the Son of God. I believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind can be saved.

Secularism is turning people away from what made this country great. It is no accident that our founding fathers were nearly all men of faith, character and devotion to God and family. They didn’t tolerate homosexuality, promiscuity or the general attitude of sacriledge because they were men of character and faith. Upon this character was laid the foundation of a great nation, which had increasingly prospered until the people of the nation began to turn away from God.

It is no coicidence that there is an exact parallel between the godless attitudes of an increasing number of America’s people and the social and economic downturn that is upon us. It is no coincidence that our economy is down, confidence is down, hope is down and dreams are squashed at the very time that godlessness is on the rise. So keep it up America. Be skeptical. Mock things that are sacred. Continue to impose your own version of morality on the rest of us and then complain when it doesn’t work and when conditions continue to deteriorate.

I am not a Michele Bachmann fan. I won’t vote for her in the primary. But it’s certainly not because of her position against immorality.

WELL NOW…….
written and mostly commetted on by left wingers, so…………..
of course it’s right wing EXTREEM!!

In the words of my hero-Col. Potter, USA Army, decased, HORSE HOCKEY!!

God bless Michele, she’s got my vote.

Hello James,

You wrote,

1) “This is true, but again, you have to at least HAVE AN ABSOLUTE to even disagree with it. You can’t disagree with something that does not exist can you?
Also, even if you disagree, then that means you have a DIFFERENT ABSOLUTE. Where does that absolute come from? Why should I even acknowledge it as having any credibility? In a GODLESS unlverse, I don’t have too.”

a) Must one have an absolute to disagree with a statement or argument? I think there are a number of distinctions that have to be made here. First, it’s rarely the case in science that absolutes are relied upon to defend or argue against something. Much of what science does is to say that, ‘given everything we know X appears to be the case.’ Clearly there is much variability in the levels of confidence we might have given the specific claim at hand. For instance, we know with near or absolute certainty that the earth is several billion years old and not a few thousand. Of course, it’s always possible that everything was created 5 minutes ago to give a much older appearance, but such armchair skepticism isn’t very productive. Scientific understanding is less certain, for instance, on the conditions under which life can survive. In any case, it’s still possible across the range of confidence levels to offer criticism of new or contradictory claims. Without absolutes. Even logic, mathematics and reason generally have only an ambiguous relationship with absolutes. Ever hear of?:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
You should become familiar with it.

What about the principle of non-contradiction? Is that an absolute? Perhaps.

It also strikes me that to even claim to have an absolute standard you must first have an absolute standard prior the one you wish to defend in order to eliminate any possibility of doubt. And in turn that standard or claim would require a further justification, etc., in an infinite regress.

b) “Also, even if you disagree, then that means you have a DIFFERENT ABSOLUTE.”

Not necessarily. For instance, I could just have a data set I hold to be more reliable (e.g., that we have no good evidence for anything supernatural happening in the Bible) than the alternative (that supernatural events did happen in the Bible), but this doesn’t commit me to any absolute stance since I don’t think it can be ruled out absolutely that supernatural events don’t happen.

c) “Where does that absolute come from? Why should I even acknowledge it as having any credibility? In a GODLESS unlverse, I don’t have too.”

In a godless universe you are under the same epistemological requirements as anyone else. The same standards of evidence and reason apply to you as to me. To think otherwise is nothing more than a conceit, a pose of knowingness.

2) You wrote,

“In a GODLESS universe, i make the call. So whatever makes sense to me is fine regardless what you say. In a GOD universe, we go by his rules. We go by when he says its acceptable to kill and not acceptable to kill. The bible says that if a man kills accidentally, that there should be santuary cities for him to go, and not be killed himself.”

You appear to be repeating yourself without addressing my replies and criticisms. So, I’ll repeat.

In a godless universe morality and ethics are unfolding processes of cultural evolution to which normally developed individuals give their assent. Your assumption, which I’ve already addressed, and against which you’ve provided no new information or argument, is that without god belief anything goes. You implicitly posit a view of humanity that doesn’t exist–that without your particular religious beliefs, there will be moral chaos. Some people will abhor murder, while others will celebrate it. Some will deplore theft, while others champion it as good, etc. There’s no evidence–none–from any of the social sciences, that this is the way human beings are in fact.

You also state that in a god universe that “we go by his rules.” Actually, there’s no evidence that this is the case, it seems to me, and for reasons I’ve already cited having to do with humanity’s changing standards over time of “moral absolutes” based on god belief. And, to repeat, a further complication is that there’s no reliable way of interpreting what these god-universe rules are, at least in many significant cases, including abortion (on which the Bible is unclear).

3) “You tell us ERIC. Is murder wrong in all circumstances or not? YES OR NO ONLY since this is your line of reasoning.”

No, it’s not, and likely most people would agree. Take the trolley problem for instance:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Trolley_problem

I’ll let you read about this if you’re interested. Per our discussion, this is also interesting as being an account of the main weaknesses of the “moral absolutes” approach to ethics–the fact that in many situations more than one “moral absolute” applies, and it’s not at all apparent in some cases just based on moral absolutes taken in isolation, which absolute rule should apply. They can contradict each other.

4) “Who are you to make the call for us on this issue ? Then finally, why should I accept your CALL as my own and make it universally accepted ? Why not accept GOD’s call and rules on this issue. Why should have to listen to you… or anybody else for that matter… on this CALL?”

All we have with ethics is our collective human experience, our natural dispositions for good or ill, and our ability to reason, our capacities for change and growth and imagination. These are and must be enough. As with politics or science or art, if marshalling evidence and reason and appealing to your moral intuition is not enough, nothing else will be enough I’m afraid. But it will be enough for others.

Why not accept your god’s call?

Because:

a) There’s no good reason for me to believe he/she/it/they exist.

b) Even assuming existence, it doesn’t follow that this entity has provided us with any moral guidance. Based on everything I know I can’t possibly take the Bible seriously as a moral guide. (See the book The Christian Delusion for more info on where I’m coming from.)

c) Even if this entity called god does have a moral plan for humanity, there’s currently no reliable way to tell what it is. Do I turn to some form of Hinduism, Islam, fundamentalist Christianity, liberal Christianity, the Catholic hierarchy, some form of goddess-worshipping paganism? From what I’ve been able to determine, there’s no rational way to determine which set of supernatural truth claims is correct.

d) Even if we could somehow determine that a particular faith tradition was correct, then that still doesn’t rule out the application of human reason to sorting through the inevitable dilemmas, contradictions, ambiguities and unknowns. We are inextricably bound to our decision-making capacities as humans. This means that our judgment is required as part of the process of determining what is right and wrong. It will do no good to pretend otherwise, to think that we merely sit back and wait for orders from On High. That’s not how we construct our world as conscious beings–we pay attention to some things and not others (and often for unconscious and non-rational reasons). Our changing social circumstances force us to confront contradictions between what we say is true and what actually is. We use imagination to place ourselves in the shoes of others or to envision different ways of being that rise above the contradictions and limitations of the present. In other words, even if there is a rule giver, we as humans are necessarily huge participants in the process. In, fact, we’d still be doing the brunt of the heavy ethical lifting–reasoning things out, debating, discussing, learning, questioning.

Lastly, I must say this. The last arena to which I’d look for signs of moral or objective truth would be religious fundamentalism. More than anywhere else in society, this is where you find anti-intellectualism, intolerance and racism, ignorance, conformity and incuriosity, distrust of others, suspicion and fear of difference, hostility to reason and science and independent thought, and a view of the world in general that’s narrow, cramped, crippling and destructive of human potential. No thanks.

James,

I must add the following.

In a previous post you wrote the following: “acceptance of faggots”

You must know that that word directed against LGBT people, as you appear to have intended it, is equivalent to calling an African American “nigger.”

It’s a hate word, a word intended to dehumanize, demean.

And yet you’ve spent a great deal of time talking about moral absolutes. If moral absolutes, as you claim, are the only real basis for morality, then how is that such a word can so easily roll off of your tongue?

Is this hateful attitude common in your church? Your family?

What message do you think this sends about your faith?

Can you appreciate the conclusion that others draw from this, that anything you say from here on out against LGBT people or same sex marriage is will be seen as nothing more than a reflection of an hateful, hostile, prejudiced bias?

I would love to support and donate to her campaign, but since I am a Mormon and her staff considers Mormons non-christian, I will have to pass. Good luck in all your efforts and God bless you.

@Eric – nice work putting that religious nut job in his place. I love that this dude (James) is like most religious people who claim to know what happens when we die and are extremely spiritual and religious people yet make these judgement about others as if there was a god he would not love a person because he/she was LGBT. Believing that god hates people who are LGBT is essentially the same thing as what the Muslim extremists believe – that you are different so you are going to hell.

“more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other” and it’s always the religious who are so sure they are right and so sure you are wrong for not believing them that they will do whatever it takes to convince you of their viewpoint – even if that means killing you.

James – I hope you win a Darwin Award, how bloody ironic would that be.

Bachmann and her ilk of staff members are the White Supremacists of Christianity. It’s only them that are good enough to win their perceived reward in heaven. They are the ones who are all-knowing and sit in the judgment seat. If some faith is different than theirs, well then the other faith deserves to be excluded and should be belittled. Change the names and hoist the swastika because the parallels are there. Hate is hate, no matter how Godly you try to make it. A rose by any other name is still bigotry and the majority of Americans see it for what it is as evidenced by her tanking poll numbers. Romney on the other hand, holds to his faith while telling everyone to follow their own beliefs. Follow the Constitution prohibitting religious tests. A candidate who offers this as a whisper campaign is one offering smoke and mirrors as substance.

Policymakers can hope for people seeking interests. Everyone’s life better!

Yes I,m a Mormon, I worship the resurrected Christ of the Old and New Testaments not the one defined by forth century creeds (doctrine by committee). Where is even the word ‘Trinity’ shown in the scriptures?

I hope Michelle Bachmann does not bend to the winds of political correctness. We need a candidate who will be strong in the face of the evil which besets this nation. For too long Christians have been afraid of standing up and have been tolerant of alternative lifestyles. I, too have been tolerant. Now I see where that has led us. Go Michelle!

James, thanks for proving once again how hateful and inflexible people fron your brand of Christianity are. I’m sure Jesus is proud of you for calling fellow children of God “faggots” knowing how hurtful that word is. It’s cute that you think you’re qualified to judge the morals of others. At least atheists don’t attempt to defend their bigotry with blasphemous interpretations of God’s will. Jesus said “love thy neighbor,” not “refer to thy neighbor as a faggot.”

@ Don, and anyone else who likes to paint the founding fathers as devoutly Christian:
Please, please, please, do your damned homework. Most of the founding fathers were deists. While these men all went to Church none of them were devout worshipers. Most of the founders did believe that our nation should be one of virtues, but they always cautioned strongly against mixing politics and religion, hence the separation of the two in our Constitution. It really sickens me to see the religious right throwing around so many historical inaccuracies. So, do your homework kiddies…

Mahalo.