Log in

No account? Create an account
Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

Confused religious ethics

Confused Religious Ethics: Immorality With God, Morality Without, by Vexen Crabtree (1999)

  • 1
Isnt the main essence of Christianity about faith?! Hebrews states that "faith is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see." So yeh you can try and prove or disprove God using science or whatever but i dont think you'll ever fully be able to do either. God loves it so much when people come to know him - believe in him although they don't see him ... that's faith, and on the last day, those who have done this will be having the greatest party of their lives, with the person they love and adore the most, FOREVER!


If there is no God, no accountability, etc., than there is no advantage to morality or such "humanistic values." I'm assuming, because you wrote an essay about how it is wrong and illogical to do so, you would not enjoy any theist telling you what is right or wrong, so how can you, somebody who doesn't believe in any higher authority, take that position yourself by asserting that we should all submit to humanistic values such as love and compassion. What if somebody would much rather be a mass murderer than a loving individual? You cannot say murder is wrong. To say there are no absolute morals is to say there are no morals. Without admitting somebody (i.e. God) established morality, you cannot tell anybody else what is right or wrong without being a hypocrite. BUT, the fact that you KNOW there is right and wrong, and that you already know what's wrong and what's right (along with most of mankind)demonstrates that there is in fact morality. So obviously it had to be established. Think about it.
God Bless.

I believe in deliberating over the differences between good good and doing bad, and I like encouraging others to do the same - in a nondogmatic way.

But morality is not confined within the facade of any one specific religion. Right and wrong is a known and shared feeling. It is not but a part of morality as a whole.Yes, with this view , some could say murder is moral; but that does not make it legal. Just because someone does not conform to your religion's moral values does not make them wrong in accordance to there moral values. In your religion there is more double standard values than there is compliance to their professed moral code. Therefore you have created your own sins, not to be imposed upon those of other faiths. Just because people believe differently than you, does not make them bad or wrong. "there are differences because they were made to be differences" Read your "bible" more before you reply to this. Quoting scripture is easy, but actually remembering it is not. This message is from a member of the alien elite. That "bible" has been around even before the Hebrew faith. It reads like the Caananite bible without the fertility rites incliuded.

God's existence is not necessarily "threatening"

1) Vexen, you make the assumption that a belief in God is equal to a belief in a threat. Please explain why God's existence, in your view, is necessarily threatening. Could God's existence be encouraging? Loving? Could a person be as likely to be comforted by the existence of God as threatened by it? If the existence of God threatens you, does that mean it necessarily threatens others?

2) You make the clear point that there is no such thing as human objectivity. Why, then, have you wasted yours and our time by making arguments? Aren't your equally subjective views as likely to be erroneous as mine? If we are all so totally unable to comprehend objective truth, then perhaps we should stop this inane and worthless dialogue, since we're all potentially right...and potentially wrong.

3) Please don't leave my comment unanswered, or else it will just be another meaningless contribution to an already meaningless debate...at least according to the "subjectivity" rule.

Re: God's existence is not necessarily "threatening"

1) Dude. The issue is the evidence, not whether or not belief in God is threatening or comforting. There are many things that are comforting (the belief that I will win the lottery, for example), but it doesn't make them true. Likewise with threatening things; people may be scared of imaginary monsters or imaginary gods... but the fact that some people are scared of them, doesn't make them real.

2) No, all Human thoughts and beliefs can be subjected to scrutiny and perhaps shown to be false. We all have to look for evidence to back up or discredit our views. We might all be potentially right or potentially wrong, but, individual claims about reality can of course be checked. Then, at least, we'll be right-or-wrong together.

3) ok.

Re: God's existence is not necessarily "threatening"

If I may comment on 2)...

It's very true that "no Human being can think objectively without personal opinion confusing his thinking."

That means that if we are left to ourselves we have only (and at best) interprafacts.

However (and what I am about to say is both true, and hold's up logically), the fact that we are not 100% objective, does not in and of itself dictate that there can be no absolute morals.


On a similar note, you should be careful to not be to loose when you group monotheists together. There are large amounts of similar area, but your treatment is oversimplified. The fact is there are valid, dichotomous differences that leave each of them very separate.

I will not claim to be an expert on Islam or Judaism or even Christianity, but I've done some extensive study on each. It's not an aprropriate argument to say:

"it is apparent that deities too realize that Human Beings can only interpret life subjectively, and that no text will mean the same thing for any two people. Therefore any sacred text can only contain "guidelines" or pointers to moral codes of behaviour, and no actual absolutes."

It's simply not true, especially of the Jewish and Christian texts. Both internal and external evidences would say just the opposite... That they DO contain absolutes.

Certainly we can still argue the validity of the biblical texts, and we can certainly still argue the validity of any absolute morals.

We simply can not (if we are to be intellectually honest) use sacred scripts as a proof, when the evidence overwhelmingly goes the other way.


By the by, you most certainly don't have to post a reply... You won't hurt my feelings either way.

Re: God's existence is not necessarily "threatening"

Because texts *say* they are absolute doesn't mean that we can ever know if there are. Even if there was a human consensus, the actual absoluteness of the statement would not ascertainable.

If there are absolutes, then, human understanding couldn't realize them. Even the laws of physics only apply under known circumstances, and they are more certain than complex moral laws. Morals depend on language, species-wide ways of thinking, and other such things that just don't endear them towards being possibly "absolute".

It might help such an abstract conversation if you were to state an example of an absolute moral.

Spread of atheism

Hi, this is Modesty Press/Random Name (forget which screen name I used last time) and I have not been by for a while. I live on an island off the West Coast of Washington state in USA. I have noticed quite a growth in secular activity lately. In fact, I started a secular organization on our island and membership is slowly is slowly growing. We have had three meetings so far. http://www.meetup.com/Whidbey-Island-Secularists/. My title is "Dictator Until Overthrown or Demented."

You are a long way away, but if you are ever in our area, I would be glad to make you a featured presenter.

Re: Spread of atheism

OK - thanks!

  • 1