Atheists: does God exist?

[EconGuy]

Here is a simple moral precept.

Any ethical directive based on a false factual statement is wrong. In other words, descriptive statements cannot confirm prescriptive statements, but can disprove them. Ethical directives based on claims of fact that are not known to be false, but that lack sufficient evidentiary support, should be withheld until that claim is either decisively confirmed or decisively refuted.

Of course, the problem is one of knowledge. But the fact remains that our understanding of morality always improves over time. Whether people choose to embrace it, is a different problem.

Here it is in a syllogism:

Major Premise: Knowingly issuing ethical directives based on false statements is wrong.

Minor Premise: A religious leader declares that eating shellfish leads to immoral behavior, despite no evidence supporting this claim.

Conclusion: Therefore, the religious leader's declaration is wrong.

 

[Tomef]

animals eat each other alive - how in the world could they have a sense of justice and compassion

Clutching at straws there.

If you want to learn about these things, you can. All of the resources are available to you. Trying to make sense of it within the limited frame of reference of religious belief is impossible.

 

[EconGuy]

animals eat each other alive - how in the world could they have a sense of justice and compassion

Just my .02

Humans, despite possessing full awareness of the consequences of their actions (or lack of), are known to hurt each other, not because they're hungry, like an animal, but because inflicting pain is the point. Have you ever read the number of grotesque ways that humans have invented to make other humans suffer? If the only reason that humans killed each other was because they were hungry, seems that would be a big improvment over what humans do to each other right now.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You're joking? You need an experiment to tell you the capacity for morality of a monkey, or a tiger, or a fish, or a bumble bee???

Well we learn a lot from such, but do you think this is normal behaviour in a non-human species or not, and if so what drives it? The experiment is a little artificial - giving out food rewards for whatever behaviour - but the result is usually not as per what we see here. And perhaps hints at this species, or individual, having some notion of right and wrong, or unfairness, when another was given some treat and this monkey wasn't - for the same actions. Just as small children might do so too.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Man should hate the conventions and constructs of the world, as we understand who the god of this world is. Man's hope and joy is in the reconstruction of all things.

Fine if you have such beliefs, but I don't see such as having the slightest benefit for humankind - especially when this might depend upon there being some God, and as to which you think you know but really you don't. So you might just be espousing a doctrine that really harms others - in its negativity - when it isn't really based on factual evidence.

Dylan was probably more influential - had an appeal to a wider audience. Not because he was a better artist, I believe, but that his music did not go to extremes and marginalize part of his listenership. Stones were more one-sided rock/blues

Dylan was a voice for the times. I saw him live in 1965 and 1966 - the famous one where 'Judas' was shouted out - and bought all his early records after seeing him the first time.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Wisdom determines morality - one's moral system can be proven to be more efficacious than another's.
You've been left behind - still can't get past primitive studies, while all the evidence as to what is actually occurring on earth, as far as man's motives are concerned, is eluding you.
You keep staring at the finger, and not to what it is pointing at.

Hardly. I am just relating as to how and where it is likely that our morality originated - in social groups - and as to this, many non-human species doing this too. And hence why it is less likely for morality to be some objective thing, even if our morality these days does tend towards convergence - give or take a few religious beliefs that are still strays as to behaving themselves.

 

[DNB]

I say that I am much more inclined to follow the evidence.
The evidence I presented strongly indicate you are just plain flat out wrong.
That you hand wave it away reveals much about your zealotry.

Since your posts strongly indicate you are not here for honest discourse....

only humans mourn the dead, and have an innate moral cognizance.
you have one story, of one species of animal, in one area of the world, with their behaviour stipulated to be speculation???
..and you have the utter audacity and oblivion to claim that you follow the evidence.
You're not qualified to speak of one's zeal or sincerity, like seriously.

 

[DNB]

I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that our sense of morality is fascinating. However, I think it's important to consider that values (where humans are the valuer doing the valuing) come first, providing the framework for us to judge actions as being right or wrong. You could resort to special pleading) by claiming that god is the objective source of morality while ignoring that his proclamations are, subjective in that god is the subject when considering the subject-object relationship.

Think of it like this: imagine trying to create a system of measurement without knowing what you want to measure. The purpose of the measurement – whether it's length, weight, or temperature – determines the kind of system we develop. Similarly, our values about well-being, fairness, or compassion shape our moral judgments. To say that they exist independent of human valuing is to run into the rather uncomfortable fact that, if that's true, a god could proclaim anything, even rape, to be moral and you'd have to admit that it is because you appear to believe that human values should be shaped by gods arbitrary commands, what you'd call morality, rather than admitting that morals are the result of experience, reason, awareness, empathy modified by social, cultural and ecological environment.

The idea of morality existing outside of human values and concerns seems problematic. If morality is disconnected from what we seek to achieve or avoid, then it becomes arbitrary. That could justify any action, no matter how harmful.

Social systems like standardized systems of measurement (as one example) work because we all agree on the underlying values of accuracy and fairness in exchange. When someone cheats that system, we recognize it as wrong because it undermines those shared values. We don't need an objective set of measurement for society to come to a majority consensus, despite the fact that virtually everyone would be better off if they cheated the system.

I think this highlights how morality stems from our needs, desires, and our understanding of how to thrive as individuals and within a society. This doesn't diminish the importance of morality, but suggests its origins are rooted in our human experience rather than solely in a divine source.

Wisdom defines morality - it doesn't change depending on the environment, nor the circumstances.
Wickedness can never be justified with any form of logic, and holiness always remains holy no matter what one's perspective or experiences are.
Wisdom will always settle the dispute - something that no non-human has.

 

[DNB]

Clutching at straws there.

If you want to learn about these things, you can. All of the resources are available to you. Trying to make sense of it within the limited frame of reference of religious belief is impossible.

You're not qualified to offer advice on the matter.

 

[DNB]

Just my .02

Humans, despite possessing full awareness of the consequences of their actions (or lack of), are known to hurt each other, not because they're hungry, like an animal, but because inflicting pain is the point. Have you ever read the number of grotesque ways that humans have invented to make other humans suffer? If the only reason that humans killed each other was because they were hungry, seems that would be a big improvment over what humans do to each other right now.

that's entirely my point - only man knows right from wrong, and can act in either a moral or immoral manner. Animals re not judged for their morality - they don't have the capacity to know the difference. Only humans do, and again, this is why we are either approved of, or indicted accordingly.
You just made a judgment call on human behaviour; can a horse do the same thing, or a mosquito or tadpole?
Every culture and society in history have had their gods, name me one non-human that has done the same - they don't have a spiritual dimension or faculties.

 

[DNB]

Well we learn a lot from such, but do you think this is normal behaviour in a non-human species or not, and if so what drives it? The experiment is a little artificial - giving out food rewards for whatever behaviour - but the result is usually not as per what we see here. And perhaps hints at this species, or individual, having some notion of right and wrong, or unfairness, when another was given some treat and this monkey wasn't - for the same actions. Just as small children might do so too.

How old are you (rhetorical) - you have not observed the animal kingdom enough at this point in your life, that one contrived and staged experiment makes you believe in the moral integrity of monkeys????

Again, they kill and eat each other alive for crying out loud. Plus, if the experiment were valid, the other monkey would have protested the injustice, feeling compassion for the less fortunate. That would be the true test of altruism and justice.

How in the world do you people buy into this idiotic nonsense.

 

[DNB]

Fine if you have such beliefs, but I don't see such as having the slightest benefit for humankind - especially when this might depend upon there being some God, and as to which you think you know but really you don't. So you might just be espousing a doctrine that really harms others - in its negativity - when it isn't really based on factual evidence.

How in the world can you say 'not based on evidence'? What the heck do you think that I formed my opinion based on.

Dylan was a voice for the times. I saw him live in 1965 and 1966 - the famous one where 'Judas' was shouted out - and bought all his early records after seeing him the first time.

His poetry made him a spokesman, so yes, he was definitely the voice of that era.
You saw an infamous show - what was the 'Judas' reference: when he went electric?

 

[DNB]

Hardly. I am just relating as to how and where it is likely that our morality originated - in social groups - and as to this, many non-human species doing this too. And hence why it is less likely for morality to be some objective thing, even if our morality these days does tend towards convergence - give or take a few religious beliefs that are still strays as to behaving themselves.

Morality can be justified with logic, and not only pragmatism - turning the other cheek is only practical on a spiritual level.
Lying is always wrong, even if it is done to save a life - concessions are made as far as offering clemency to the crime, but it's never promoted. The rule is, avoid all situations that got you in the position where you had to lie - one who can't tell the truth, can't handle the truth - wisdom defines morality.
Two wrongs, do not make a right - wisdom.
Sexual perversions destroy character - you'll never meet a promiscuous woman that one could call a lady, or a player that acts like a gentleman.
You'll never meet a confident thief - they don't even trust themselves, they know that they should not be liked by anyone because their intent is wrong.
etc....

 

[Tomef]

You're not qualified to offer advice on the matter.

Thems just the facts.

 

[McBell]

only humans mourn the dead, and have an innate moral cognizance.

Reality shows otherwise.

Now since you have so thoroughly demonstrated you are not here for honest discourse, I shall bid you ado.

Have a nice day.

 

[blü 2]

Since the question has been posed to theists, I figured another thread for everyone else might be illuminating.

So... what do you think, atheists? Does God exist?

Plainly fictitious and supernatural beings exist in the form of concepts, things imagined.

But that aside, there's no definition of "God" appropriate to a being with objective existence, so until that problem is addressed, when it comes to reality the question is meaningless.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Morality can be justified with logic, and not only pragmatism - turning the other cheek is only practical on a spiritual level.
Lying is always wrong, even if it is done to save a life - concessions are made as far as offering clemency to the crime, but it's never promoted. The rule is, avoid all situations that got you in the position where you had to lie - one who can't tell the truth, can't handle the truth - wisdom defines morality.
Two wrongs, do not make a right - wisdom.
Sexual perversions destroy character - you'll never meet a promiscuous woman that one could call a lady, or a player that acts like a gentleman.
You'll never meet a confident thief - they don't even trust themselves, they know that they should not be liked by anyone because their intent is wrong.
etc....

I'm not going to go into morality as to what such could or should be but as to its origins - which one will either accept or not. And this is then based upon accepting human origins and our relationship to all other life. No agreements on these then not much to talk about.

 

[Mock Turtle]

How in the world can you say 'not based on evidence'? What the heck do you think that I formed my opinion based on.

Presumably a religious text, and if you think this is substantial evidence then I would differ - given the provenance of virtually all such texts would not qualify them as being such in any court of law - in not knowing who wrote what.

His poetry made him a spokesman, so yes, he was definitely the voice of that era.
You saw an infamous show - what was the 'Judas' reference: when he went electric?

Yes, and it was rumoured that this would happen from an earlier performance. So when the Band appeared alongside him in the second half it got a bit unruly - this being at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester, and where the concert was recorded as a bootleg double CD (Bob Dylan Live 1966), and which I have. Presumably the chap called out 'Judas' because he thought Dylan had betrayed his roots by having an electric backing group. He replied to the call - 'Play it Loud', to the Band.

 

[Mock Turtle]

How old are you (rhetorical) - you have not observed the animal kingdom enough at this point in your life, that one contrived and staged experiment makes you believe in the moral integrity of monkeys????

This was one obvious example and others have been posted - like an adult admonishing a younger chimp or monkey. No one is suggesting that non-humans have some worked out system of morality but many do seem to show the beginnings of such, and mostly coming from the social groupings that appear quite common in any advanced species. Just as cooperation in hunting is a sign of this - join with us and get a share of the hunt.

Again, they kill and eat each other alive for crying out loud. Plus, if the experiment were valid, the other monkey would have protested the injustice, feeling compassion for the less fortunate. That would be the true test of altruism and justice.

How is this different from bombing civilians, as to beastliness? As mentioned above, they seem to have the beginnings of morality, not some full system, and which would accord with their place in evolution compared with humans.

How in the world do you people buy into this idiotic nonsense.

Look impartially at the evidence rather than taking some preconceived belief along with one when the evidence presents itself?

 

[LuisDantas]

Since the question has been posed to theists, I figured another thread for everyone else might be illuminating.

So... what do you think, atheists? Does God exist?

I may be missing some nuance here.

No, of course gods do not exist - except as a wide (or even wild) variety of concepts that don't really convince and definitely do not converge.

The most worthy among them are almost without any exception those that are not presented as something to believe in.