Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You atheists have your gods...you people just aren't aware of it.
Whether it be football (watching a bunch of grown men play a game - if that isn't as meaningless as anything, I don't know what is), politics/politicians, "Mother" nature, money or whatever.
You have your gods, you just can't see it.
"You people...?"
That is one twisted bit of reasoning, which does nothing to advance your cause or argument (whatever it is). I don't like football anymore than you, but there are certainly many believers who DO love their games, engage in politics, enjoy nature, and pursue money. Sometimes all of the above. With regard to the latter, the number of atheists who live ostentatious lifestyles or have gained financially in ANY way... as a result of their lack of belief... pales in comparison to the number who have ridden their religious beliefs (or those of others) to financial independence.
If all those things listed are "gods," then every religious person in the world must worship multiple gods.
In order to live happily and "be good", we don't have to have one. But that doesn't rob the question of its importance. If there is an afterlife, then what we do has lasting significance. If not, then it will all come out the same no matter what. And lest anyone think that it's only those who believe in an afterlife that talk about this would-be significance, I've heard several atheists regard religious people as "wasting their lives" and I think this is relevant as well. After all, if the religious people are wasting their lives, so what? Will they regret doing so after they die? Will we be glad we didn't "waste our lives" after we die? No, on both counts.
Quote:
We fear death, therefore we invent an afterlife.
This seems to just smuggle in the claim that there isn't one. But I'm not seeing any good arguments in either direction here (the genetic fallacy wouldn't work, naturally).
In order to live happily and "be good", we don't have to have one.
True statement, or more specifically, we don't need an externally generated purpose. We can choose for ourselves what gives meaning to our lives. And as best I can tell this is exactly what happens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
But that doesn't rob the question of its importance. If there is an afterlife, then what we do has lasting significance. If not, then it will all come out the same no matter what.
This is only true for specific types of afterlife belief. I mean, for a universalist, it all comes out the same no matter what. Likewise, for a strict Calvinist, the life lived in between has little consequence in the afterlife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And lest anyone think that it's only those who believe in an afterlife that talk about this would-be significance, I've heard several atheists regard religious people as "wasting their lives" and I think this is relevant as well.
After all, if the religious people are wasting their lives, so what? Will they regret doing so after they die? Will we be glad we didn't "waste our lives" after we die? No, on both counts.
Honestly, wasting one's life is not an objective claim, it just means that the object of the phrase is not living up to the speaker's ideals about what is important. We all project onto ourselves and others what we value in life, and the idea of a wasted life is simply commentary about what we value.
True statement, or more specifically, we don't need an externally generated purpose. We can choose for ourselves what gives meaning to our lives. And as best I can tell this is exactly what happens
As best I can determine, "deciding for ourselves" is what a prosecutor might call a "lesser included" condition for the fulfillment of our purpose. If we do not have a reason to exist there is no inherent problem with defining morality subjectively by consensus. But that would be totally subject to caprice. Accidents without a reason to exist just engage in self-congratulatory egotism trying to define an objective morality.
Sam Harris asserts that our consciousness can assess objective morality as a series of peaks and valleys of human well-being in a moral landscape. But calling it morality implies that we have an objective purpose or reason to exist at all. Otherwise, what difference would the impact on human well-being make? With a purpose for human existence, we could determine what is moral by what is constructive to that purpose or what is immoral by what is destructive to that purpose. Otherwise, what's the point of pretending it is morality?
As best I can determine, "deciding for ourselves" is what a prosecutor might call a "lesser included" condition for the fulfillment of our purpose. If we do not have a reason to exist there is no inherent problem with defining morality subjectively by consensus. But that would be totally subject to caprice.
Nope, not subject to caprice, because it still has to have utility. It has to work for the individual's purposes at least. Any system is constrained by whether or not it actually serves a purpose and provides benefit. When members of a society evolve a consensus about what is right and wrong it is with an implicit end in mind, generally, a stable, safe, civil, respectful society that most people prefer to live in. In theory, random things can be agreed to, but if they don't serve the ends, then the means will necessarily change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Accidents without a reason to exist just engage in self-congratulatory egotism trying to define an objective morality.
Lack of bestowed external purpose does not equate to an accident. Also ... speaking only for myself, I don't seek to define an objective morality. Just a workable one. There is no total objectivity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Sam Harris asserts that our consciousness can assess objective morality as a series of peaks and valleys of human well-being in a moral landscape. But calling it morality implies that we have an objective purpose or reason to exist at all. Otherwise, what difference would the impact on human well-being make? With a purpose for human existence, we could determine what is moral by what is constructive to that purpose or what is immoral by what is destructive to that purpose. Otherwise, what's the point of pretending it is morality?
You've just answered your own rhetorical questions. As a society we collectively decide we want civility, stability, and peace, and we judge outcomes by whether they achieve those ends or not. Of course, the definitions of civility, stability, and peace are not 100% agreed upon and "objective" but they are universal enough to get the job done.
As best I can determine, "deciding for ourselves" is what a prosecutor might call a "lesser included" condition for the fulfillment of our purpose. If we do not have a reason to exist there is no inherent problem with defining morality subjectively by consensus. But that would be totally subject to caprice. Accidents without a reason to exist just engage in self-congratulatory egotism trying to define an objective morality.
Sam Harris asserts that our consciousness can assess objective morality as a series of peaks and valleys of human well-being in a moral landscape. But calling it morality implies that we have an objective purpose or reason to exist at all. Otherwise, what difference would the impact on human well-being make? With a purpose for human existence, we could determine what is moral by what is constructive to that purpose or what is immoral by what is destructive to that purpose. Otherwise, what's the point of pretending it is morality?
I’m pretty skeptical of an objective morality. It appears to me morality is an inherently social construct that only exists when there is more than one moral actor. My hunch is that the closest we can come to objective morality is that some of our moral principles, like empathy or the idea of fairness are inherent to our biology, but that apparent objectivity only extends as far as those biological commonalities.
I don’t see that we need some cosmic purpose to have morality, and I am unconvinced that purpose in and of itself can result in some useful or desirable morality. For example, based on a strict Calvinist interpretation of purpose, my ultimate purpose is to writhe in agony eternally for the offense against God of existing. I have no choice in the matter, and am incapable of doing anything to change that purpose. Clearly that gives me no useful foundation for an objective morality, so purpose in and of itself is not a necessary ingredient.
-NoCapo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
