Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)
Options
Comments
-
Unicorns are describe as horse-like creatures with a spiral horn growing from the centre of their foreheads. Given the descriptions and drawings that exist it is reasonable to assume that the relationship between horses and unicorns is of the order of the relationship between horses and zebras so we can consider the unicorn to be a member of the horse family.
We know a lot about horses and what we know about unicorns suggests that they are unlikely to be an evolutionary ancestor to the horse - the only significant change being the horn - in much the same was as we cannot describe the narwhal as being an evolutionary step on the way to the beluga whale. It stands to reason therefore that the unicorn is in evolutionary terms the same age as the horse and therefore would inhabit the much the same terrains as the horse.
Would you agree with me so far?
No, but carry on with your thesis.0 -
-
Nonsense. I asked you to prove something, you haven't proved it yet. Is it so difficult to prove that unicorns don't exist that you have to do it in stages?
No, on second thoughts I have got bored with going round in circles, life is too short - and I don't have an afterlife to look forward to.0 -
Defender OF Faith wrote: »If inside your heart you personally don't want to believe in a God as it would lead you to many other assertions,questions and acceptance of certain facts, such as judgement,resurrection and accountability for this life if a God exist, which you would rather avoid and live your life indulging in what you want, without feeling any prick in your heart with finger-crossed that your consciousness will simply fade away after you die; you will never believe in him, no matter how strong and deductive the argument presented is.
Now this I do understand. It is the condescending attitude of the believer who thinks that there is no moral compass without god. I do my best to live an honest life that hurts no-one and helps where it is possible. I do this not because of a fear of god but because it is the way i was raised - in a not very religious household, certainly the notion of divine justice or threats of the afterlife never came up.
My experience of religion in Ireland is what has done most to convince me that it is all a social invention. All the years of the Troubles, while not specifically Catholic/Protestant, certainly were fuelled by inter-religious hatred. Now we have Islam trying to inflict itself on us - why? Then the attitude of the Catholic church and its most enthusiastic adherents made living in Ireland a personal challenge. So much nonsense, so much bigotry.I was a victim of what I will describe as a scam (nothing to do with religion), by, in part, people who made a production of being of various religious persuasions. I do of course know many people who are decent and honest and have religious convictions, but it seems to me that there is very limited connection between 'being religious' and having a moral compass. Each religion has its set of rules and the adherents spend a lot of energy finding ways of bending those rules, or nit-picking about them, rather than by living the spirit of them.
Once you strip away all the superficial nonsense of what other people think you should believe then you are left with the realisation that there is no need for there to be a god. God is just there as a starting point (or finishing point) for all the manipulation that different societies use to create coherence in a population that cannot be bothered to think, or do of their own volition what is best for society rather than themselves.0 -
Well that was a long worded piece of <snip>. I'll not explain it again as I assume you know what I mean but just enjoy posting verbal diarrhoeaAre you saying that atheists admit to the existence of pink unicorns?
I only say this because any time a theist mentions God in the context of Him existing the atheists are straight in with "what about the pink unicorns" and they frequently deny their existence, so I thought the term atheist applied to people who deny the existence of pink unicorns in much the same way it applies to everything else they don't believe it.
If the term atheist does not apply to people who deny the existence of pink unicorns then it is logical to conclude that atheists do not deny the existence of pink unicorns. That, or they have nothing to say on the existence or otherwise of pink unicorns which makes it very confusing if atheists keep talking about pink unicorns.
Maybe atheists are just in denial.
Personally I'm an apinkunicornist. I know a couple of pinkunicornists but I wouldn't go out of my way to tell them they are wrong because in this life, what's the harm? They seem happy with it, why upset them?
If I die and there are pink unicorns in the afterlife but I'm not allowed touch them or ride them is that any great loss?
I'm comfortable with my belief because there really is no evidence for them and pinkunicornists are so rare.
Theists are a different story though. There are so, so, many of them. And huge numbers of them are so intelligent. You really have to wonder why the story of a man who walked the Earth 2000 years ago still has such influence today. No other story from 2000 years ago is still talked about the way this man is. Then there is the evidence, the eye-witness accounts, the actions of His followers and their willingness to die for what they believe in. It all seem so irrational and unbelieveable. People who want martyrdom and to die insufferable deaths if need be. There really are so many questions. I know many are not too bothered about Him but really you have to ask at least one question "Why?"
You'd be a fool not to
(BTW, if you ask the question and then answer yourself you'll get the wrong answer)A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Advertisement
-
Now this I do understand. It is the condescending attitude of the believer who thinks that there is no moral compass without god.
There is no moral compass without God. I mean, think of the very picture you used, a compass. A compass has something absolute and unchanging as it's reference. A compass that could change it's spots (to mix metaphors) would be a most useless thing.I do my best to live an honest life that hurts no-one and helps where it is possible. I do this not because of a fear of god but because it is the way i was raised
Which only underlines the point above. Raise you another way and you'd have another morality. Which means all morality is as 'good' as any other.
I say 'good' since good itself can only be subjective, in the eye of the beholder, in your world view. Or maybe you allow yourself to suppose what the majority consider to be good to be good. A crowd-sourced and equally problematic kind of morality ( I mean, a morality designed by committee..?)
Assuming you believe in naturalistic, blind, purposeless evolution as your origin then you would accept that your parents raised you as they did because their parents raised them as they did ... all the way back to infinity and beyond.
Which means morality is an evolved, fit for survival kind of gig. Which means the only 'right' morality is the one which is successful in passing on your genes.
Which kind of favours the smart (as in, don't get caught) poly-rapist0 -
Which to echo antiskeptic's point is how historically legal systems can be bifurcated into various branches. Of the two major, in summary one posits a natural law which is reflection of the ordered reality behind the present world while others are more a reflection of what ever clique has the levers of power.0
-
A compass has something absolute and unchanging as it's reference. A compass that could change it's spots (to mix metaphors) would be a most useless thing.
Simple. Human well-being. That's what our compass is grounded on, not the whims of an imaginary man in the sky.
You do know you've just fallen into the Euthyphro dilemma don't you?
Unlike the god that you worship, human well being doesn't change (in case you don't get it, I'm referencing the fact there's an old and new testament, with different rules and moralities in both...well as long as you ignore Matthew 5:18 that is).0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »There is no moral compass without God. I mean, think of the very picture you used, a compass. A compass has something absolute and unchanging as it's reference. A compass that could change it's spots (to mix metaphors) would be a most useless thing.
Which only underlines the point above. Raise you another way and you'd have another morality. Which means all morality is as 'good' as any other.
I say 'good' since good itself can only be subjective, in the eye of the beholder, in your world view. Or maybe you allow yourself to suppose what the majority consider to be good to be good. A crowd-sourced and equally problematic kind of morality ( I mean, a morality designed by committee..?)
Assuming you believe in naturalistic, blind, purposeless evolution as your origin then you would accept that your parents raised you as they did because their parents raised them as they did ... all the way back to infinity and beyond.
Which means morality is an evolved, fit for survival kind of gig. Which means the only 'right' morality is the one which is successful in passing on your genes.
Which kind of favours the smart (as in, don't get caught) poly-rapist
This is really scraping the barrel in finding something to dispute. This is pedantry over my choice of metaphore rather than making any sort of reasonable point.
Ok, I will adjust my first sentence to 'It is the condescending attitude of the believer who thinks that it is not possible to live a moral life without god.' Which means exactly the same thing but takes away the point of your analogy.
I will not address the rest of the post as it is just putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my argument, in order to come to irrelevant and really rather ridiculous conclusions.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
This is really scraping the barrel in finding something to dispute. This is pedantry over my choice of metaphore rather than making any sort of reasonable point.
Ok, I will adjust my first sentence to 'It is the condescending attitude of the believer who thinks that it is not possible to live a moral life without god.' Which means exactly the same thing but takes away the point of your analogy.
You reckon? The point was:
When the word 'moral' consists of whatever you happened to have stumbled across by way of upbringing, personal choice, viewpoint at that time of your life, whatever suits your book ... then it is indeed impossible to live a moral life.
Since the word moral has no fixed foundation.
It's like an inch that can be any length you want: a nonsense concept.I will not address the rest of the post as it is just putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my argument, in order to come to irrelevant and really rather ridiculous conclusions.
I'm asking you to deal with the problem of having a floating reference point for your morality. Where floating means what you find moral is moral. And what someone else finds moral is moral - even if that differs hugely from your morality.
Would you like to address that point?0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »Simple. Human well-being. That's what our compass is grounded on, not the whims of an imaginary man in the sky.
Morality a product of (faith-based) naturalistic evolution then? An accidental thing which just happened to be that which optimalized survivability?
So there is no "should" element to it (other than that a "ought to" notion being something that evolution impressed into us). So no particular reason not to suit my book and act as I please - even if that disrupts survivability. I mean, why should I follow a code that has that pedigree?0 -
Is that an unchanging moral compass ?
It is. Understanding how it is unchanging is the issue. Very much more so for the average atheist who tends to take a very simplistic, quote-mine approach to things.
Or one who supposes God to be confined by the rules he sets in order to ensure the good management of man0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »In case you don't get it, I'm referencing the fact there's an old and new testament, with different rules and moralities in both...well as long as you ignore Matthew 5:18 that is).
You don't strike me as one who has even begun to try to comprehend what the Bible might be about. If you had then you might well raise objections but they wouldn't be as simplistic as that.
A non-believing theologian might not get the underlying spiritual message but they wouldn't raise that objection, which has a mechanical explanation. They'd understand the context: which rules are local and temporary and which are global and unchanging.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »You reckon? The point was:
When the word 'moral' consists of whatever you happened to have stumbled across by way of upbringing, personal choice, viewpoint at that time of your life, whatever suits your book ... then it is indeed impossible to live a moral life.
Since the word moral has no fixed foundation.
It's like an inch that can be any length you want: a nonsense concept.
I'm asking you to deal with the problem of having a floating reference point for your morality. Where floating means what you find moral is moral. And what someone else finds moral is moral - even if that differs hugely from your morality.
Would you like to address that point?
Of course morality is variable, your interpretation of what morality is anyway. If it were not I would be required to accept theist interpretations of morality which can include killing people who do not believe in god, punishing people for being gay, allowing people to die of pregnancy complications and so on.
Oh, which morality are we talking about though, current morality or historical morality, it would have to be both really as you say it is unchanging. Bring back the Inquisition and slavery Keep women subservient to men - well they still are, god said that women could not be priests, though it is not clear why, and other interpretations of what god requires for morality means keeping women as though they were children with no independent life. Which 'monotheistic' god are we talking about?
Is this morality? Is that what morality means? Or does it mean living your life to the best of your ability, doing what is right for society. Why do you need god for that? My moral code is almost certainly different from yours, I am happy to say. What does your god directed morality have that mine doesn't? Absolute certainty about right and wrong? Strange how that changes with time!0 -
Of course morality is variable, your interpretation of what morality is anyway. If it were not I would be required to accept theist interpretations of morality which can include killing people who do not believe in god, punishing people for being gay, allowing people to die of pregnancy complications and so on.
Oh, which morality are we talking about though, current morality or historical morality, it would have to be both really as you say it is unchanging. Bring back the Inquisition and slavery Keep women subservient to men - well they still are, god said that women could not be priests, though it is not clear why, and other interpretations of what god requires for morality means keeping women as though they were children with no independent life. Which 'monotheistic' god are we talking about?
If God then morality has a fixed reference point. Problems might arise in ensuring you're able to use the compass right but that's a secondary issue. The principle is that morality is a fixed point.
We're not looking at those problems however ( whether God exists and how to ensure our compass reading is adequate). We're looking at the problem you have - one who accepts there is no due North.
You haven't said a word about it. Are you planning to?
Edit: you said this..Or does it mean living your life to the best of your ability, doing what is right for society
I'm sure Hitler lived his life to the best of his ability. The direction he set his abilities differed from yours. He did what he felt was right for society. Ridding it of undesirables for example. What objection do you raise since you've no fixed reference point to evaluate him against?0 -
Huh? I don't have a problem? I am just getting on with my life with my own version of morality, its you that seems to have difficulty with that.0
-
One could question the morality of changing one's post after receiving a reply.0
-
Huh? I don't have a problem? I am just getting on with my life with my own version of morality, its you that seems to have difficulty with that.
My difficulty is you raising an objection to anyone elses version of morality. You've got nothing to ground that objection on, other than "I don't like their morality"
If I ask my three year old does he like Broccolli he says "No, ugh!". If I ask him why he doesn't like it he says cheerfully "because I don't like it".
Humorous .. and groundless.
It's a bit like that with a floating point morality. Anyone's version of living to the best of their ability is as valid as anyone else's since there are no grounds for differentiation.
You've no problem with Hitlers morality being as valid and as grounded as your own?0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think magnetic north is the reference you're looking for, magnetic north changes all the time, it's constantly wandering around up there, sailors have been aware of that fact for a long time. In fact the magnetic field of earth can and has flipped in the past so north is south and visa versa. Earths magnetic field is developed by a fluid and that fluid is not stable.antiskeptic wrote: »There is no moral compass without God. I mean, think of the very picture you used, a compass. A compass has something absolute and unchanging as it's reference. A compass that could change it's spots (to mix metaphors) would be a most useless thing.
Evolution may be blind in that it isn't a plan it's a reaction but it has purpose, to adapt to the environment. We can see evolution happening in front of our eyes every year as the flu virus adapts to counter our vaccines. We can see bacterias evolve to fight our antibiotics rendering them useless. Do you not hear the stories about MRSA in the news? MRSA is a problem because it evolved to be immune to our antibiotics.Assuming you believe in naturalistic, blind, purposeless evolution as your origin
Yes, and humans were successful because they worked as a group, being social and empathic allowed us to work as a better, larger team. Neanderthals were arguably smarter than us, they just didn't get along in groups as large as humans and didn't share culture with other neanderthals like humans did. Humans being nice to each other is a huge biological advantage.Which means morality is an evolved, fit for survival kind of gig. Which means the only 'right' morality is the one which is successful in passing on your genes.0 -
The principle is that morality is a fixed point.[/unquote]
Since you are the authority on god and morality maybe it would be simpler if you actually told us what god's morality is? Especially with reference to my post 347, which you quoted but did not address.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »It is. Understanding how it is unchanging is the issue. Very much more so for the average atheist who tends to take a very simplistic, quote-mine approach to things.
Or one who supposes God to be confined by the rules he sets in order to ensure the good management of man
So can you point me to it then ?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Edit: you said this..
I'm sure Hitler lived his life to the best of his ability. The direction he set his abilities differed from yours. He did what he felt was right for society. Ridding it of undesirables for example. What objection do you raise since you've no fixed reference point to evaluate him against?
It's generally seen as bad poster etiquette to alter ones post subsequent to others replying to your pre-edited post. Especially if the edit can possibly misrepresent the reply to your post.
Please bear this in mind in future.
Thanks for your attention.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Since you are the authority on god and morality maybe it would be simpler if you actually told us what god's morality is? Especially with reference to my post 347, which you quoted but did not address.
Would you mind dealing with the problems faced by your claim that you can live a moral life (with floating point morality). Rather than asking me questions?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »
Would you mind dealing with the problems faced by your claim that you can live a moral life (with floating point morality). Rather than asking me questions?
Here's the situation as it stands. There are two camps of people here: antiskeptic is in one camp, I am in another with PopePalpatine and the rest. When it comes to morality, one camp claims an objective mind as the source, I and the others are pointing to reality itself.
Here's the good points of pointing to reality as a source of morality. Only true things exist in reality. Nothing unreal exists. Earlier, I said I grounded my morality on human well being. Perhaps you didn't take the time to understand just what I meant by that.
By human well-being, I meant that I judge my actions as to whether or not they promote the well being of humans and/or alleviate suffering. So when I take the time to consider an action, I ask myself "Does this harm anybody? Does this help anybody?"
Take a situation that involves violence. Let's say I'm being mugged. If I was to do as Jesus reportedly said in the bible, I should turn the other cheek and let the mugger have not only my wallet but my coat too.
What has this accomplished? Nothing except making me a willing victim, an accomplice to my own demise. I have told the mugger, through my actions, that I value my life and my belongings not one whit, that I will not defend myself, that I will excuse and allow theft. The mugger will have been emboldened by my cowardice, and will do the same wrong to others.
How do I know this is wrong? I predict antiskeptic will ask. Because it is harmful. Because it is not conducive to well being. Things like this don't change.
Now, let's take a look at antiskeptic's stance. He says he has the ultimate source of morality, something that never changes. However, when it comes to other people's claims of morality, he distrusts them. How can I trust what your morality is, when it's not grounded on the ultimate, he asks? (maybe not in those words, but you get the idea).
Antiskeptic, this problem applies to you too. You can't avoid it. You can shout from the roof-tops all you want that your source of morality is the ultimate, but we. don't. believe. you. Just like if someone else with some other god or gods were to come up to you and say their deity(ies) are the ultimate source of morality, you wouldn't believe them. Your claim of objective morality is in actuality every bit as subjective as everyone else's. In fact, even if your god were real, I would have to classify following his commands as being immoral, since at that point, you're not thinking your actions through, you're not pondering possible consequences or the harms that might result (e.g. someone saying that it's immoral to allow homosexuals to marry, because of what it says in the bible), you've thrown your own moral compass out the window and have just decided to follow someone else's moral code, all with no examination of that code.0 -
I don't think magnetic north is the reference you're looking for, magnetic north changes all the time, it's constantly wandering around up there, sailors have been aware of that fact for a long time. In fact the magnetic field of earth can and has flipped in the past so north is south and visa versa. Earths magnetic field is developed by a fluid and that fluid is not stable.
Take it up with looksee, it was he who introduced the term, the notion behind a compass being of something fixed and reliable. Whatever about the actuality.
The point, which looksee doesn't seem bent on dealing with is how a flexi-morality is worth the name. How does he leverage his morality above that of any other? Utility? Majority Rule?Evolution may be blind in that it isn't a plan it's a reaction but it has purpose, to adapt to the environment.
Purpose implies intelligence. Evolution hasn't a purpose, it has a characteristic: that which survives survives. The point is that if all evolved naturalistically, blindly, purposelessly then morality, being the product of that process is ultimately blind and purposeless - whatever about our sense (suspended from our bootstraps) that it somehow contains more.
You can't create meaning out of meaningless.Yes, and humans were successful because they worked as a group, being social and empathic allowed us to work as a better, larger team. Neanderthals were arguably smarter than us, they just didn't get along in groups as large as humans and didn't share culture with other neanderthals like humans did. Humans being nice to each other is a huge biological advantage.
Grand. But morality: the sense that some things are out and out wrong can't base itself there. It's not out and out wrong to degrade the evolutionary progress of homosapien since evolution doesn't care if something other than homosapien survives.0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »Here's the good points of pointing to reality as a source of morality. Only true things exist in reality. Nothing unreal exists. Earlier, I said I grounded my morality on human well being. Perhaps you didn't take the time to understand just what I meant by that.
By human well-being, I meant that I judge my actions as to whether or not they promote the well being of humans and/or alleviate suffering. So when I take the time to consider an action, I ask myself "Does this harm anybody? Does this help anybody?"
Take a situation that involves violence. Let's say I'm being mugged. If I was to do as Jesus reportedly said in the bible, I should turn the other cheek and let the mugger have not only my wallet but my coat too.
What has this accomplished? Nothing except making me a willing victim, an accomplice to my own demise. I have told the mugger, through my actions, that I value my life and my belongings not one whit, that I will not defend myself, that I will excuse and allow theft. The mugger will have been emboldened by my cowardice, and will do the same wrong to others.
How do I know this is wrong? I predict antiskeptic will ask. Because it is harmful. Because it is not conducive to well being. Things like this don't change.
I'm afraid I really can't get into discussion with these kind of theological blunt instruments.
I'm not denying that the theist has problems to address with their view. My focus is on the problems the atheist faces and I'd be interested is how they circumvent those problems. Pointing out that the theist has problems isn't a way to deal with the problems an atheist faces.
Can an atheist address the issues raised in these last posts?0 -
So can you point me to it then ?
Point you to what?
-
The problem a theist faces with his own position from his own perspective (which is what I've been asking atheists to look at regarding their own position from their own perspective)
Whilst I point to God as the foundation for morality, I don't suppose I fully comprehend what his view might be of each and every situation. I think I can point to general principles: not being judgemental, selflessness, courage, resisting evil (in so far as that is recognised as such) without and within. The atheist can rightfully ask how the I can consider themselves right on even global points. I can point to my taking my time to understand the mechanics or point to the large body of agreement in the body Christianity. None of these are absolutes however.
There is no possibility of a theist coming up with a moral code in any absolute sense since no man is in a position to assess God's mind on all matters.
But no matter: my ultimate concern is my facing God with how I acted with the amount of 'light' and opportunity for understanding that I have been given.0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »I'm afraid I really can't get into discussion with this level of theological comprehension.
I'm not denying that the theist has problems to address with their view. My focus is on the problems the atheist faces and I'd be interested is how they circumvent those problems. Pointing out that the theist has problems isn't a way to deal with the problems an atheist faces.
Can an atheist address the issues raised in these last posts?
*Points to the thread title*
I as someone who has not been convinced only have to debunk the arguments made by theists such as yourself in order to "win".
You, on the other hand, not only have to debunk our arguments (if any) but also have to successfully defend yours. So what if you somehow succesfully show our morality to be full of holes? What good does that do in vindication of your claims?0
Advertisement