If that's a reference to Ockham's Razor you are confusing a metholodical suggestion with a metaphysical one. Further you are making claims about as many people as I am. And beyond that you made generalizations about theists yourself earlier in another context, which would also constitute as broad claims.
I simply asked how you knew everyone got conflicting moral signals from their parents. Also, it was clear that you were projecting your obviously special circumstance onto the population at large, which is a no-no. And whatever generalizations about theists I've made are largely true, having been demonstrated plenty of times. You, on the other hand, are working on the assumption that most kids get different moral input from mother to father.
Sounds like you see us as all passive. Which is strange. Where is change coming from? You also seemed to have missed the whole point I was making about the claims to knowledge the theists have. They can explain their morals - iow: why God's rules are good ones - with as much certainty as atheists. They think they understand why the rules are good. This is a claim to high skill levels. There are a few theists who will say 'because God said so' and nothing more, just as a few atheists will say they believe something is good because of tradition or society wouldn't have that rule if it wasn't a good one, but the vast majority of both groups claim to understand the reasons for their moral choices. This is a huge subjective enterprise for both. Thus the theists cannot simply take a humble position and point at atheists and say they are exhibiting hubris when they come up with ethical rules.
Have you ever been to church? These people are simply regurgitating their pastor's sermon as their reasoning. And those are the more intelligent ones. You're more likely to find--at least in the ardent circles--people who give you "because it's a sin" or "because God said so" as their reasoning. I mean, do you go outside? Do you interact with people? Do you
know a theist? I'm asking because either you haven't, or you have only met the most hyper-intelligent theists in the world.
I cannot see the relevence of this. I think racism is based on trained to hate and fear.
The same is true of religion. Largely, anyway. But training nonetheless. Like racism, faith is learned, and by nature feeds on your weaknesses in order to convert you.
Thus the theists cannot simply take a humble position and point at atheists and say they are exhibiting hubris when they come up with ethical rules.
Actually, no. If you read the Bible (or whatever your holy book may be), you aren't given a choice. It's not like an experiment where they give you two different examples and let you decide which one you believe is correct--you are told in no uncertain terms that
this is the way, and
this is why. That is why theists speak with such authority while still claiming to be humble servants. They have made no choices, they have simply accepted the religion as truth, and probably because they were swayed by the promise of eternal salvation, or frightened by the specter of eternal hellfire.
Your example of racism is good in that it points out some of the weakness of rational argumentation interpersonally. But it is irrelevent to my point which is that racists, non-racists, anti-racists, and theists and atheists in developing their morals engage in a large body of 'rational' activity. They are all working hard in precisely the ways theists point at atheists and claim they are pompuous or think they are god.
Well, I think you for that. It means a lot, seriously. You're a wicked smart guy, and I enjoy the discourse.
But, like I've said before, I don't believe that there is any decision-making going on. It actually goes against the system to make that moral judgment for yourself. In order to have faith, you have to submit to the words. And that leap is made because the promises are so great, and those promises (of either heaven or hell) are so provocative, that they naturally work on a level that is quite independent of choice--it's fear or hope, actually.
You know. We disagreed, but I thought it was interesting.
I guess you find this kind of shot useful somehow. I don't get it, but we can forget this discussion.
I should have added the smiley afterward, because it really was meant as a good-natured joke. Sorry if I offended you.
What you write below shows that you do not understand my argument. I never said they did not believe their theist beliefs.
No, I understand it well, I just sometimes post very late (or very early, which is very late for me) and don't word things properly. Like now, for example, I have been awake for...26 hours? Yes, right around there. I'm certain not all of this post makes a whole lot of sense...anyway, your argument is that you don't like that theists claim to be humble servants with no say in the matter when in reality you believe that they fully do make the choices for themselves...right?
