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.
We all have a "moral obligation" to prevent, mitigate, lessen wrong-doing, whatever that wrong-doing may be. For all of us to judge as we will, also with respect to what we should do to combat wrong-doing. The options are many. There are physical acts to prevent wrong-doing. Many forms of communication (that may or may not work as well as we would like). Setting a better example. Teaching our children right from wrong (and anyone else who might need such teaching). Or simply doing nothing to promote or support wrong-doing.
What is appropriate is another judgement call that defies any simple rule of thumb, but I don't think it's too hard to recognize wrong-doing when we see it and/or what to do about it. That said, we've also got to recognize the many people who don't feel any such obligation for whatever their reasons, and how some people think their thinking is right that others will consider wrong. So we are simply left to judge as we will and for those of us who do feel an obligation to counter wrong-doing, we judge and do the best we can, one day at a time.
One atheist's opinion anyway...
Your are persuasive. So is a politician who can sell messages to the dead.
Your two paragraphs above essentially constitute an unearthly eulogy to atheists, human beings who have given up their immaterial essence and departed from the non-physical realm of morality. You are like a the Pumpkin King speaking to the cadavers of Halloween Town in the fantasy movie "Nightmare Before Christmas". And the corpses applaud you.
Morality cannot exist in the world of science, the atheist's netherworld.
Your are persuasive. So is a politician who can sell messages to the dead.
Your two paragraphs above essentially constitute an unearthly eulogy to atheists, human beings who have given up their immaterial essence and departed from the non-physical realm of morality. You are like a the Pumpkin King speaking to the cadavers of Halloween Town in the fantasy movie "Nightmare Before Christmas". And the corpses applaud you.
Morality cannot exist in the world of science, the atheist's netherworld.
I enjoy your creative use of words.
I agree with the Nietzsche-esque sentiments you're eluding to. I also thought LearnMe's comment was a good one. He is genuinely engaging in the topic of the thread, and he nicely summed up his perspective. Thanks LearnMe.
Your are persuasive. So is a politician who can sell messages to the dead.
Your two paragraphs above essentially constitute an unearthly eulogy to atheists, human beings who have given up their immaterial essence and departed from the non-physical realm of morality. You are like a the Pumpkin King speaking to the cadavers of Halloween Town in the fantasy movie "Nightmare Before Christmas". And the corpses applaud you.
Morality cannot exist in the world of science, the atheist's netherworld.
Your are persuasive. So is a politician who can sell messages to the dead.
Your two paragraphs above essentially constitute an unearthly eulogy to atheists, human beings who have given up their immaterial essence and departed from the non-physical realm of morality. You are like a the Pumpkin King speaking to the cadavers of Halloween Town in the fantasy movie "Nightmare Before Christmas". And the corpses applaud you.
Morality cannot exist in the world of science, the atheist's netherworld.
Morality is entirely a concept of consciousness so consciousness is its only conceivable source. In my beliefs, since Reality itself is established by the consciousness of God (unified spacetime field), morality only has meaning in the consciousness of God. But since our consciousness is derivative of God's we also have jurisdiction over the concept. Since consciousness is inescapably subjective, there can be no objective morality. But since atheists have consciousness, they can have morality and be subject to its obligations.
Morality is entirely a concept of consciousness so consciousness is its only conceivable source. In my beliefs, since Reality itself is established by the consciousness of God (unified spacetime field), morality only has meaning in the consciousness of God. But since our consciousness is derivative of God's we also have jurisdiction over the concept. Since consciousness is inescapably subjective, there can be no objective morality. But since atheists have consciousness, they can have morality and be subject to its obligations.
Good analysis! I would leave God out of the discussion because my argument, in the way you have tracked it out, is substantial enough in itself to deny the atheist's objective access to subjective morality.
The Hard problem of Consciousness is testimony to man's inability to pin down the true nature of the world in which he inhabits. While the atheist posters in our forum are dead sure of themselves, the experts in academia are still fiddling with their assumptions in the struggle to patch holes in their hypotheses.
The atheist can have morality but only on the condition that they believe consciousness did not come out of the physical brain.
Your are persuasive. So is a politician who can sell messages to the dead.
Your two paragraphs above essentially constitute an unearthly eulogy to atheists, human beings who have given up their immaterial essence and departed from the non-physical realm of morality. You are like a the Pumpkin King speaking to the cadavers of Halloween Town in the fantasy movie "Nightmare Before Christmas". And the corpses applaud you.
Morality cannot exist in the world of science, the atheist's netherworld.
Instead of the ad hominem and assertion, why do you not provide evince or a rational argument for your blah blah blah?
Good analysis! I would leave God out of the discussion because my argument, in the way you have tracked it out, is substantial enough in itself to deny the atheist's objective access to subjective morality.
More blah blah blah based on what Mystic admits is a belief. And if you are leaving God out of it, your are arguing 'morality only has meaning in the consciousness'. And if consciousness (and therefore morality) is a product of the brain, you have just refuted own position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sree251
The Hard problem of Consciousness is testimony to man's inability to pin down the true nature of the world in which he inhabits. While the atheist posters in our forum are dead sure of themselves, the experts in academia are still fiddling with their assumptions in the struggle to patch holes in their hypotheses.
A god of the gaps and poison well fallacy. Your blah blah blah also does not explain the hard problem, and some experts in academia recognize the hard problem is just our ignorance. All you are doing is attacking what you do not understand without applying the same problems to your position. You too can not explain the hard problem of consciousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sree251
The atheist can have morality but only on the condition that they believe consciousness did not come out of the physical brain.
A non sequitur, and the experts in academia you are suddenly ignoring argue consciousness (and therefore morality) is a product of the physical brain.
One of the services I offer is data analysis using back propagation networks, artificial intelligence systems modeled on how the human brain works, and we can replicate aspects of consciousness using strings of numbers to represent neural firing. And if we can model aspects of consciousness using a computer, why should the whole of consciousness (and therefore morality) not be a product of actual neurons firing?
And not only do we have evidence from AI, we have biological evidence from octopuses and synesthesia for neural consciousness.
Your are persuasive. So is a politician who can sell messages to the dead.
Your two paragraphs above essentially constitute an unearthly eulogy to atheists, human beings who have given up their immaterial essence and departed from the non-physical realm of morality. You are like a the Pumpkin King speaking to the cadavers of Halloween Town in the fantasy movie "Nightmare Before Christmas". And the corpses applaud you.
Morality cannot exist in the world of science, the atheist's netherworld.
Your use of words is remarkable too, but the argument is more deceptive than any politician's. It is mere;ly waving away any argument and insisting that morality cannot exist in terms of just 'science'. In fact it will, in fact I say it already does, get best explained in terms of science.
Good analysis! I would leave God out of the discussion because my argument, in the way you have tracked it out, is substantial enough in itself to deny the atheist's objective access to subjective morality.
The Hard problem of Consciousness is testimony to man's inability to pin down the true nature of the world in which he inhabits. While the atheist posters in our forum are dead sure of themselves, the experts in academia are still fiddling with their assumptions in the struggle to patch holes in their hypotheses.
The atheist can have morality but only on the condition that they believe consciousness did not come out of the physical brain.
Your post is dressed -up denial, plus strawman accusation of atheists. You seem to have got mixed up in your last para. or rather you are trying to force 'no morality if it only comes from the human mind' when in fact it makes more sense and fits the evidence better if it comes from the human mind.
It's something of anti -atheist (since you seem to think that avoiding use of the word 'god' is somehow making your arguments look better ) tactic that I should have noted before - to take what is little more that 'No. You are wrong it's like this' and dress it ip in a load of poetic or sciencey -sounding persiflage to make it sound Authoritative. Mystic will know I have a term for that: 'Bamboozlement'.
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.
) tactic that I should have noted before - to take what is little more that 'No. You are wrong it's like this' and dress it ip in a load of poetic or sciencey -sounding persiflage to make it sound Authoritative. Mystic will know I have a term for that: 'Bamboozlement'.
