goofairy Oh dear, here we go again…
Have a good look at the above comic. It’s being bandied around atheist channels as another proof that people with religious views are “brainwashing their children” in *shock horror* their world view.
Being the goo that I am, and having “evolved” the abilities to work in a career that people pay me to use my creative skills I added my own panel to the above cartoon (see below). I strongly believe that the addition of that one panel allowed future viewers to look at the argument from a much wider perspective than initially imposed.
Being gooishly delighted I posted my alterations to the discussion, without needing to explain with words. As a result of my astute observations I was banned from following this particular free thinking atheist.
If you haven’t had the displeasure of encountering the new (growing) religion called the “new atheists”, brace yourself. The amount of nonsense propaganda (see above) they are spreading in the name of free thinking is breathtaking.
Until next week…
Your friend, Goo.
goofairy 
In yours they’re brainwashing them with…scientific evidence?
Very clever.
LikeLike
Survival of the fittest materialism.
It’s a well-known fact that atheist parents raise atheist children.
LikeLike
Raise atheist children by exposing them to scientific evidence?
If its such a well known fact, please provide your evidence.
LikeLike
Raise atheist children by only letting them reason within the confines of survival of the fittest.
Sit in judgement of religion without any moral basis, other than their personal opinion. Not thinking through what morality means in a universe without a god.
LikeLike
Actually, there’s much interesting stuff about morality. Unfortunately, claims to some absolute morality are among the more boring ones (not to mention nonsense), especially as they all are as subjective as any other claim – and not even, for example, Christians among themselves can agree on what this absolute morality does actually entail. One could choose to become a blasphemer (by claiming to be as wise as one’s god and thus knowing exactly what his absolute morality is) or accept the simple fact that ons’s morality is as subjective as everyone else’s, simply because we are all just humans.
LikeLike
From a materialist point of view there is no absolute morality and therefore no good and evil as these terms are completely arbitrary depending on your personal point of view. Yet materialists want to set up a framework of “moral behaviour” by which they can judge others, yet can’t see the hypocrisy in doing so.
For millennia our ancestors have battled for survival. If weaker organisms don’t have the strength to survive in this very violent world, then they have no right to argue for a place. This is life. This is survival.
So you’re interesting stuff about morality, whatever that is, is really just the meaningless meanderings of others who wish to push their own views on others.
All that matters is strength and existence — everything else is meaningless.
LikeLike
Your logic is flawed, sorry, because you are mixing “absolute good” with “good” randomly, which is an easy mistake to make (happens all the time):
Yes, without any absolute authority, there is no absolute good, true. But “good” is a human concept and as such it exists and as such it can be justified. Not absolutely, but among humans. And that is the important thing, “morality” is a human concept – for humans. Thus it is enough if it is possible for humans to agree on it (with arguments, etc.) – and it does not matter what the universe itself might think of it.
There is no hypocrisy involved here, as, when we say something to be “good”, we always (and EVERYONE, yes, that includes YOU) mean “according to my moral standard”. In your case, you believe your personal moral standard to somehow be absolute (or whatever) and I do not. The only difference is that belief:
So, because stuff drops down to the earth, we should all jump out of the window, because that’s gravity? Why should a physical law, process, etc. determine our morality? Yes, in nature it’s survival of the fittest, kind of, but that doesn’t mean that we have to use that as a basis for morality – for the same reason we don’t have to adopt gravity as a basis for morality.
So, in the end, I have shown that I want to established a mutual agreement of morality (because that’s all we CAN have) while you have shown that you somehow belief if people don’t share your personal morality (which is, except you consider yourself god, subjective) they somehow have to accept one random biological process as morality, because… Well… Because?
LikeLike
We agree on one thing — good and whatever it means is completely arbitrary, from a materialist point of view.
You need to preface your moral reasoning with “in my opinion”. Your reason for rejecting survival of the fittest is to go against the completely natural way of living. After all it’s what got us to where we are today.
You wanting to establish a mutual agreement of morality goes against the very natural survival instincts that have proven themselves over millennia. There’s no improving on a system that, by nature, keeps refining things by getting rid of weak lifeforms. Life is a battle for resources, no room for the weak to consume what is for the strong only.
In my gooey opinion you looking for any personal moral consensus is a complete waste of time. Why should any people group enforce their belief system on another people group who are, after all, doing what comes completely naturally.
I could argue that your argument for establishing “morals” is unnatural and evidence of weakness.
Gravity is a good judge to those who want to believe they can fly, it’s a natural consequence. That’s my point. Let reality — survival of the fittest decide — the way it’s been done since the dawn of time.
Any moral postulating is meaningless in a godless universe.
LikeLike
No, I don’t, because that’s true for everyone. If you say, something is good, then you also would have to preface it with “In my opinion”, because your claim of absolute morality is just your opinion. Unless you can somehow prove that is a) exists and b) your opinion is actually it, everything we say about morality will by “in my opinion”, so we can simply leave it, because it’s obvious.
The completely natural way of living also includes eating berries, being nude, etc. Somewhere along the road someone has decided that we don’t need to live completely natural – and surprise, it seems to work reasonably well.
You are also wrong, the establishing of mutual agreements on rules is BASED on our survival instincts: A stable society is good for our survival – and the survival of our offspring. So, evolution made us intelligent and intelligence showed us an ever better way than blindly following evolution, which is, ironically, evolution in action. Evolution is a biological process, nothing more. We could use it as a basis, but we don’t have to.
This is, why we want a consensus: A stable society, that allows us to thrive. Without a stable society, that would be much harder. Thus, a stable society is an big advantage for the individual.
And of course you can argue that something is “unnatural”, but as you are typing on a plastic keyboard, this argument would sound a little bit strange. And for the weakness part, you would first have to show us a reason why weakness is actually bad, which you cannot. Evolution sorts out “weakness” (or, to be more precise, “insufficiently adapted”), but no one made any claim that this means it’s somehow “good” or “bad” to do so. Evolution is just a biological process. It is as good as a basis for a moral law as farting.
Personally, I think your idea that somehow morality has to be based on one randomly chosen biological process, is quite strange and shows a distinct lack of knowledge about ethical and moral theories, but if that’s what keeps your boat floating, have fun with it.
LikeLike
Again, everything you’ve spoken about is meaningful to you and those who want to follow your philosophical teachings. My evolved group has come to value living from nature and killing anything that can’t support itself. You’ve applied your intelligence to one very narrow way of thinking, there are many ways to reason and postulate on survival of the fittest. You’ve gone down one path of reason and I another.
We look at your culture and your plastic keyboards and judge that your unnatural way of living is ruining the planet and destroying all that is “good”. Therefore your way of life is “bad”.
My society breeds and maintains the strong — we believe strength rules supreme.
Weakness is “bad” because, in our worldview, the weak use up resources that are only for the strong.
So we agree, in a godless universe, there is plenty of room for societies to argue and come to their own consensus on how to live, without judgement.
But I’m willing to bet that when our cultures clash you’ll do your best to argue why you’re right and we’re wrong…and in the end kill over it.
LikeLike
I am still waiting for the penny to drop…
Didn’t you notice something? The same is true for this universe if it isn’t godless. There is plenty of room for societies to argue and come to their own consensus on how to live – because god doesn’t seem to intend making stuff absolutely clear. Perhaps the Hindus are right, who knows? Perhaps there’s something to this whole Karma-thing? etc.
In other words: If this universe isn’t godless, that doesn’t mean that your person idea of god suddenly becomes truth. Your personal morality is still subjective, you only hope that it is, what the true god wants. But, in the end, you don’t know and so your morality is not only subjective, but also hypocritical.
LikeLike
Hi there,
sorry for the delayed reply, I occasionally need to sleep and put all my amoebas to bed.
With regards to the penny dropping, I caught it before you let go.
I understand what you are saying. In a nutshell you’re arguing that, whether theist or atheist, everybody still has to come to a consensus on morality.
The MAJOR difference is that, one line of coming to a consensus is based on an actual universal standard e.g. morality is based on who God is. So it doesn’t matter where you murder somebody — whether the other side of the universe where nobody sees or in the womb — murder is murder.
YES there are grey areas in life, but this does not negate an absolute moral good. It means we have a defined moral good to base our reasoning on — and one that doesn’t change based on convenience.
From your viewpoint murdering somebody on the other side of the galaxy, or in a womb is neither good nor evil. It just is, and you have absolutely no right to “morally” object to somebody else’s view of right and wrong because you and your indoctrinated community believe differently.
BACK to the cartoon panel I added. Your comments have proved my point. You, as an atheist parent and a materialist, have a lot to say to children with regards to “morality” and how to live. Your arguments prove that you too “brainwash” your children based on your worldview of ‘anything goes’.
Everybody starts from unprovable philosophical assumptions that colour the way they view everything else! Including materialist darwinists.
LikeLike
No, sorry, that major difference exists only inside your head: You cannot prove that your personal, subjective morality is even connected to some form of absolute morality, you cannot even agree with all your fellow Christians, Muslims, Hindu, whatever, what this absolute morality exactly says.
Let us assume for a moment that god exists and that he somehow has an absolute morality that is really the perfect morality. Then we still have some problems:
a) You are not him. He has. You haven’t.
b) Look around. Obviously being crystal-clear wasn’t his goal. Otherwise everyone (or at least, all Christians, all Hindu, all Muslims) would agree on the exact details of that absolute morality.
c) Either god likes to tell people different things or some people just imagine god talking to them while listening to their own voice (or even worse, Satans, for example). So we have no possibility to discern who really hears god’s voice.
You could argue now, that god’s voice is in all of us and all that – but reality shows that this doesn’t seem to bee the case (or simply not enough). Reality shows that humans cannot agree on the specifics of god’s rules and that many people claim to hear god’s voice – which tells them wildly different things.
So, you will probably understand that if you now tell me, that of course YOUR understanding of god’s rules is perfect, I will not take you seriously.
So, even with an absolute morality existing, you wouldn’t be able to know for sure what is says. And no imagine one thing: I don’t even belief it exists.
So, your morality is, too me, completely subjective and only works because a big group of people more or less agreed to follow some rules, while claiming that these rules were from god. Whatever drives your boat, I guess…
So, in reality, every morality needs a basis. The basis of believers is, that their specific interpretation of one specific translation of one specific holy book is actually true. Another basis would be to believe that morality needs to make sure that everyone is as happy and free as possible.
As you notice, yes, this basis is not absolute. You could call it random. But that is true for any basis as long as no one presents proof for his basis to be actually more than that (and believe me, Christians tried for 2.000 years now and didn’t succeed).
But at least, all people could agree on my basis for completely selfish reasons (and the result would be, in theory, a great place), while many people have good reasons to reject your personal basis (and the result we have seen – it was called “the dark ages”).
So, while I accept this fact and simple search for the best morality, which makes people happy and free, you can of course claim that this isn’t absolute – which is true – but as you lack any proof that your morality is any different, I will simply have a look at it, and laugh, because, let’s be honest: “God wants it” is a laughable reason for discrimination gay people – and, if you ask me, just an excuse for “I think gay men are icky.”.
LikeLike
So is this you admitting that you ‘brainwash’ your children in your materialist worldview? I think that’s a ‘yes’!
Yes morality needs a basis, but as I’ve pointed out. You have no ultimate moral basis, other than a personal belief, for judging anything good or bad.
Be consistent. In a world without moral absolutes you can’t expect anybody (any culture) to do what you personally believe is good or bad.
Therefore a culture that decides the gay lifestyle is “wrong” has the complete right to do that. A culture that believes child sacrifice is “good” has the complete freedom to live out those beliefs.
I find it quite laughable that here you are preaching about the discrimination of gay people! Yet there’s nothing wrong with discrimination in a universe without absolute morality. Who are you to judge anybody for anything!
This is purely your very subjective, narrow-minded attempt at trying to bully cultures that don’t share your personal interpretation. You have a lot in common with religion.
In a world without absolute morality, the only valid response from you is pure silence.
LikeLike
Well, I think that you have proven enough that what you think has no connection to reality, you don’t need to prove it anymore. But, for the record: I have no children, so no. And even if I had them, I would teach them critical thinking skills and love them no less if they became Christians, Muslims, Hindus or whatever – their choice, not mine. All I can do them is to show them how to think for themselves – but not, what.
So what? You also don’t have one. You just claim you do. I don’t. So what?
And yes, I cannot expect anybody. But I can expect, as it happens all the time, that any culture will come to a consensus. And I can be part of making that consensus by providing logical arguments.
And no, no culture has this right, because this right would entail that other cultures have the duty to accept that. But where should this duty come from?
I know that you think of discrimination as ok, which makes your claim to absolute morality so funny. And of course there is, as there a arguments against it. That there isn’t an absolute rule against it doesn’t remove those arguments – and much less the fact that there are no arguments in favor of such discrimination.
In this world, a world without absolute morality, I would never be silent when religious bullies try to force their lies down other people’s throat. And as I am not the one who tries to stop people from doing stuff that doesn’t affect me at all (just from doing stuff that actually affects me)…
Honestly, if I were you, I would be very afraid. Because whatever you want to believe, there is only one word for your view: Blasphemy. So, if there is a god and there is absolute morality, chances are good that we can continue this discussion together in hell later. See you there (ok, probably not, because chances for the existence of god seem quite small).
LikeLike
*yawn*
You, who have no basis for any moral postulating, and without the ability to discern between right and wrong, sit in judgement of me?
It is quite clear that you do have a worldview you want to push on others. Clearly, you do. My comic panel was right!
Your children would have a very good chance of coming out with the same worldview as you. I’m sure you’ll ensure that they are well-versed in the materialist point of view and doubt very much whether you’ll encourage them to think outside your box.
Your “arguments” for or against any right or wrong view have absolutely no meaning. Another meaningless opinion in a meaningless, godless universe.
The actual funny thing is, you DO try to stop people doing “stuff”. Read your sentence again…”[you] would NEVER sit in silence while a [group with a different worldview does what they believe is right]”. Please stop making moral judgements on people groups that think and behave differently to you. It is so hypocritical.
No doubt you’d be right in there forcing your baseless moral judgements down their throats. Practice what you preach is the best advice I can give to you. Seriously.
LikeLike
Please, do continue ignoring what I say and attack that straw man vigorously. I enjoy watching you doing so, even if it somehow seems that the straw man is winning. Strange, I’m quite sure not many people were able to do that.
And sorry, I must admit that your personal doubt is not something that I take seriously, sorry. But perhaps there’s someone out there who cares, I don’t know. Anyway, the best advice I can give you, is to become a decent human being instead of sitting there arrogantly and believing yourself to be god. You are not. Sorry.
LikeLike
In a godless universe what is wrong with believing I’m god?
In a godless universe what is a “decent” human being?
In a godless universe “decency” is just a subjective point of view, nothing more.
What is arrogance in a universe where everybody’s point of view is just as valid as everybody else’s?
Maybe I am arrogant? What’s wrong with that?
LikeLike
You are a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, whatever. Why is that? Well, the main reason for the overwhelming majority of believers is, that they were born to Christian, Muslin, Hindu parents – most often in a region where Christianity, Islam or Hinduism is dominant. And yes, the same thing is true about atheism. But while it is not a problem for atheists, it is a major one for believers, because if they really face it, they must admit that in many cases, their own religious beliefs are completely random, only based on their parents’ beliefs. Some believers have actively decided upon their religion, true, but most only justify their random non-choice afterwards.
And of course, your comic is quite right: Children learn critical thinking skills with science and the powerful way of thinking “Question everything”. I know it’s a famous myth around believers that evolution is some kind of dogma, but in reality, science is about questioning knowledge all the time. What science does all the time is trying to prove theories wrong. Evolution is no exception, it just happens to be an actually quite good theory that seems to describe reality pretty well. Children are taught that evolution is the current level of our understanding, but if you have a good science teacher, they will also learn that it is far from perfect and will probably be modified and improved over time. It’s even possible (albeit unlikely, considering the staggering amount of evidence) that evolution might be completely disproven and replaces by something completely different. That’s not likely, honestly, the same reason it was unlikely for Newton’s theory of gravity to be completely(!) wrong: it worked and was supported by evidence. We learned that it was not 100%correct, but still correct enough for most everyday purposes.
So, yes, children are indoctrinated with horrible stuff like critical thinking skills. You should probably call a lawyer, that cannot be right and must absolutely be forbidden.
LikeLike
Hello and thank you for taking the time to pop in and comment.
Being the finite being that I am I’m assuming that you’re an atheist.
Having read your post I believe that you are using terms like materialism and science synonymously — when they aren’t synonymous — especially when discussing origins, morality, historical science etc. There have been (and still exist) many scientists that were/are theists. Not one of them felt that science was incompatible with their belief in God. So to try and link science only with your materialist worldview is misleading.
There are many examples of scientists who, having spent their careers as atheists, ended up becoming theists due to the scientific observations they made. So being a theist does not equate to committing intellectual suicide as many atheists try to argue. Atheists, using science, have been convinced that there is a god.
Theism isn’t arguing that observable, testable, repeatable science (real science) is untrustworthy. They are, rightly, looking at the philosophical foundation on which materialists postulate and extrapolate observable, repeatable reality. I can’t help but notice that you encourage people to question everything, but then feel angry when they start to question your materialist foundation. Critical thinking is not the sole property of atheists.
Take for instance your (i’m assuming) materialist assumptions and what they mean for emotions, intelligence, information etc. I can’t think of one real life experience in which something that did not have these properties was suddenly imbued with them.
As a materialist you have to believe that it is possible for something without emotions or intelligence to suddenly possess these attributes — despite the observations we can make here and now using the scientific method e.g. parent passing on what it has to its children.
Materialism and its belief system also speak on a broad range of topics like morality, ethics etc. So to argue that it doesn’t touch on the belief system of those that use it as a philosophical foundation is a little naive. These beliefs are passed on to their children. Materialism makes assumptions on a lot of what is and isn’t moral, but its believers are very inconsistent with their own belief system and try to impose their personal moral codes on people groups who have come to their own beliefs. In a world without a god, everybody is entitled to form their own version of “morality” without judgement.
LikeLike