fayfreethinkers.com

DAR
Just because I couldn't resist:

Dar giving LaTour a couple of kicks on NWA

But we've handed out so many ass-kickings on NWAP... I saved 18 links, but only because I was highly selective: Either IR played a critical part (gee, I wonder why IR's material got preferential treatment) or I thoroughly enjoyed seeing Doug or Darrel roast someone beyond recognition moreso than normal. I might go through them and pick a small handful of my favorites to link here...

Did you see the latest post "Son of Ash -- Take note" where Ash is threatening to without hold college money unless his son (Zack, son of Ash) gives up any leaning to the left and joins the goose-stepping right wing? What a Nazi! Amazing.

D.

Darrel wrote:Did you see the latest post "Son of Ash -- Take note" where Ash is threatening to without hold college money unless his son (Zack, son of Ash) gives up any leaning to the left and joins the goose-stepping right wing?

That's not quite how I'm interpreting it. I'm not sure it's an actual threat, maybe just a scare tactic... as if that makes it more acceptable.
I like how Ash thinks that someone can arbitrarily switch their position. Yet somehow I can't imagine that he's afraid of waking up one morning and thinking, "Gee, I think I'll believe in Islam today..."

Until today, I haven't read NWAP in perhaps a couple weeks. Should I be peeking in now and again?

Until today, I haven't read NWAP in perhaps a couple weeks. Should I be peeking in now and again?

DAR
I hadn't either. Seems to be just a couple of people. So same as before with less than half the traffic. And no pics. Poor souls.

I think I will invite Son of Ash to visit us.

NWApolitics is in danger of becoming the Ash Vent Blog - I was out of town for several days and when I got back all but 2 threads were Ash vents (after having an entire thread deleted by him, I've been disinclined to comment on his posts). I keep trying with McClave and others because I've actually managed to find some things we can agree on, but Ash is a lost cause. Son of Lash seems to be a bit idealistic (or maybe I'm just cynical in my old age), but comes out with enough good stuff to validate any hope in the future of the human race.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Son of Lash seems to be a bit idealistic (or maybe I'm just cynical in my old age), but comes out with enough good stuff to validate any hope in the future of the human race.

DAR
Went to dinner a couple of weeks ago and this came up. Turns out my son knows Ash's son (Zack). My son said, Zach said: "did you know our dad's argue all the time on the internet?" Zack is pretty cool as far as I know. He has been to our booth and gotten many of our tracts but I think he had to keep it a secret from his dad. Poor kid. Tries to walk the line and give his dad a fair consideration but papa Ash is basically broken when it comes to speaking rationally about political issues. Truly hopeless as you say. I gave a little plug for our site in a post this morning. We'll see if any wander over here. It would be nice to have a fundie or two.

NWApolitics is in danger of becoming the Ash Vent Blog

DAR
In danger? That horse has left the barn some time ago!

D.
------------------------
Here, fundy, fundy, fundy. Nice fundy... ***<<<WHOMP!>>>***

Darrel wrote:...papa Ash is basically broken when it comes to speaking rationally about political issues. Truly hopeless as you say.

DOUG
Invite him to speak on a topic at a freethinker meeting and we can roast him LIVE!

No thanks - I'm not into blood sports. Blogs are nice because you can go do something else until you calm down and then come back and respond - also you are physically removed from each other, so all blows will be verbal (even if some of them are dirty & "below the belt").

DOUG
Invite him to speak on a topic at a freethinker meeting and we can roast him LIVE!

DAR
I really think Ash is to dogmatic for that. He may be ill. Somethings busted upstairs. I did invite him to a meeting once and gave him date and directions. Cowards the lot of them.

D.

Darrel wrote:DAR
Just because I couldn't resist:

Dar giving LaTour a couple of kicks on NWA

DOUG
Grrr. Now you have me on that (^()*% thing again. I read a little and couldn't resist giving him a little brazing.

IMO the whole "conservative" theocratic claim that "liberals" are more morally relativist than other people is a strawman. One can't get more relativist than e.g. supporting mass murder by State and claiming to believe "thou shalt not murder."

I would call myself neither a moral absolutist nor a moral relativist - but a moral modalist. I believe there are a finite number of moral environments (modes, if you will), each with an associated particular set of "absolute" moral side-contraints. For example, there is a survival mode (man qua animal), a civilized mode (man qua social man), and an actualization mode (man in pursuit of virtue/"the good life").

In the civilized mode, where physical survival is not at issue, I offer the following "absolute":

The Non-Aggression Principle - One should not initiate (interpersonal) force against another person.




PS: The essay What objective moral values? is a wonderful bashing of biblical "morality," but I don't like the first paragraph. It seems to pull a bait and switch.

If there are objective (absolute) moral values given to us in the Bible then why is there no single important social/moral issue on which sincere Bible believers agree? People who find "moral absolutes" in the revelation of a deity have never agreed on what those absolutes are.

This draws an erroneous implication that absolute moral values necessarily have the property that "everyone" recognizes the content of these values. The article shows that not everyone (not even every Xtian) agrees on a particular set of values, and that the bible condones some morally despicable actions. But it really doesn't address the philosophical question of moral monism (absolutism) vs. relativism at all. The intro paragraph and title need to be rewritten.

MORAL TRACT
If there are objective (absolute) moral values given to us in the Bible then why is there no single important social/moral issue on which sincere Bible believers agree? People who find "moral absolutes" in the revelation of a deity have never agreed on what those absolutes are.

Hogeye wrote: This draws an erroneous implication that absolute moral values necessarily have the property that "everyone" recognizes the content of these values.

DAR
Interesting observation. We so rarely get any constructive criticism or rebuttal of our tracts I want to give good consideration to every critique provided.

Realize that this tract is directed at a group that believes:

a) in the existence of absolute moral values

b) these absolute moral values are readily available for anyone to discern (in their holy Bible)

The fact that these same Christians who strongly believe "a" and "b" can not come to universal agreement, or even close to agreement, on any single moral issue of the day presents a profound problem for their position. That's the point trying to be made.

Our friend and ex-minister once put it this way:

“…even if [you are] right and this thing [you] call objective morality really does exist, you are no better off than a subjective moralist. The subjective moralist uses his subjective processes to formulate moral principles, which he then applies subjectively, and the objective moralist uses subjective processes to decide what objective morality is, which he then applies by using subjective processes.
Can anyone see any substantial difference? They are both moral systems that are subject to human mistakes." –Till ‘01

Another friend put it this way:

"The ability or inability of humans to satisfactorily deal with the
question of objective moral values does not in any way bear upon the question of whether a supernatural being governs the universe.
The fact that some people, trying to investigate this question, throw up
their hands in despair and invent a god in whom to vest the foundation for all morality and then invent a crazy book of ancient fairy tales and then call that book the ultimate repository of all morality, does not mean that the god so invented and the book so fabricated are now objectively infallible arbiters of morality.
All that has happened is that someone has lacked the confidence to
assert a moral claim, so they invented an imaginary being, attributed their moral sentiments to that imaginary being, and then told the rest of humanity that these moral sentiments must be inviolable because they derive from the edicts of such a being, even though the being, and the book supposedly representing the being's message to humanity, are all fabrications of the human imagination." –Ed Tabash 5/16/01

So Eddy cuts them off even before the fact that they can't agree on the morals in The Book. In this tract we at least seem to grant them, "okay, you have a book filled with absolute morals, what does that get you?"

And the point is, it gets them nothing. Because people read The Book and pick from it cafeteria style, choosing what they are comfortable with and tossing the rest. The result? No one can even remotely agree on what these absolute morals are or when they should or should not apply. I think that is a point worthy of making.

So it's not the case that everyone must agree on what these absolute morals, but the fact that they do not, cannot, reveals the complete and utter uselessness of pretending that they are even there in the first place.

In other words, what is the use of a supposed moral system if sincere honest people can't even figure out what the hell is or is not moral?

D.
--------------------------
"They amuse themselves by playing an irrelevant ecclesiastical game called "Let's Pretend." Let's pretend that we possess the objective truth of God in our inerrant Scriptures or in our infallible pronouncements or in our unbroken apostolic traditions."
—From the Episcopal (Anglican) Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, John Shelby Spong. Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, HarperSanFrancisco, (1994), (pg. 100)


.
.

.
.

I go to NWAP once in a great while and click on Baber's name at the top so I only have to read his posts. The rest are such nonsense I can't stand it any more.

Although I did get some satisfaction out of scrolling down and noticing most of the posts only get three or four comments, when they used to get 30 to 100 when were all making it interesting over there.

And you're right, LV Ash is insane. I didn't know SON OF ASH was REALLY his son, though, I thought some smarty-pants was just being cute. That's very interesting.

P.S. If LaTour were any gayer, he'd show up at a freethinker meeting wearing pigtails and licking a giant lollipop. LaTour, if you're reading this, just be your real gay self, honey. And for god's sake, stop procreating.

Darrel> Realize that this tract is directed at a group that believes:

a) in the existence of absolute moral values

b) these absolute moral values are readily available for anyone to discern (in their holy Bible)

Okay, that helps a lot. I was looking at it from an atheist freethinking philosopher point of view, expecting an analysis of intrinsic vs objective vs subjective values. Something along these lines. The title led me to expect this. Perhaps simply a retitling would make it clearer, e.g. Does the Bible Provide Absolute Well-Defined Moral Values?

Darrel wrote:In this tract we at least seem to grant them, "okay, you have a book filled with absolute morals, what does that get you?" And the point is, it gets them nothing. Because people read The Book and pick from it cafeteria style, choosing what they are comfortable with and tossing the rest. The result? No one can even remotely agree on what these absolute morals are or when they should or should not apply. I think that is a point worthy of making.

Yes, that's a very good point.

Darrel wrote:In other words, what is the use of a supposed moral system if sincere honest people can't even figure out what the hell is or is not moral?

But this overstates; expanding your claim to moral systems in general, rather than Xtians who believe (a) and (b), doesn't work. E.g. One might answer that a moral system may provide a general basis for determining right and wrong, one that sometimes or often people may agree on, yet is still open to dispute in some areas. There may be ethical principles which are useful guides, that different people may interpret differently. Utilitarians would argue that the greatest good for the greatest number is subject to disagreement, yet still a useful moral principle. I would argue that the NAP is a useful moral principle, even though what constitutes aggression depends on your system of property rights (which people disagree about.)

But your essay is not intended to address that stuff. It ably addresses a specific Xtian biblethumper belief. Other than a slightly overbroad title (a rather nit-picky criticism), I think your essay is great.

HOGEYE
There may be ethical principles which are useful guides, that different people may interpret differently.

DAR
Right, but as I think you realized later in your post, the tract is not at all addressed to people who believe the Bible has "ethical principles which are useful guides." I have no argument with such people. I would say the Bible even has very good "ethical principles which are useful guides" at times (such as the golden rule which was invented about ten times before Jesus came on the scene). And unlike a Christian who appeals to Divine Command, I recognize the value of some of these teachings not because they are written in a supposedly Holy Book, but because they actually have good consequences.
Obviously the Bible has some really REALLY atrocious moral guidlines (see the back of the tract) as well. What this tract specifically and only responds to are those who claim the Bible has obsolute, objective, moral values. Hence the title. A very large chunk of Christianity in this country make this claim but they can't back it up, because it is utter rubbish.

Other than a slightly overbroad title (a rather nit-picky criticism), I think your essay is great.

DAR
Thanks. It is almost entirely borrowed from Dan Barker in an essay from his excellent book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. That's why I include a quote from him, making the central point, on the front page. I finally had the opportunity to meet him last month and made sure to give him a copy and let him read it. He said he liked it.

D.
-------------------------
“Regardless, I think it is pretty easy to justify a moral/ethical principle. If
morality is the minimizing of harm, then an action (or intent) or principle can be justified by showing how it in fact lessens harm. Given a choice, then on balance, less harm = justified; more harm = not justified.”
–Dan Barker


.
.

Very few christians realize that most of what the Man from Galilee said (at least what wasn't added/attributed to him a couple of hundred years later) was pretty much quotes from the saner parts of the OT/Torah - his understanding of the "scriptures" of his time was supposed to be phenomenal. His listeners knew, of course, but then, they were Jews.