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.
Nozzferrahhyoo, I thank you and others for telling theists that they err! Carneades' atelic argument notes that all teleological arguments- fine-tuning- probability, to design and from reason - beg the question of divinely directed outcomes. My teleonomic argues that science finds no such outcomes, thereby ruling God out as that Grand Designer, Creator and all referents that use divine intent! The puddle argument also refutes this silly argument. Putative God had no input to have us evolve; instead nature as noted, evolved us. Theists get the fact backwards: Nature produced us, not we were desired, so that nature would produce us. Thus, the fine-tuning argument fails and also because no fine-tuning came about anyway! That also begs the question! Were the parameters different, perhaps no form of life could have evolved. Thus, theists would have to admit that was what their God desired! So much for their silliness! " Logic is the bane of theists." Fr. Griggs By the way, we would not be His property- His "things" to which He would give purpose! What a vicious blasphemy upon humanity! We would owe Him nothing, and He'd have no rights over us at all, never to judge or punish us! This gnu atheist goes to the heart of theism with a dagger, and to Christ=insanity in denouncing Yeshua as a moral leper!
Last edited by Miss Blue; 01-29-2013 at 10:40 AM..
Reason: red font is reserved for moderation. Any other color is allowed
how can you judge someone as a moral leper, if there is no morality in atheism ?!!
By their supposed own standards as in their own book and of course by our own universal human morality, which atheists have equally as much as theists - perhaps more so as we think hard about what's right instead of assuming that faith gives them the answers without effort.
Succinctly. the premise 'if there is no morality in atheism' is a false one.
Are actions morally good because god favors them or does god favor them because they are morally good? This is an old question and was asked by Socrates and Plato. If you take the second position, then moral good is independent of god and his existence.
Think, if one takes the first position, then anything god commands is morally good, so if God commanded you to kill your child (as he did in the Bible when he commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac), then that sacrifice would be considered morally good. If god commanded you to torture those who do not share your beliefs, then that would be morally good. However, if these things are morally wrong independent of god's commands, the atheist can see this just as well as the theist.
You do not give up morality by giving up god, nor do you find morality by believing in god.
The ability to see the moral dimension of actions has nothing at all to do with religion. In fact, to the athiest, human choices are highly significant because it is by those choices that we must live. If we make poor choices, there is no one to forgive them. If we make poor choices, we must live with the human consequences even if there is no automatic punishment.
We atheists must live the best life we can in the here and now rather than depending on god to punish or forgive.
I would say that the traditional conception of God as portrayed in Western religions is so logically and empirically absurd that we might as well say that such a being is impossible. However, regarding more liberal conceptions of God (the general notions of an Intelligent Creator or a Cosmic Intelligence), I think it would be a mistake to say that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I do not believe in an ID, but I think it is unwise to jump to an adamant denial of the possibility of some sort of Cosmic Consciousness or Higher Intelligence. Science does not even address some of the underlying metaphysical issues that are fundamental to these beliefs, so it is simply a mistake to claim that science has somehow disproved these general notions. Science has given us incredibly good reasons for thinking that we simply don't need the "God hypothesis" because we now have powerful conceptual tools to explain the origins of order in the natural world, but science continues to be utterly silent on the origins and nature of qualitative consciousness (the "hard problem" in philosophy of mind). I am fully aware of the claims of some philosophers (Daniel Dennett, Paul & Patricia Churchland, etc.) that qualia don't exist, that questions of mind are pseud-problems, etc., but I think these folks are simply refusing to confront the genuine mysteries underlying the nature of conscious experience. Among the philosophers and scientist who do accept the challenge of explaining consciousness, there is virtually unanimous agreement that the hard problem is not solved. There are strong arguments for saying that qualia - or some qualitative aspects of reality - may be fundamental. If this is the case, then the door is left open for some sort of "cosmic consciousness." I highly doubt that this consciousness is "all knowing" etc. - It would be a source of intelligence and consciousness, not necessarily intelligent or conscious, as such.
We don't need a traditional Creator/God to explain the origins or nature of morality, but it is still possible that that the roots of morality might ultimately rest in the fundamentally qualitative grounds of Reality. This would not imply that all moral issues have absolute right/wrong answers, but it would suggest that some general moral percepts could stem from the nature of consciousness itself. Thus, just as we don't need God to explain the origins of order in the natural world, we would not need God to explain the origins of morality, even if some aspects of morality turn out to be "absolute." Nevertheless, we might need to develop models that somehow incorporate fundamental qualitative aspects of reality before we can explain the origins of consciousness and morality. (And, as an aside, I would point out that Sam Harris argues for the absolute nature of morality in his book The Moral Landscape.)
so if they do not keep their own standards, why should that be bad ?
Because the relevant book that supposedly sets out the moral code consistently slags off hypocrisy.
Quote:
why do they have one, rather than not having one ?
They (We are talking about those who derive their morals from the Bible) may say that they get their morals from what God says, but in fact they don't. Paul says as much - he knows that morality is 'engraved on our hearts'. In a way it is,but in a mixture on nature and nurture. Instinct and instruction. Evolution and education.
Quote:
why do they have one ?
Because we have evolved social structures as have all animal species. That we can think about it means that we don't just go by instinct; we can think in terms or compassion and reciprocity. If this is hard to comprehend, think of language,music and art. Whatever instincts led us to want to jab sticks in a bit of clay to record how many skins I promised, or how we enacted the hunt to the accompaniment of twanging bowstrings or left a handprint in red ochre on a rock,the complex elaborate and similar though often different (and therefore not god -given) art forms have been developed by us and are no less valid and meaningful for that.
Quote:
how can you define what is right, what is not ?
we all grow up wanting things instinctively. To give people the things they want without messing up the other people who want other things,that is right. To mess other people up- unless to prevent them being unreasonable about the way they treat others is wrong. This is the golden rule and it is quite simple and makes more sense that 'God says so'.
Quote:
why is that relevant ?
What was that?.....ah that working out a moral concensus is better than than just getting the answers out of the air. Basically because the answers you are going to get through inspiration are going to be the ones that suit you backed upby divine authority - which means you won't need to consider the other person's feelings. That's the relevance.
Quote:
i am still all ears to know why there is one......
For the same reason there is one in religious societies - we just don't fool ourselves that it's handed down by an invisible being.
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.
For the same reason there is one in religious societies - we just don't fool ourselves that it's handed down by an invisible being.
