I’m done with believing.
Just sick of faith.
I’m chucking belief in favor of non-belief.
From now on, I only believe stuff that is supported by evidence.
Hard facts.
Science.
No kidding!
I’m not messing around here!
I’m tired of religious folks peddling their opinions.
Time to let reason take the wheel.
No more faith!
No more belief!
Goodbye, indoctrination!
It’s knowledge or nothing for me.
I’m de-converting, baby!
So…gimme some facts.
If you’ve freed yourself from the shackles of religion, I want to hear from you!
Enlighten me, my faithless friends.
Tell me something that I can know for sure!
I’m done with faith.
Pile on the evidence!
Pile on the evidence!
294 Responses
Oh we know so little for certain, including the very chemistry and workings of our own brains (scientifically we only know 5% of how our OWN brains work! I’ve always found that fact just incredible) Both religion and science can only explain so much, leaving many people still with many many tough questions. But on the bright side, at least we are able to take these questions and mull them over and make attempts at explaining at least bits and pieces of them but the whole question itself (like, for example, who created god or where did earth come from) remains unanswered and mysterious
“One of our friends is ‘open to the possibility that we may never know…’
As if ‘not knowing’ is a legitimate answer to any question.”
I’ll try to resist the temptation to trawl through this post to see what little asides you make about my comments. I’m curious about this one though, What’s the problem with not knowing things?
Don’t resist the temptation. The asides are there for you to learn from, just as much as the other comments posted publicly. (If he wants to keep a conversation private, he’ll text me.)
Anyway, it’s fine to not know something.
It’s not fine to fall back on “I don’t know” when you actually DO know, and you don’t like the answer…
There was no answer, it’s a false dilemma. And I explained in unambiguous terms why.
No, you didn’t,
The Mona Lisa exists now because either: it was made intentionally, or some mindless process made it. Those are the only two options.
It’s also mathematical: Something is either “A” or it is “not A.”
You rambled about the complexity of the universe (which is like dissecting Mona Lisa’s smile)…but you haven’t admitted that this is pure logic, plain and simple.
I’m surprised you both see parallels between a distinct physical object we’ve probably all seen from top to toe and the vastness of the universe.
Branyan’s question is as useful as demanding that I answer “is the universe blue or not blue” (but his first attempt wasn’t even that mathematical – some about it’s either intentional or it’s green). We simply don’t know. You’re free to speculate, but I’m sure it’s more complex.
You have to see the whole Universe and know everything about how it works, to decide whether it exists or not?
No.
You’re being ridiculous (on purpose?)
The Universe was caused INTENTIONALLY or UNINTENTIONALLY. Nobody (who understands logic) disagrees about this… You may not know which of those options is truth, but it must be one of them.
Keep thinking. Maybe you’ll get it.
And, don’t worry, there’s no such thing as thinking TOO much.
I’m fairly sure it exists. I don’t know why, I don’t know when and I don’t know how. I suspect I’m in the majority.
The Universe exists–like the Mona Lisa exists.
So, there are only two options to explain both of those.
1. It was caused intentionally.
2. It was caused by some mindless process (unintentionally).
I don’t think I can explain it more simply. You were invited to come up with a third option. But there is only “A” or “Something-Other-Than-A.” It’s the foundation of philosophy, which is the foundation of rational thought, which is the foundation of the scientific method. If you’re afraid to agree about something so basic, I’m at a loss.
That’s funny, to think your false dilemma might be the foundation of rational thought! I don’t know enough about the universe (neither does any human) to understand fully if was even ’caused’. This level of comparison, with a painting, regarding existence itself is rather small-minded. You could both be right and existence is ’caused intentionally’, I’m not ruling it out, but I think trying to categorise it like this is simplistic in the extreme. Just my opinion.
Saying it’s a false dilemma doesn’t make it one, right? Can we agree about that? 😉
The Universe exists, just like the Mona Lisa exists.
So: Either it was CAUSED intentionally, or it happened unintentionally. (When I leave out the word “caused” in the second option, does that help?)
Nobody has categorized it yet! We’re simply saying, those are the only two categories which could POSSIBLY, logically exist. “Caused” or “not caused, but unintentional.”
How can you not agree with this?!?!?!?!
Your god exists in you mind. What caused him to exist? Was he made intentionally or unintentionally? Hopefully that one appeals to your imagination a little. Imagine. Existence itself. Bigger than mere gods.
I haven’t said anything about “my god.” But–again, philosophically–there can’t be anything bigger than a God. By definition, he is the biggest, most true, and most infinite concept we can imagine. (Not an old man in the sky, as you’ve probably been taught to think of him.)
All I’m trying to do is get you to agree to something which isn’t even controversial. Something finite (like the universe) either happened intentionally or it didn’t happen intentionally. That’s it.
But I understand. You’re not going to agree, because this isn’t about asking genuine questions anyway. (You said yourself: confidence in any knowledge seems pretty arrogant. And if the answers start seeming too spiritual, they’re probably not right.) This isn’t an attempt to find Truth. It’s an attempt to cling to skepticism, even when it becomes absurd.
In that case, congratulations. You’re a great Atheist! And you will likely remain one, so no need to worry. 🙂
“By definition, he is the biggest, most true, and most infinite concept we can imagine.” This is the opinion of some religious people, it’s not even starting to be grounded in fact. Something that exists is bigger than existence – spot just one tiny flaw. No matter, it was attempt to get you to think about things that don’t fit in your narrow assumptions about ‘creation’ and ‘sources’. I can only guess the whole idea of things human can’t process just doesn’t slot comfortably with your world view. It seems entirely obvious to me. Does a mouse wonder why it’s here? There are grades of sentience, levels of knowledge available, and I think it’s fair to guess given our physical position in the univerise that we’re not high up the scale. You could be right, I’m not ruling it out, I think think it’s highly improbably given what we know we don’t know.
No, the definition of God is not the opinion of religious people. It’s philosophy.
That’s why even Atheists will grant that God’s existence would make morality objective. But if you DON’T believe in God, it is subjective.
Since the time of Plato, humans have understood that a Great Source is necessary for any real, objective “truth” to exist AT ALL.
“No, the definition of God is not the opinion of religious people. It’s philosophy.”
Correction – it’s a branch of philosophy that only religious people subscribe to.
The definition of unicorns might be explained by unicorn-believers but that wouldn’t it make it fact, and it wouldn’t mean that everyone else who doesn’t believe in unicorns can’t have an opinion on what a unicorn would be like if it did happen to exist.
“Since the time of Plato, humans have understood that a Great Source is necessary for any real, objective “truth” to exist AT ALL.” So, since the time of great comparative ignorance some people have come to a conclusion that I don’t agree with.
Why is any of this relevant to the fact that you can’t understand the original dilemma is false? Maybe existence simply is. Maybe attempting to even describe it in human terms is laughable. Why try and narrow it down to two options it most probably isn’t?
I quoted at least two ATHEIST philosophers who admitted a god would explain things, but Naturalism (alone) falls short. Alex Rosenburg is another ATHEIST philosopher, who wrote a book called “Living Without Delusions.” The problem is, most ground-level, non-philosopher Atheists don’t know exactly what godlessness is supposed to mean, because they’re not very good at thinking through these things. I recommend Alex Rosenburg’s book! (Again. Atheist.)
Anyway, JB’s newest post is about an omelette that either was made on purpose, or made itself. You can go over there if you’d like. But I’m done explaining it to you here.
Hilarious! Atheism isn’t ‘supposed’ to mean anything. Apart from your sheer confusion on that note – would you agree with every Christian I chose to quote?
Yes, if they arrived at their conclusions logically, as Rosenburg does. I would consider anything that ANYONE says, and if I can’t explain why I disagree with them, it would bother me…
And, if you can’t refute what fellow Atheists say, other than to say “We’re not all the same!” then you’re no better than the Christians who don’t know what THEY believe, and simply plug their ears when challenged. (Believe me. I’ve known many of them.)
I don’t agree that you can arrive at philosophical conclusions logically. We can discuss things and give them a seemingly logical process, but meaning has too many nuances to pretend it’s all as simple as 1+1=2.
Not believing that gods exist, and being sure that religions are all human invented stories, isn’t pivotal to my core beliefs. You are a Christian, you all think you believe in the same god and that you all have the correct interpretation of a holy book. If you can’t ‘prove’ your interpretation is ‘right’ you might go to hell. Atheists have no vested interest in digesting the understanding of other atheists – these books are mainly useful for people going through a deconversion process who need models (yes, models, not holy religious textbooks of importance) of other forms of thinking.
Your beef is with philosophers.
But, philosophers developed the scientific method. Philosophy is the foundation of ALL knowledge. So you’re sawing at the branch you’re sitting on. 🙂
For avoidance of confusion, I would replace ‘foundation’ with ‘known starting point’ and ‘ALL knowledge’ with ‘current knowledge (specific to this human beings at this point in time)’.
So, philosophy is the known starting point for CURRENT knowledge (specific to humans at this point in time).
It’s a much more accurate sentence, wouldn’t you agree?
No, I wouldn’t agree it’s more accurate. It’s more WORDS. I don’t think you know what philosophy is.
Fair enough, you’re entitled to your opinion. Thanks for chatting, it’s been interesting! 🙂
I’ve selected something to base a post on over at mine, if you’re interested. Also, I meant to send an apology for the shocking typos in my comments! Mental note to re-read before hitting send.
No big deal. I didn’t notice any major typos.
(The thing I was most excited about, when I was “appointed” co-administer, was having the power to fix my own.) 😉
Catch you next time!
Do you ever venture out, or do you only stay on this blog?
I tend to stay here, for the benefit of our readers.
I’ve also had problems with comments being censored/edited in other blog spaces. But, mostly, it’s easier to search and find old conversations if they’re in one place.
There are interesting conversations on my recent posts about using physical punishment on children. You might want to join in.
Special thanks to Arkenatan for posting another quote from an atheist that confirms God must exist.
His religious rantings are not usually this helpful.
” It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. ” – J. Peter Zetterberg
Oh, and you missed the rest of Lewontin’s quote . I’m sure that was not by design so here’s the rest of it for you …
As you are currently into atheist quotes I thought you might like to read this one too …same bloke .
And just what do you think your claims are for your god if not simply opinion?
You’re not getting the last word on this thread, Ark.
I’ve already answered this for you, multiple times.
And, you’ve already betrayed that you have to treat Evolution like a God, to be consistent:
(link) https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/do-what-god-says-because-god-says/comment-page-1/#comment-7232
I am not wanting the last word … stop being so damned childish for goodness sake.
If you are unable to defend your position in an adult fashion don’t whine when you are taken to task …
Until you present verifiable evidence for your god, then you only have opinion.
Last word.
>hey, it’s your blog …
But if you do not delete … and thanks for that .. . the objective has been achieved.
Hey, it’s your blog …
But if you do not delete … and thanks for that .. . the objective has been achieved.
Last word.
Oh! I sure hope Ark comes over to the new post and repeats all this stuff into the comment thread!
*fingers crossed*
He’s already repeating it in the SAME thread? I’m not sure why he needs to come to a new one…
He needs to come help Violet think clearly…
No. He just needs to spend some time doing the thing that scares him most: thinking alone.
I’m more convinced than ever that we simply need to ask questions. It’s a powerful weapon.
Even the most uninformed or unintelligent person can keep demanding more and more answers… Skepticism is easy! (And children are natural question-askers.)
In May, you and Pete just cannot stress it enough: ask questions. Stop thinking in terms of “defending” [something] and just ask what the alternative is.
To a point.
The trick is asking simple enough questions. And defining terms is really difficult. The answers are things like ‘evolution’ and ‘human development’ which demand and whole new series of questions to unpack.
Yeah…
But I really wanted to share my new quote!
(It’s relevant to the “which religion” question.)
Atheist Biology Professor Richard Lewontin:
…yeah. Too bad you didn’t get a chance to publish that quote.
😉
It’s crazy though, isn’t it?
It’s honest.
Most of our atheist friends would dismiss it with “that’s not what all atheists think”.
They’re right.
The average, everyday Atheists don’t “think” about it at all, because that would be considered “over-thinking.”
:/
One of our friends is ‘open to the possibility that we may never know…’
As if ‘not knowing’ is a legitimate answer to any question.
My toddler keeps STEPPING on my laptop, so now it’s clitching (and throwing comments in the trash randomly). :/
Seriously…she waits until I get up for three seconds, she pulls it off the couch…and she STANDS on it.
Anyway, if you see a comment in the trash that shouldn’t be there, please pull it out.
Maybe her feet are cold?
#Annoyed
How do you know there is only one transcendent source of all life?
I don’t know, how did we get here?
Ark: JB has already told me he is done trying to answer your questions. So you’re stuck with my explanation, or nothing.
HE DID NOT SAY HE KNOWS THERE IS ONLY ONE TRANSCENDENT SOURCE OF LIFE.
It would be as if I said. “There is either a cow on my roof, or there is not a cow on my roof.”
If you turned around and asked, “How do you know there is a cow on your roof?” I would think you were an idiot.
EITHER there is a transcendent source, OR there is no transcendent source. The challenge is for an Atheist to answer the question of whether they think there’s a “source” of life or not. (Hint: there must be a source. Because here we are. We’re the cows on the roof. So, what’s the source? How did we get here?)
He offered a choice of one or the other.
But he did not qualify either.
The response: I don’t know is perfectly acceptable. Because I don’t know.
If you wish to make an assertion that differs from this view then by all means do so…. but please qualify it – explain how you
So–you don’t know whether life exists or not?
No. I don’t know how we got here.
So, you don’t know what the source of life IS. But you do agree we have a source, correct?
(The only other option is to say life is eternal. It has ALWAYS existed… it had no source because it had no beginning. I’m assuming that’s not what you believe, right?)
Beyond what little I understand of the Big Bang. No. I have no clue beyond that.
We are here …so we must have go here somehow, yes.
See my first response re the Big Bang.
Or… if you prefer, I don’t know.
If you do know then please tell me how you know .
Excellent. So there must be a source of life.
That was all he was trying to say.
Maybe, when Violet wakes up, they can continue the conversation to try and figure out what TYPE of source there must be, for life. (Since we’ve already gotten this far using logic, maybe it will take us further?)
So you are not asserting you know the source of life then?
Nope. I’m not going to assert anything.
I’m just going to let JB ask Violet questions until she either arrives at the obvious (logical) answer herself, or refuses to answer any more because she’s as stubborn as you. 🙂
What is the logical answer?
Is there a logical answer?
And if you beleive there is what is it and how do you know?
Watch the conversation with Violet, Ark.
You’ve already had your turn:
https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/do-what-god-says-because-god-says/comment-page-1/#comment-7300
(Re-read that conversation. And, before you ask anymore questions, KEEP reading that conversation. We probably already covered it there.)
Ah … as I suspected. You are simply making a faith claim and thus , it can be summarily dismissed.
God of the gaps….nothing more.
Nite nite…
Ah, as I suspected, you are simply waiting for someone to cut off your ridiculous questions (which have already been addressed) so that you can feel like the “winner” of your repetitive game.
Nothing more.
Goodnight, Buddy.
Since my de-conversion, I’m finding Dig-Dug’s attempts to indoctrinate us with his faith to be morally bankrupt.
He doesn’t care.
He just doesn’t want you to be a Christian. That’s all. Renounce faith and take a picture of something! (And don’t ask yourself whether photography has real “meaning.”)
I already de-converted!
He keeps calling me names anyway!
Almost as if he’s going to be an asshole no matter what I do.
Hm..
Well, don’t just assume he’s an asshole on faith. Test that hypothesis! 😉
My definition of the term is, “Anyone who has called me Dickhead more than once.”
@JB
There is only one transcendent source of all life.
How do you know?
Read the statement again, Ark.
He said EITHER there is only one transcendent source of all life, OR there is no transcendent source.
He didn’t say he knew which was the case.
I quoted him.
That is what he said.
You forgot the “or,” old chap. He didn’t say he knows… (So asking “how do you know?” makes no sense.) He gave an either/or proposition and asked Violet to explain how she thinks we got here, if there’s no transcendent source of life.
Obviously, you’re not going to tackle that question.
Interesting that violetwisp used empathy, an emotion as a means to claim empirical evidence. This is the problem with humanity, people too often rely upon their feelings to support their decisions when their feelings were created by and controlled by themselves exclusively. In essence making them their own god. violet, the comments you make are pure supposition and completely devoid of empirical evidence. Even your assertions are unsubstantiated. 1. God made sinless humans in a perfect world. 2. Humans rejected God’s plan. 3. eternal suffering is human choice. 4. God created Hell for Satan and demons, not man. 5. Man chooses suffering over Heavenly bliss because man would rather be his/her own god than humble themselves and accept the creator as the 1 true God. Your arguments aren’t based in factual knowledge but in confusion and ignorance.
“Interesting that violetwisp used empathy, an emotion as a means to claim empirical evidence.” There are emotional and cognitive aspects to empathy, and we have scientific methods of measuring it. It’s one of the diagnostic tools to identify people with autism and people with a range of mental disorders, such as sociopaths.
“Humans rejected God’s plan. 3. eternal suffering is human choice.” I’m slightly confused. Are these factual, or do you think they are logical? Can I reject your god on your behalf and condemn you to eternal suffering? My opinion on these rules is that they don’t make sense. (sorry to the blog hosts I can’t provide empirical evidence for this simple observation – although if I test it, it seems to be water-tight. A hand-full of humans (drop in the ocean percentage-wise) several thousand years ago rejected your god therefore eternal suffering is ‘our’ choice. Good luck with believing your god is benevolent!) 😀
What do you mean by mental disorders?
Isn’t that just a way that scientists say, “Humans who function differently than most other humans?”
It’s a meaningless term, unless there’s a Standard, Normal person we’re all trying to be like, isn’t it?
Maybe this will help? http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/personalitydisorder.aspx
No–it doesn’t help.
That is a resource in which scientists/psychologists are describing humans who function differently than many other humans. It doesn’t describe who (if anyone) is the Standard, Normal person we’re all aiming to be like, which was my question.
If anything, the pamphlet betrays the problem I’m trying to get you to consider, when it says:
Now, I’ve read that source, but it didn’t answer my question. Please try to think about this, rather than linking me all over the internet. 🙂
Scientists may be able to observe and measure something which we call “empathy.” But they’ve admitted themselves they can’t do it very consistently. And, even then, all they can say is that 1 in 5 people don’t seem to display as much so-called “empathy” as other humans. That doesn’t give us the right to try and “fix” those people. Maybe we’re evolving AWAY from empathy?
That’s a frightening thought! Perhaps you’re right though. It would certainly explain the rise of empathy-devoid Christian right in the USA.
Oh, totally! Christians are awful!
Now that we got that out of the way…
The pamphlet referenced “normal, overlapping personality types.” So, it suggests there IS such thing as “normal.”
I want to know what the normal, standard, ideal personality is.
Wisp is like Tildeb and Ark had a child…
I’m really not interested in another year-long discussion with an anti-Theist, who enjoys the high of hatred for religious people.
If I want to be on the receiving end of mindless ridicule, I already have a collection of god-deniers who can help me out.
But, to get some logic and critical thinking? I’m still waiting for someone OUTSIDE THE CHURCH to provide a little.
But, hey! A point of agreement!
Violet just said she “doesn’t recommend making decisions based on ever-fluctuating interpretations of rambling, contradictory texts written in times of comparative ignorance.”
I think ALL of us can agree that we have faith in better methods than that! It’s great to have common ground. 🙂
Are we sure Violet is a ‘she’? I can’t tell the gender of the avatar.
Yes.
I’M sure that she is a “she,” although she may identify as a man who gave birth two years ago and likes to wear push-up bras for attention…
Is there a standard for ‘normal’. In past discussions, the atheist explanation for ‘mental disorder’ boils down to majority rules. If most people think you should be put in a rubber room, that is where you go. Doctors and courts get involved. They cite studied and show graphs but at the end of the day, it’s opinion.
Morality is another term that atheists have thrown around in the comments. In a nutshell, they’ve had trouble understanding that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ do not exist if God does not exist. (That doesn’t mean you must BELIEVE God exists to have morals! This is usually where the discussion implodes.)
Atheists insist that I am ‘morally bankrupt’ for teaching religion to children and simultaneously assert that lions are not immoral for killing antelope. Do you agree this is inconsistent?
You bring up a good point. I’m not sure what to make of suffering in the wider animal kingdom.
In terms of suffering in human society, we have pretty good markers, don’t we? Most actions you discuss above that involve doctors and courts are to minimise harm both to ourselves and others, while allowing freedom of expression. It can be murky waters, and that’s why lots of experts often get involved in the discussions. Much more sensible than making decisions based on ever-fluctuating interpretations of rambling, contradictory texts written in times of comparative ignorance. Don’t you think?
“ever-fluctuating interpretations of rambling, contradictory texts written in times of comparative ignorance. ”
You mean laws right? (I’m kidding. Of course you’re talking about the Bible.)
The difficulty comes when you ask the question, “Who are the experts?” There was a time when those experts were Holy men. (You know, the interpreters of those rambling, contradictory texts.)
Are you one of those rare, consistent atheists who admits there is no such thing as right and wrong?
“You mean laws right? (I’m kidding. Of course you’re talking about the Bible.)”
No, it’s a point well made. We are always in ignorance. That’s why revise our laws based on our best understanding of consequences/impact of actions at a particular point in time.
“Are you one of those rare, consistent atheists who admits there is no such thing as right and wrong?” I’m sure I’m not consistent, I answer questions based on my understanding of things, yes, at a current point in time. It’s difficult to fully evaluate the consequences of any actions – we can only look at the facts (if you believe in such things) available to us and make our best judgement. What do you mean by right and wrong? For example, as a theist you presumably believes they exist, is slavery right or wrong?
Consistent atheists are very rare indeed. They do exist but to date, I’ve not encountered any on my blog.
We revise laws based on our understanding of right and wrong.
As a theist, I do indeed believe right and wrong exist. As an atheist, why would you object to slavery?
I don’t recall saying I do. Let’s clarify if you think it’s ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ first.
Sure.
It is wrong to oppress another human being in any manner. Slavery, as it was practiced in the United States, is wrong.
Ah ok, but as long as you beat your slave without actually killing them, it’s okay, it’s ‘right’, isn’t it?
http://giphy.com/gifs/3o7TKzVDvsj4nJ0DRu/html5
Here we go again…
Because if you practise slavery correctly, in the ‘right’ way, you’re looking after people. When you own them and beat them (but not to death). Is that what you mean?
As an atheist, do you object to slavery?
As a human being, I object to owning other human beings. It doesn’t seem to have a positive impact on society, in terms of how we treat each other and in terms of suffering. People flourish best when they are free to follow their own paths, within the boundaries of commonly agreed laws.
You’re using the term “positive” and “flourish” again… Do you see what’s wrong with that? Positive and flourish according to WHAT?
There are still places in the world where the human beings have set up commonly agreed laws to allow slavery. What do you say to them?
Slavery is illegal everywhere in the world. I don’t have a time machine to speak to ‘them’.
Are you intentionally playing games to avoid the question?
There are MILLIONS of slaves still existing worldwide. I don’t care what government officials have written onto a piece of paper. I’m asking, how can you justify telling modern-day slave traffickers they are wrong? How is that anything but your opinion?
That’s a different question. I would tell them it’s against international law and the law of their country, it makes people suffer, the world is a better place for themselves and their children if everyone is free – things like that.
“Suffering” isn’t a scientific term. It’s a value claim.
Tell that to the scientists who study it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003549/
Words like “suffering” and “better” are subjective value claims, even when people with PhDs say them.
You realize that I am human being as well? You realize that slave traffickers are human beings?
Objecting to anything on the basis of being ‘a human’ is flimsy.
Yes, and I suspect the traffickers are human beings who have had few other options in their lives. It’s a sad cycle. My use of ‘human being’ was a reference to empathy – I understand (to some extent) what other people are going through and imagine myself in that situation. If I wouldn’t want it for myself, why would I inflict it on someone else? The Golden Rule.
The Golden Rule is an ideal that transcends human beings. It is a religious idea.
It’s a fairly obvious recognition of base empathy, which has enabled us to work in co-operative societies. That’s why we find variants of it expressed across time and cultures. If it’s a ground-breaking notion for you that could ‘transcend humans’, perhaps I should return to questioning your capacity for empathy. No disrespect intended, I know many people with varying forms of autism.
The fact that the golden rule is expressed across time and culture is exactly right. That’s what transcendent means.
It is objectively ‘right’ whether individuals believe it or not.
Sort of like other obvious statements that crop up all over the place – “whatever you do, do it well”, “treat animals nicely”, “don’t seek revenge”. Philosophy is really quite limited when it comes to humans. People observe standard situations that humans come up against and say something obvious, which seems clever when they put it that way.
The Golden Rule obviously has its limitations. If I treat other’s as I want to be treated, I’m not taking their needs into consideration. Depends which version you look at. But we all understand that walking in other people’s shoes is useful (another expression of the Golden Rule – trite, eh?)
Curious, is this ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.”
Also: to avoid the confusion of multiple threads, could you try to say everything you want to say before hitting “reply?”
Thanks. 🙂
Also to avoid confusion, it would be useful if replies were sent to me so I get notified, rather than mixed up between the two of you. And also if you answered my questions, rather than picking and choosing the threads you want to follow. 🙂
I have responded directly to you whenever I was talking directly to you. After you showed your hand and made an unnecessary, off-topic jab at “right wing Christians,” I repeated my question…and got no response.
So, it is YOU who hasn’t answered questions and who dropped out of the other thread…
That’s why I started following the thread between you and JB…
And that’s why I decided to point out (what he already knew): that you are more interested in arguing with Christians than in learning something about the godlessness you are trying to make work.
Do you not think it’s fair to say that this whole post was constructed on the basis that Branyan and you are more interested in arguing with atheists than learning about anything? I didn’t necessarily come here for a lesson, I came because a challenge was issued, and thought you might appreciate my input.
I WOULD appreciate your input…
I’m still waiting for it…
Thanks! I’ll certainly do my best.
Is there such thing as a normal, standard human, which the rest of us should strive to be like?
That’s a good question. We tend to embrace diversity at this point in human development, but not to the point where someone’s unique style of expression could harm another individual, or themselves. It can be a difficult balancing act to determine exactly where these lines are drawn. Do you think there’s a standard ‘type’ we should aim for?
I think, the very fact that we believe we are “evolving” toward “improvement” shows that we know there is such thing as Perfection.
No human is perfect. But, all humans believe in an idea of Perfect Love, which transcends humanity.
Why does our idea of the perfect love, the perfect parent, the benevolent mother or father who created our life around us, transcend humanity? Is it not just an extension of childhood? Seems intrinsic to the mammal experience.
Yes.
“Intrinsic to the mammal experience” is what transcendent means.
Really? You must have different dictionaries to me “beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience.”
You’re right. I’m replying in multiple threads at once, so I lost track of where we had been. Sorry for the confusion.
What I should have said is that love and empathy are NOT “intrinsic to the mammal experience.” As you’ve already pointed out, slavery used to be the norm. (And you’ve mentioned those with autism, who don’t empathize like most people do NOW.) When you keep insisting that the people who show empathy are GOOD and the ones who don’t are WRONG–no matter where or when they lived–you are showing that you believe in a Standard that transcends humanity.
We are improving as a species because we are moving toward something Perfect.
(although I am touched you think I could be Ark and John’s daughter – nay, thrilled!)
I would say, “People flourish best when they are free to follow their own paths, within the boundaries of commonly agreed laws.”
Is that with reference to our current knowledge base and structures in society, or based on primitive societies in times of ignorance? Is there only ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ at a particular point in time them?
I don’t know. It’s your quote.
What did you mean by it?
I meant to enquire if you think it’s ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to own a slave and beat them (not to the point of death), at any point in time (assuming you think morality is eternal – I could be wrong).
I already told you it is wrong to oppress human beings. Always.
You are the one who suggested that the boundaries of commonly agreed laws trump individual opinion.
If the law permits slavery, then it’s ‘right’.
Ok, I hadn’t thought of it like that before. So when the Bible permits beating slaves to the point of death it’s not right?
No.
Whatever the law permits at any time and place is ‘right’. That’s your argument.
Sorry, where was that my argument? I’ll have to look back. We understand ‘right’ to be whatever it is based on our knowledge/culture/experience in the given moment. Our ideas of right and wrong change as we learn more. I think we can use what knowledge we have now to judge whether something was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ action in the past. So, for example, I don’t think it was ever ‘right’ to have slaves or to beat them to the point of death. In a time of relative ignorance the people making up the rules seemed to think so. Thankfully all of us agree it’s evil now. But how do you reconcile it?
First you said this:
“We understand ‘right’ to be whatever it is based on our knowledge/culture/experience in the given moment.”
Then you said this:
“I don’t think it was ever ‘right’ to have slaves or to beat them to the point of death.”
There is a contradiction here. Do you think the golden rule is going to be true forever or is it subject to change like the other things we understand to be ‘right’?
I have no idea what the future holds. Do you think it will ever be right to beat slaves up to the point of death?
I have no idea what the future holds.
So if it’s written in the Bible, it’s not right for eternity?
The golden rule is written in the Bible, is that right for eternity?
Oh, I’m not a Christian. When I ask you about rules and eternity I’m looking to understand how you process the contradictions. The Bible is such a huge and varied tome that I’m sure some parts will make sense to humans for most of our existence. Almost like that monkey with the typewriter. 🙂
You’re not a Christian but you like the golden rule. With what religion do you most closely align yourself?
I don’t align myself with any religions. Christianity is the religion of my culture, so I know most about it. I enjoy bits of the Bible, as a historical text, as a story book. Do you like any other religions?
I recently de-converted as Ark suggested I do.
That’s why I’m puzzled when atheists make faith claims about “right” and “wrong”.
And rightly so, it’s confusing ground. We’re all using the same labels to mean slightly different things.
Right and wrong don’t exist for atheists.
Not according to your limited definition. In terms of shortcut thinking, or in terms of thinking through the consequences of actions and broadly describing something as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, of course they do.
Lions are not wrong to kill antelope.
Humans are just animals.
Our behavior is the result of mindless evolution.
The process in itself appears to be mindless. Doesn’t mean we are.
If the process is mindless, the result is mindless. You can’t get mind from chaos.
Nice. Sounds like something Silence of Mind would say. A curious thing about our existence is we get order from what at a glance is chaos. Some see intelligent design, and others see that life couldn’t be supported if it were any other way. Perhaps there were billions of start-up universes that didn’t have the right conditions to go further. I don’t think I’ll ever understand why life has come about, but I do understand that if chaos truly reigned existence would have dissolved in the blink of an eye. I also understand that the existence of life that no-one can ever truly fathom doesn’t point to a ‘maker’ and doesn’t point to any one of the millions of superstitious beliefs that evolved in times of limited information (compared to today) being in any way accurate.
We’ve all evolved to the same place at the same time. We have shared feelings, shared understandings. I think it’s reasonable to suggest we can take what is in front of us and want to improve it for future generations, without having to imagine that invisible forces made it so.
Nice. Sounds like something Tildeb would say.
If the existence of life doesn’t point to a ‘maker’ and chaos does not explain life either, then your comment is incoherent.
The evidence at hand is that life arises from life. Why does this not suggest a ‘maker’ to you?
It just seems kind of childish. Me woman make stuff, everything made by something I can see, big thing in sky make bits I don’t understand. I’m sure existence is slightly more complicated.
You’re SURE existence is more complicated than God? I’d call that a faith statement, wouldn’t you?
Ah, so your god is a superstitious, ignorant supposition? Could be any old god then, why choose that one?
There is only one God.
Or there is no God.
The question was, why does it seem less childish to assume life came from some source other than another life?
Not sure I understand what you’re getting at. It’s late, I’ll try and come back some time soon.
There is only one transcendent source of all life. We can argue about the specifics of his character and nature. That’s religion.
Or there is no transcendent source of life. In which case, how did we get here?
“There is only one transcendent source of all life.” Why would that be so? Again, you’re assuming that any creation explanation would fit into your existing framework of understanding. I’m open to the possibility that humans will never have the capacity to understand what this existence is or where it sprang from (if it did).
Why do we need to identify how we got here? I think it’s more sensible to look at the reasons invented in times of utter ignorance and weigh them up against the knowledge base we have now. They crumble to pieces. And we know why people still cling to them – because there is this yearning for answers that is a key to our evolutionary success. Without it, we wouldn’t be here. But we definitely need to contextualise it when it comes to our obvious cravings for love, justice, answers and existence after this short life. The most successful religions deliver this to us, the gullible inventors, on a silver plate of nonsense, don’t you think?
“I’m open to the possibility that humans will never have the capacity to understand what this existence is or where it sprang from (if it did).”
Yet, here you asking questions about morality. Why don’t you just shrug and say ‘I can’t understand this’? You’re ‘we may never know’ statement is a cop-out. It allows you to dismiss any ‘creation explanation that doesn’t fit into your existing framework of understanding’…exactly what you accused me of doing.
“Why do we need to identify how we got here? I think it’s more sensible to look at the reasons invented in times of utter ignorance and weigh them up against the knowledge base we have now.”
Okay. Let’s do the sensible thing. On the subject of existence, what ‘reasons were invented in times of utter ignorance’?
What new reasons do we have for existence now that we have more knowledge?
How do the new reasons compare to those given during times of utter ignorance?
“Yet, here you asking questions about morality. Why don’t you just shrug and say ‘I can’t understand this’?”
I think we can find explanations for this thing we call ‘morality’, based on what we know about human development. The Universe is obviously a different kettle of fish!
“On the subject of existence, what ‘reasons were invented in times of utter ignorance’?”
All the religions based on primitive superstitions.
“What new reasons do we have for existence now that we have more knowledge? How do the new reasons compare to those given during times of utter ignorance?”
There are no reasons, keep up! 🙂 We look for reasons because of (see comment above)
“I think we can find explanations for this thing we call ‘morality’, based on what we know about human development.”
No. Human development will not tell you about morality. Only religion describes morality.
You said the sensible thing is “to look at the reasons invented in times of utter ignorance and weigh them up against the knowledge base we have now.”
Then you said “there are no reasons”. That leaves us with “All the religions based on primitive superstitions.” There is nothing else.
So the question is “Which religion is best?”
“Human development will not tell you about morality. Only religion describes morality.” I just described it in terms of human development (or was that across the thread with Mrs too? very confusing here). If you disagree, I’d be interested to hear why.
“You said the sensible thing is “to look at the reasons invented in times of utter ignorance and weigh them up against the knowledge base we have now.””
I mean weigh up the history of religion (what it is, how it developed) in terms of our current knowledge base, things like the breadth of human history, human development, human brains, human psychology, the Universe. All religions fall flat. I thought I explained that pretty well above, I’m surprised you’ve confused it so much.
You cannot describe morality in terms of human development. You cannot describe history without religion.
All religions fall flat? In what regard?
“You cannot describe morality in terms of human development.” Why ever not? A human experience in terms of human development.
All religions fall flat because we know why they exist (looking for answers, reassurance etc) and they all leave equal trace (some written works and people who ‘feel’ it – circle back to the ‘why’).
We know why mathematics exists too. (Looking for numerical answers. Describe quantities and geometry.) But you wouldn’t suggest that math ‘falls flat’ just because we know why it exists.
You’re using the term ‘human development’ where many people would say ‘philosophy’ or ‘religion’.
The facts remain:
Either there is an intelligence that created the universe.
OR
The universe (which includes humans) is the result of mindless processes.
Whichever of these options you pick will form your ‘religion’.
I was with you up to here, but it’s absurd to compare maths to ‘morals’. And we don’t know ‘why’ it exists either. We only know what we use it for. We understand in terms of human development why we sense these opinions (thanks mrsmcmommy) we call morals. Maths isn’t a fluctuating opinion – it’s a series of verifiable (by anyone) facts.
Your two false options are still false – you’ve done nothing in the course of this conversation to demonstrate otherwise. Ignoring what was said and coming back to it as if you have is, well, it’s kind of weird. 🙂
“Your two false options are still false – you’ve done nothing in the course of this conversation to demonstrate otherwise.”
You haven’t demonstrated how those two options are false.
“you’re assuming that any creation explanation would fit into your existing framework of understanding. I’m open to the possibility that humans will never have the capacity to understand what this existence is or where it sprang from (if it did).”
You have blinkers. Either the Universe this or this – seriously?
Yep. Seriously.
Do you have a third option?
Great idea! More narrow options. This is really sinking in, isn’t it?
So you admit there are only two options about how the universe came to exist?
Is this sinking in?
Hmm, I’m not sure what the miscommunication is here. I find your thinking very limited with this presentation of two EITHER/OR scenarios that clearly don’t describe everything possible. Thing about the vastness of the Universe. Do you really think we’re at the point in human development (with or without a god) where we’re close to knowing much? This is the arrogance of our species through time.
There is no miscommunication. You’re too stubborn to admit the truth.
Either the universe is intentional.
Or it isn’t. There is no third option. That will not change as humans continue to develop.
Arrogance is refusing to admit this.
Really? That’s an interesting way to process this. Either I agree with you or I’m arrogant.
No. Arrogance is offering no reason for WHY you’re disagreeing with me.
You claimed my two options were false. You’ve not demonstrated how they are false. Alluding to mystical ‘other possibilities’ is incoherent.
Either the universe is intentional or it is not. Either give a third option or concede that we agree.
I did offer a reason. I explained the Universe is way too vast and complex to consider it might fit neatly in one of your made-up boxes.
The universe is way too vast and complex to consider it might fit neatly into your made-up box as well.
You’re being arrogant.
I’m open to entertaining other options but so far, nobody has offered any.
My point is that when speculating about an infinite entity (which everyone agrees exists, in direct contrast to any gods) it seems probable that the limited knowledge of existence held by humans couldn’t possibly express what it is in terms of relatively small-minded ideas like ‘purpose’ or ‘origin’. These are terms we understand based on our limited life cycles in this speck of dust we inhabit. You may feel that because you ‘sense’ a god exists and that this god created everything, that the answers will be at your disposal. Other humans may feel that because we have a body of scientific knowledge to refer to these answers may be within our grasp. But I don’t.
Now that I’ve given you this answer please don’t start confusing my lack in interest in trying to answers broader questions about the Universe, with a lack of interest in what happens to individuals within our particular species (or outwith it) on this particular planet.
We may never know everything.
That doesn’t mean we can’t know something.
Do we agree that either the universe was created by intelligence or it is the result of mindlessness?
No, I’ve explained in some detail why not over the last few comments. If you think an infinite universe can be explained in finite terms, you’ll have to show me why.
No. You have not explained.
You have not explained why you disagree.
I am not explaining the infinite universe. I’m saying the origin of the infinite universe is either intentional or it isn’t. You keep telling me that’s wrong. You haven’t said why.
You haven’t understood why.
The Mona Lisa was either created intentionally or not.
Is there another option?
Wow, so you think a painting is like the universe. No wonder we’re struggling to communicate. Is the Mona Lisa a vast and complex infinite entity?
No. The Mona Lisa is not infinite.
Your arrogance won’t let you answer the question, huh?
Ah, so it was just to make a cheap point about arrogance? 🙂 Do you want me to answer if the Mona Lisa was painted by another human being? Really?
Yes. That is exactly the question.
Why do you believe The Mona Lisa was painted by a human?
Historical records tell me so, they have no reason to lie, and experiences tells me that similar paintings are always painted by humans.
Similar paintings show that they didn’t come about by mindless processes. Exactly.
What would you say to someone who seriously suggested that the Mona Lisa wasn’t created on purpose?
I would ask them if they’ve heard the one about the monkey with a typewriter. Have you ever considered what could happen in an infinite space of time? It’s certainly difficult for beings with such a limited life cycle.
The universe hasn’t existed for infinity.
You would suggest that the Mona Lisa came from a monkey with a typewriter. Very reasonable.
Sorry that’s so complicated for you. It means that in an infinite period of time, anything is possible.
I don’t know how long the universe has been in existence, or if there was anything before it, or parallel to it. Like I say, it great we know everything we know, but I suspect given our size and life cycle within it all, humans might never be able to express or comprehend what it is. I’d love to be proven wrong!
If you were proven wrong, you wouldn’t admit it. 🙂
I think it’s important to note that neither JB nor I have brought up the Bible at all. There’s a reason for that, yet it’s usually the Atheists who bring it into the conversation anyway. (I have been trying to stick with philosophy, and shared human experience.)
The problem is, many people assume that whenever a Christian talks about “morality” they mean “The Bible.” But those two things aren’t interchangeable. The Bible is not God. Therefore, the Bible is not the “Transcendent Standard” we’re referring to.
The Bible is a collection of books–written by ancient truth-seekers, who were doing their best to describe an Infinite God in words. (All Holy Books are the same, in that respect. They’re trying to put Infinite Power and Timeless Truth, into words.)
But those words are not the same as God Himself.
So, just for clarity, this conversation isn’t about specifically WHAT actions are right/wrong. (JB is not God. So his opinions can’t be the Standard, just like the ancient truth-seekers weren’t THE Standard, either.) But this conversation is about what happens when we claim that objective “Truth” doesn’t exist at all. What are we seeking after? (Or, if you prefer, what are we evolving toward?) Are morals like flavors of icecream, which are just preferences? Or are morals transcendent truths, which humans DISCOVER, and that are always true, no matter how many people disagree?
That’s the question we’re trying to answer. 🙂
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-truth.htm
Okay, thanks for explaining it in more detail. I find it difficult to discuss ‘morality’ because there’s so much tied up in it and, like everyone, I often respond instinctively without thinking exactly what it means.
But, in reality, it’s nothing more than a survival instinct, a shortcut in our thinking. We have to assess situations quickly for survival – for example, if someone kills someone near me, I don’t stop to think what all the consequences of that are, I instantly ‘know’ it’s wrong. Shortcut based on cultural programming (killing is wrong), experience (don’t see much killing) and empathy (poor person/don’t want that to happen to me). I’d likely feel differently if I lived in a culture where killing was celebrated, or a place where it was commonplace, or I couldn’t put myself in someone else’s shoes.
I doubt we’re moving towards perfection, there’s no way to achieve that. Every action has unlimited repercussions and we can never neutralise harm. The best we can hope for, as breeding animals, is improving circumstances for ourselves and our offspring. This usual involves attempting to create a fairer, safer society where we are all cared for. How people think we go about this obviously varies, but as we build up a body of knowledge over time regarding what works and doesn’t work in this respect, so hopefully we have the opportunity to improve life for everyone.
So, what you’re saying is, the objective Standard is “neutralize harm.” Is that correct?
No matter what humans evolve to think/believe, the goal (should) always be to neutralize harm, and that’s what you mean by “improvement?”
It’s not very glamorous or catchy, is it? People like clear messages and easy answers. In the murky waters of morality here are a few situations to consider (from an old post of mine):
1. A few hundred years ago it was morally good to have slaves. Slave owners were giving stupid people a place to live and food to drink. Slave owners were probably even giving people access to religious instruction and maybe even education. Slave owners were morally good people just following the rules in the Bible. Today, most people agree that slave owning is morally bad.
2. In Saudi Arabia, it’s morally wrong for women to drive cars because they should be secluded and protected. It is also morally wrong for them to leave their home without a male guardian. In the rest of the world, Saudi Arabia’s attitude towards women is considered morally wrong.
3. Some people think it is morally wrong to deny terminally ill people in serious pain the right to end their lives. Other people think it is morally wrong to give terminally ill people in serious pain the assistance they require to end their lives.
Take this last moral conundrum as an example – if we allow people in pain to terminate their own lives, we are trying to minimise their personal pain, but if we make this option commonplace could we put pressure on people to ‘check out’ when they feel they become a burden? There’s no easy answer but many people have a ‘moral’ sense of what they think is ‘right’.
I’m afraid you’re still not understanding the problem for godlessness… It’s not just that there are no EASY answers. It’s that ALL of the answers, no matter what you come up with, are ultimately just opinion.
Here is a discussion (exactly like the one we’re having) between two philosophers.
https://defenseofaith.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/relative-morality/
It’s a problem you have in Christianity too. Every law or ‘moral’ judgement is a matter of opinion based on interpretation, personal revelation, sect, cultural context, and any other number of factors.
We don’t need an objective moral ‘right’ to condemn actions that cause suffering.
No–you’re confusing what people actually DO with what they OUGHT to do.
We all agree, there is such thing as right/wrong, even though we can’t always agree on the specifics (as you demonstrated with your ethical dilemmas).
Am I? The feeling of OUGHT is just that shortcut thinking ‘morality’ mechanism. A woman in Saudi Arabia may well sense she OUGHT not to go out driving.
What you have said (if I’m not mistaken) is that we OUGHT to reduce suffering, no matter what…
Is that correct, in all times and circumstances? Is reducing suffering the Universal Moral Standard of what humans “ought” to do?
No, I don’t recall that I did. On a logical level, it makes most sense – most of are involved in breeding activities. If not for the best interests of ourselves in terms of a stable society, it’s something that matters for our children. On an emotional level, we don’t generally enjoy suffering if we’ve had a reasonable start in life.
I think it’s nice that we understand how other people feel (certainly key to our success as a co-operative species). I’m not clear why some Christians resent the concept when they can’t link it to having been ‘magically’ beamed down from an invisible entity.
When you talk about “improvement” and leaving a world that is “better” for our children, you are implying a goal. We were farther away from that goal thousands of years ago, and now, we have evolved closer to that goal… right?
Or are you just using those words without meaning?
We have more information. We can evaluate ‘improvement’ in terms of life-span, perceived enjoyment, illness, suffering, freedom of movement, comfort levels etc. Do you think knowledge is important?
The word “knowledge” (like the words “right/wrong”) is meaningless without an Objective measuring stick… You still haven’t admitted that you have one.
Sociologists can make observations. But we cannot say things are BETTER than they were before, without a standard. We have to explain what we mean by “better.”
Here is William Provine (who was an Atheist when he died), trying to explain the predicament:
Also, Atheist Philosopher Julian Baginni:
I’m not clear why you think it’s a predicament. None of that contradicts what I said. It just looks scary if you’re used to a supernatural safety net.
It contradicts your statement that slavery has always been wrong.
Ah ok, I mean that from the point of view of eternal gods writing rulebooks. But my shortcut ‘morality’ instinct knows it ‘wrong’ as well.
It’s an opinion, Violet.
Just a fancy way of saying opinion. 🙂
Exactly! Glad we agree. Opinion is precisely what your and my understanding of morality is. We give it a fancy name and people start making all sorts of strange assumptions (this especially goes for depressed men agonising in lonely spaces for years calling themselves ‘philosophers’ or ‘holy men’).
Ah, so you don’t consider philosophy a real science?
No. Do you?
Obviously not. That’s why I’ve been trying to focus on philosophy.
I’m not sure why you’d be disparaging toward philosophers in your last comment? (Holy men, I understand. Because, as we’ve already established, RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE AWFUL!)
But are you suspicious of philosophers as well?
Religious people aren’t awful, it’s a totally natural attraction. Some religious people can be awful and use religion to encourage other people to awful – that’s where it gets scary. I’m not suspicious of philosophers but I think simple things are often over-complicated by spending too long in a ponder.
So many contradictions in such a short comment..
You’re back to using value-judgement words (like awful), even though it’s just a preference opinion. (You don’t like religious people the way I don’t like liver and onions.)
Then, you say you’re not suspicious of philosophers, but you think they may have “complicated” things by thinking “too long.” So, I’m sorry, but it sounds like you’re suspicious of philosophy. In my experience, most Atheists prefer Evolutionary Biology because it’s concrete, but they’re uncomfortable with the underlying philosophical questions which shape EVERY experiment and the scientific method itself.
“You’re back to using value-judgement words (like awful), even though it’s just a preference opinion.” You introduced ‘awful’ into that part of the conversation by asking me a specific question that I answered. I can’t jump through all your hoops and have a meaningful conversation using your terminology.
I’m uncomfortable with philosophy because, as I said, it can deteriorate into over-thinking nonsense. And much of its traditional basis comes from people living times of relative ignorance, so it was impossible for people over-thinking things to detach themselves from the superstitions of the times. Discussions about ‘morality’ are a great example of this.
How much thinking is over-thinking?
Probably just right there.
So, you can use the word “over-thinking,” but you can’t examine what that means without over-thinking?
Right. I think I’ve had enough spinning.
Meanwhile, we’ve agreed more than you might have expected:
#1. What you call “right/wrong” is only opinion, unless there is an Objective Standard (a cosmic “Judge,” which is the Source of morality).
and
#2. If our reasoning takes us too close to something that sounds spiritual, many Atheists conclude we are thinking too much.
Your trouble isn’t intellectual. It’s preference. 🙂
#1. What we call right/wrong is simply opinion. And like all opinions, it’s open to exploring context, examining repercussions and constant re-evaluation. Much likes the slippery slidey morals in certain holy books and resulting religions.
#2. If our reasoning takes us too close to something that sounds ‘spiritual’, we probably don’t understand what we’re talking about.
Wait! There’s no “context” or “examination” necessary for opinions! You can’t “re-evaluate” opinions!
It’s hard to swallow, isn’t it? We really want to believe that “right” is REALLY right, in certain contexts. But, it’s not:
But I appreciate your honesty with your second point. “If our reasoning takes us too close to something that sounds spiritual, we probably don’t understand what we’re talking about.” Wonderfully put. Thank you.
THAT is the Atheist bias.
*Edited to say: that quote is from Atheist philosopher Richard Taylor.
If you need to think there’s an invisible ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in every situation then I feel sorry for you. Christians, along with everyone else, give their opinions based on rights and wrong based on their understanding of what the positive and negatives affects of an action will be. The only difference is that some Christians defer to words written 1000s of years ago instead of logic and empathy. Or voices in their head, which is even more worrying.
Why would you want reasoning to go somewhere spiritual? Is that not a religious bias? I want reasoning to stay connected to things we recognise as fact.
No, you don’t feel sorry for me. That’s just what Atheists say to try and shame religious people, when they have lost a philosophical argument.
You believe there is an “invisible right/wrong,” too. Or else there would be nothing to “feel sorry” for me over.
You feel sorry for me why? Because the “right” thing to do is to pretend that morality really matters?
(See the issue?)
I do feel sorry for you. It’s empathy. I feel sorry for anyone who can’t process basic facts because indoctrination has got in the way. I worry for you that you need to appeal to something that doesn’t exist to judge if things are basically harmful or not.
It does exist. You appeal to it, too. (But you feel more comfortable calling your Objective Standard “empathy” than calling it “God.”)
Well, let’s think of an example. You can choose the situation – what guides your morals in it?
Logic and reasoning. (I believe you call it “over thinking.”)
I mean an example of when we use ‘morality’. A situation where your god guides you to right or wrong.
The same situations in which you appeal to “empathy.”
The only difference is: I ask where EMPATHY comes from and why that should be a better “standard” than any other.
But I’ve explained here that our sense of ‘morality’ isn’t limited to just basic empathy – it’s shaped by our culture, our experiences and by facts about the outcomes of our actions. That’s why we have tremendous shifts across cultures and time.
You seem to be struggling to decide whether you believe humans should have empathy or not.
You’re funny. I’m not sure where you get that. Empathy is one of the greatest tools we have at our disposal. But our toolbox has other bits in it too.
Empathy is a tool for WHAT?
What’s the goal?
Functioning in a society we enjoy living in and we feel comfortable leaving our offspring and other sentient beings to enjoy without us.
So, humans SHOULD have empathy (and several other tools as well), is that right?
It would be interesting (in a frightening way perhaps) to see how co-operative societies can function without empathy. Perhaps the logic of good relations and the benefits of living at peace with one another would bridge the gap. I don’t know. At this point in our development, the average person has empathy (or ’empty’ if you prefer 🙂 ) in their toolbox.
That didn’t answer my question. And you’re still trying to appeal to a goal.
Should people cooperate? Is that correct? SHOULD people leave the would “better”? Or is that just what they happen to do, usually, and are medicated if they don’t?
Is the majority understanding of morality actually what people OUGHT to do? Or would it be just as “right” if we lived in a Universe where selfishness and cowardice were popular?
You asked about empathy, not co-operation. I’m telling why it’s useful, logical to have both. You might phrase this as ‘should’ or you might argue that ‘should’ only exists if an invisible god thinks it right.
Correct. You cannot say “should” unless there is a moral law that exists apart from humans.
We don’t create it. We discover it. Otherwise it’s opinion.
“What is right is not always popular. What is popular is not always right.” Do you agree with that old saying?
It’s your opinion you’ve ‘discovered’ it, which is exactly the same thing.
“What is right is not always popular. What is popular is not always right.” – I agree, in that ‘right’ means “the best course of action” (meaning least harm)
But why can’t ‘right’ mean MOST harm? If it’s just opinion?
Do you enjoy going over old ground constantly or are you just asking a series of questions in the order you ask them to atheists regardless of what I answer? Just wondering.
‘Right’ doesn’t mean MOST harm because that would be counterproductive to us as a co-operative species that experiences empathy and has a vested interest in living in pleasant societies.
I’m going over old grind because you keep seeming to change your answer.
I don’t know how to help you understand the circular reasoning you keep using.
Apparently, you believe, “What is right is always reducing harm, and what is reducing harm is always right.” But, why should others agree with that standard? Why SHOULD they care about reducing harm?
Is it an objective moral law?
I think you don’t understand because you keep switching my understanding of your labels of things like ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ with your own understanding of them. In spite of the fact I’ve explained them fairly clearly.
My reasoning using more precise terminology that isn’t confusing for you might be more along the lines of “What is most productive in terms of pleasant living for ourselves and any offspring, being a species that typically exhibits empathy and benefits from co-operation, is choosing paths of least harm to others” Does that make it less circular for you? Try not to switch ‘right’ back in! 🙂
That’s fine.
But it’s an opinion.
You can’t explain why other people “should” have the same goals…
Look, I’m not getting any where here. Feel free to switch over to the newest post about mental illness, so that at least others can benefit from this conversation.
Yes, and if you do, it would be your opinion too. So there’s no difference between atheists and Christians on that one. The most important is explaining why you have an opinion on something and ensuring you have evidence/facts to back up your opinions.
“… I think simple things are often over-complicated by spending too long in a ponder.”
Are you going to tell her that’s a philosophy?
No.
I’m going to quote some more Atheist philosophers in a second.
I think that is the wrong approach.
…my philosophy.
I’m afraid it’s my bedtime. I tracked down Tildeb on another post and tried to direct him over here – I’ll see if Ark is interested too. Wouldn’t like to disappoint you with hanging threads …
I have a list of at least six questions Tildeb can’t answer–so he is giving me the silent treatment. (Seriously.)
Ark is already engaging with the newest post over here. Feel free to join in, when you wake up. We’re talking about mental illness.
Sounds interesting, will have a look if I get a chance tomorrow.
She tracked down Tildeb….
Now I understand what’s been happening here.
Tracked him down? How so?
Don’t know. She just ‘tracked him down on another post’.
Hopefully he can swoop in and ‘link’ everything to reality for us.
I see.
Well, first, he’ll need to stop sulking about being mistreated. 🙂
I can read and write.
John,
Let’s try this as a baseline, perhaps:
There is a physical, tangible reality that exists. Proof: I stubbed my toe on the corner of my desk. Both desk and toe were there. Trust me. Or don’t… you can certainly verify it by repeating the experiment with your own toe and desk.
There is an intangible, unphysical reality that exists Proof: I had a thought that I did not like the feeling of my toe being stubbed and the accompanying sensation of pain that came along with it. This can be verified without effort, once you conduct the above experiment.
Dave
Romans 10:17 (ESV) – So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
I am, because I have thoughts. (I think, therefore I am)
You cannot prove that you exist.
Sorry, Patrick. This too is a faith statement.
But even if I doubt that I exist, my doubts confirm I am a thing that doubts.
Doubt is only possible with thought. So you’re right back where you started.
And you can’t prove any of this to me.
I’m a de-convert now. I don’t hold a position that needs defending. I need undeniable proof before I will make a claim.
I also have seen that you, additionally, have to prove that you aren’t John Branyan or mrsmcmommy…
His existence is an inescapable existential reality. One cannot deny one’s existence, with affirming it at the same time. Like the philosophy student who asks his instructor, “How do I know that I exist?”
To which the instructor replies, “Whom shall I say is asking?”
It is a fact that, at one point in time, this comment space was empty.
I never saw it, though-that is a truthful statement.
I know that for certain because I was here during that time.
You are exercising faith when you make that statement.
So typical.
“I believe in order to understand.”
I believe you’re quoting Anselm! (But I can’t prove it.)
http://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1425156257i/13854968._SX540_.jpg
Fact I know for certain: the unbelievers in this thread are struggling with “empirical facts” already.
Cite your scientific evidence or this does not qualify as ‘knowledge’. You’re spewing faith again.
Oh, I didn’t know we needed to differentiate between “fact” and “knowledge.” (I’m not sure how to do that! And that’s a fact!) 🙂
Hmmm. You’re claiming that you’re uncertain about certainty. I’m inclined to believe you but without hard evidence, I’d just be taking your word for it.
Sorry. No more faith for me.
Yes–you’ll just have to take my word for it when I say: I find this “experiment” annoying already. 🙂
What do I know for certain? That trying to obtain certainty is mug’s game.
You will need to provide empirical evidence for this claim.
http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj531/TheCrimsonQuarterWit/grape%20ape%20approves%20this%20message_zpsdco2voox.jpg
A benevolent omniscient creator deity could not create a place of eternal suffering for most its creation.
This is a faith statement.
It’s a fact. An entity can’t be loving and torture people for being born in, for example, a jungle in Papua New Guinea. By their design.
Unless you can provide scientific data to support this statement it is NOT a fact. It is an opinion.
Okay, perhaps it’s only a fact for people with a developed sense of empathy.
Oops. That’s another opinion.
… according to another person with a partially developed sense of empathy. Don’t worry, it’s the cognitive dissonance that does it.
My, my.
I would say “it appears that violetwisp is getting irritable,” but I don’t have someone with a PhD to back up my observation.