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.
Please provide evidence that morality exists in the "deist world."
Though as far as I know, atheists and theists share one world, so please also provide evidence there is some kind of separation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
However you want to put it, you can't get around it.
Belief in the existence of God and religious morality is based on faith. There is no physical and tangible evidence. If there was one, we wouldn't have a choice, and everyone would be a believer.
The question then is, what is the definition of religious faith? And this is where the cat catches your tongue.
Meriam Webster Faith: A firm belief in something for which there is no proof
If there is a physical, tangible and scientific evidence of an entity to exist, then one is not using faith to believe that it exists. There is no need to use faith in this situation.
Why didn't you simply answer the question the steiconi asked? What's the difference between an "Atheist world" and a "Deist world?"
Saying religion is based on faith doesn't address the question asked.
Since the moral code of an Atheist is a personal subjective code, it is easy to provide evidence. All the Atheist has to do is quote his or her own beliefs and say they are proof of morality.
The problem lies in the fact that one Atheist may believe in abortion upon demand, another may not agree under any circumstances, while a third might want to limit it to a set number of weeks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Good!
I stated the same in slightly different terms when I stated that logic is dynamic. It may vary from person to person or group to group
So how do we attempt to resolve this problem?
We tend to go with the majority.
Out of 350 million Americans if 200 million believe that abortion is logically immoral then a voting may result in legislation where we are going to say, you are right - abortion is morally wrong - so we will ban it.
Whether abortion is immoral or moral? There is no physical tangible evidence to prove it either way. So resort to logical assertions - and go with the majority.
You both already know, from reading the Religion and Spirituality forum rules, that abortion is a topic that we absolutely DO NOT discuss. For several reasons, it is not permitted, as it belongs in the Politics forum.
Belief in the existence of God and religious morality is based on faith. There is no physical and tangible evidence.
239 posts and we finally get to the point, feeble as it is. The problem is, obviously, that existence of man-made concepts and the existence of a Supreme Being are claims to be tested in different ways.
But thats exactly why it is pointless when atheists say the very same thing about God and demand physical evidence for divinity. Yes pointless
Pretty much any evidence would do. If lots of people making the claim that a Supreme Being exists, it is a fine argument for the existence of faith. No more.
3 pages, and not a single straight and simple answer. And almost all of our Atheist residents are hopeless trying to drag religion in it.
Let’s step back
Take the religion OUT of it. In the OP, we are NOT talking about religion, God and Faith in the OP.
In the OP, we are also NOT talking about HOW your moral code was sourced.
Let me add a couple of words in upper case to make it a little easy.
Lets re-read the OP - very slowly this time.
You obviously didn't read my response.
I said, clearly, "yes." That morality is part of being human, that there are universal truths about such things. I imagine it was necessary in prehistoric times (just as I imagine it is among gorilla troops), to keep the peace, keep the group together, provide a healthy environment for the group's babies, etc. Nothing to do with worship of a higher being, whether it be the many gods of the sky and earth or the one God or Allah or Jesus that is prevalent now.
If you notice, in this post I also include gorillas (and by implication other primates). It is necessary to keep a group together and protect its members. In a gorilla troop, if the King Gorilla behaves abhorently toward the others in the group, particularly is he's mean and physically abusive or doesn't adhere to the code of behavior, a younger male will challenge the King, and the females will support him. The group effectively chooses a better leader. If that doesn't work, the females will work together and leave, taking their babies with them, leaving the abusive or immoral King without a group.
But that's not to say that among higher animals, particularly humans, that they all agree on what is moral or immoral. Even among the religious, that varies, as does the punishment for immorality. In some groups it is moral to have sex with a child of a certain age, while in others it's immoral.
Harry, could you please give an example of morality being objective? The only thing I can think of is to respect the autonomy of a living creature.
Personally, I don't separate objective and subjective from those who can perceive through the senses. Objectiveness is what has the potential to be sensed. Subjectiveness is what we call it when we sense it.
Then you are using the terms in a different way to me. For me, a subjective morality is one where you choose what you believe to be moral. An objective morality is one that is true for everyone, whether someone disagrees with it or not. However, because morality is more complex than people think, there is no objective rule that I can think of, only objective principles based on what morality is, and why people are usually moral.
So your argument to respect the autonomy of a living creature is objectively true in principle, but there will be exceptions. It would be even more true for the autonomy of people, as our morality is a human concept that allows us to live in groups.
Because happiness we can observe and a god we can not are the same.
Happiness is a state of mind (ergo Spirit) and is NOT directly observable. Its indirect effects on the person are. God is Spirit, guess what, Harry???
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.
