Sam Harris: Morality and the Christian God (Israel, Catholic, Commandments)

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

Since all Western morality is based on Judeo Christain values,

Please tell us how the morality of the Nez Perce is based on Judeo Christian values.

[alexcanter]

Originally Posted by Cruithne

I have no idea what kind of response this is supposed to be, so quite why I'm responding, I'm not sure myself. But Sam Harris is 46 if he's the youngster you are referring to.

P.S. Talk about uneducated - you might want to look again at your last sentence.

then where exactly is there anything halfway constructive on the tape ?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Cruithne

Interesting. Because I can only conceptualise the universe having always existed in one form or another. That's why even as a huge science advocate I struggle with the big bang theory. I have always preferred Roger Penroses cyclical model of the universe for no other reason than I find it easier to visualise and accept. Roger Penrose is a physicist who worked with Stephen Hawking on black holes on early universe theories. He has a theory that the universe expands until all the matter decays and is turned to light - so there is nothing in the universe that has any time or distance scale associated with it. This becomes a state identical to the state before the Big Bang, so starting the next cycle.
I have always visualised the universe as eternal and infinite.

This view resonates with me. I see Penrose's "matter decays and is turned to light" as a materialistic view of the baryonic matter of the universe being turned by sentient beings into Spirit (Consciousness) energy . . . a non-baryonic "light" form of energy currently termed dark energy.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Cruithne

This was posted on my facebook page today.
In November, Sam Harris put out an open invitation to animators and filmmakers to add visuals to some of his lectures:

Morality and the Christian God : An Invitation to Animators and Filmmakers : : Sam Harris

This was one persons response.

Sam Harris - Morality and the Christian God - YouTube

One of the common accusations we atheists have directed at us, both on here and in the atheist subforum, is how can we possibly have a moral framework? Frankly I'm really tired of the accusation.
I thought about posting this in the atheism/agnosticism sub forum, however, though some may find this tough to take, it may provide answers to those who wonder how atheists can be moral people and help to understand part of the reason why we reject Christianity (or any other faith for that matter).

Although in general I don't advocate of picking on religion (I'm an atheist for a million other reasons), I find the accusation that atheists are immoral people extremely insulting.
Of course I don't think Christians are immoral people either, I think of 99.9% of the population being exactly like myself, ordinary folk trying to do the right thing, but what this video explains and illustrates well, is that Christianity / religion does not hold the moral high ground.

No one is saying that you are immoral. We just question how itsossible to have a standard of morality without a source.

Originally Posted by Cruithne

Interesting. Because I can only conceptualise the universe having always existed in one form or another. That's why even as a huge science advocate I struggle with the big bang theory. I have always preferred Roger Penroses cyclical model of the universe for no other reason than I find it easier to visualise and accept. Roger Penrose is a physicist who worked with Stephen Hawking on black holes on early universe theories. He has a theory that the universe expands until all the matter decays and is turned to light - so there is nothing in the universe that has any time or distance scale associated with it. This becomes a state identical to the state before the Big Bang, so starting the next cycle.
I have always visualised the universe as eternal and infinite.

I am with you on this point whether or not Penrose is right. I mean if something is eternally existant surely the razor of Ocham would be to bet on the matter/energy that we already know exists rather than some unprovable, unknowable, meta-being called YHWH or any other god/s.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Vizio

No one is saying that you are immoral. We just question how itsossible to have a standard of morality without a source.

This issue always comes aground on the specification of the moral values, Vizio. Using some ancient book written by savage barbarians from the bronze age as the source of moral rules is just not going to fly in this modern world. We know too much to accede to such a simplistic belief. But your philosophical point is still valid. If morality is to have any meaning in the traditional sense . . . it can't emanate from creatures who are cosmic accidents. Accidents have no purpose for existing and therefore nothing they do can be moral or immoral. So for morality to have any legitimacy at all . . . we must have a purpose in existing. That requires that God exist to establish our purpose. We are still left with the task of determining WHAT is moral and what is not . . . based on whether or not it contributes to or detracts from our purpose. An ancient book will not suffice . . . so Sam Harris has a legitimate approach.

Originally Posted by Vizio

No one is saying that you are immoral. We just question how itsossible to have a standard of morality without a source.

And who is saying there is no source for morality? The difference is that you think it is an external metaphysical top-down source while atheists think it is a biological/experiential/social bottom-up source.

Go ahead justify your moral sentiments by demonstrating this external metaphysical source. Good Luck!

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

And who is saying there is no source for morality? The difference is that you think it is an external metaphysical top-down source while atheists think it is a biological/experiential/social bottom-up source.

Go ahead justify your moral sentiments by demonstrating this external metaphysical source. Good Luck!

So your source is simply the result of biology, experience, and society? How can you possibly condemn someone like Adolph Hitler? Or anyone?

Originally Posted by Vizio

So your source is simply the result of biology, experience, and society? How can you possibly condemn someone like Adolph Hitler? Or anyone?

Here we go again - Vizio is asking the questions without answering the ones asked him. Look, for the sake of this thread and my posts and the fact that this has been answered to you many a time elsewhere I will point out that this is beside the point. In other words it is up to you to justify your moral sentiments as being non-subjective by demonstration that your moral values come from some external being called YHWH.

Having some conceptual and linguistic place holders for this objectification does nothing of the sort by the way - that is just a-priori games that you play with terms like God and good.

So once again justify your moral sentiments by demonstrating this external source of yours.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Vizio

So your source is simply the result of biology, experience, and society? How can you possibly condemn someone like Adolph Hitler? Or anyone?

Here we go again with the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy.

For your education.....The Reductio ad Hitlerum is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.