Atheists: does God exist?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And only a spiritual entity, as opposed to stardust and protoplasm, could've have created us with such a disposition in regard to morality - man is created in God's image.

That's a religious belief you were told and have believed by faith. There is no reason to believe it, which is relevant to those who need a reason to believe something more than just the willingness to believe uncritically. Such beliefs are unexamined, which are the shallowest of beliefs.

We were created by nature. Man created the idea of gods, not the other way around.

Man should hate the conventions and constructs of the world

Some have been very beneficial to man, like democracy and the scientific method.

Besides gods, man has created organized, politicized religion, which has had the opposite effect. It acts like an anchor retarding progress and is seen increasingly as mean-spirited and irrelevant to modern life. That is a convention we will be better off without.

You've been left behind

He's a humanist. You espouse a millennia-old worldview and moral set. It's you that's been left behind.

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

You have no special knowledge, just an ancient religion which as I noted is becoming increasingly irrelevant in modern society. The zealots, bigots, and anti-intellectuals are increasingly becoming marginalized as they once marginalized the atheists, whose star is on the rise. Think about the roles the religious zealot and the atheist played a century or more ago. They've been reversed. The atheist is no longer isolated or seen as the immoral one. That's the role the zealot plays now.

Look at what's becoming of the American church in the wake of its misogynistic, theocratic incursions into secular government. It's despised for that by tens of millions. This is as bad for organized religion as the Catholic church pedophile coverup, and televangelists repeatedly being exposed as hypocrites.

A hundred years ago - the days of the Scopes trial - somebody like me would be playing the role of outlier in a discussion like this one. I'd be the one seen as out of step and I'd be rebuked for it. Today, it's the religious zealot who plays that role and who is treated like that.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

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.

The "What are you listening to?" thread- Part 4

 

[Quester]

If you look at religious history from the time writing began, polytheism was the belief. It wasn't until the mid-1300s BC when one person, Akhenaten, took polytheism, threw it out the window, and said the SUN was GOD. From here (and dating is not possible because all the original texts are gone) it went via an "experience" to Zarathustra and became the Zoroastrian religion. During the exile, the Hebrew people lived with the Zoroastrians, and when they returned home they took this information with them, along with the Zoroastrian end times story, rewrote it, developed a NEW God, changed the Saoshyant into the Messiah, and this information has traveled all the way to today.

So, do I believe there's a GOD? History says no. And as far as polytheism goes, I can explain that, but it's a picture that traces back 15,000 years, no writing, and would be impossible to prove.

 

[EconGuy]

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.

Interesting. You keep saying this, so let's explore it....

What is wisdom in this context?

• Knowledge and Experience: Wisdom builds on factual knowledge and the lessons learned through life experiences.
• Self-Awareness: Understanding one's own strengths, weaknesses, biases, and motivations.
• Perspective-Taking: The ability to view situations from multiple angles, including those of others.
• Open-Mindedness: A willingness to consider new ideas and challenge one's own beliefs.
• Intellectual Humility: Recognizing the limits of one's knowledge and the potential for being wrong.
• Managing Uncertainty: Navigating ambiguity and making decisions despite incomplete information.

I would very much agree that morality is the result of a process of learning though experience and builds on our evolving understanding knowledge and results in a more refined idea of what we call moral or immoral. However, this is counter intuitive to the idea of an objective morality, as an objective morality is one whose precepts exist independent of human experience. Otherwise, we'd call that subjective as humans are subjects using their experience and knowledge to derive outcomes based on what they value, for example the desire to co-exist in a flourishing society and be happy, healthy and have a state of well-being. Since or experiences are subjective and wisdom applied would by definition be subjective.

Environment very much has an effect on morality. For example, during times of great scarcity, when every ounce of human labor are needed to ensure people don't suffer and die of starvation, making young children work hard would be seen as necessary (and therefore not immoral), but in a society of abundance, making those same children work should be seen as immoral.

As far as the justification of wickedness, I'm reminded of the acceptance of slavery in 1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT and Ephesians 6:9.

Now, I'll admit that while the 1 Timothy passage doesn't advocate for slavery, it doesn't condemn it either. It perhaps reflects the realities of the world in which it was written? Understanding this context is crucial, but leads to one of two inexorable conclusions;

1. Slavery was permitted in the Bible (new and old testaments), something that today we know to be a grotesque affront to human justice and liberty, or:

2. That morality is relative to the time and place it happens, perhaps because of the environment that existed at the time.

So which is it?

That said, I'm not a relativist, but I do think there are things external to human control or understanding that can lead to actions that are deemed immoral in one place and not another (see the example above). That said, when it comes to things that humans can control and should be expected to understand, I think morality is grounded in human values without exception.

That said, wisdom of which knowledge is a component are the keys to unlocking our understanding of how to better realize moral states of human experience and the values that naturally follow that are the foundation of human morality.

As far as humans being the only animals capable of wisdom, that's just hubris.

 

[DNB]

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.

you meant 'adieu', ...not surprised

 

[DNB]

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.

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.

For crying out loud - NOT FROM A RELIGUIOUS TEXT - FROM LIFE. The Biblical text underscores what was already evidenced through the course of one's life on earth.

...funny about Dylan, he was very rebellious and defiant, even to his fans: played whatever he wanted to, however he wanted to, and whenever he wanted to. Never one to sell out, even to his fans.

 

[DNB]

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.

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.

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

My flippin' point is, one or two extremely isolated examples, of what appears to be signs of a sense of morality in the animal kingdom, does not warrant even speculating on the matter. Like I said, the kill one another indiscriminately. They constantly kill another's offspring, and will tear you apart if you go near theirs. It is impossible for them to be compassionate and to do unto others...

 

[DNB]

That's a religious belief you were told and have believed by faith. There is no reason to believe it, which is relevant to those who need a reason to believe something more than just the willingness to believe uncritically. Such beliefs are unexamined, which are the shallowest of beliefs.

We were created by nature. Man created the idea of gods, not the other way around.

Some have been very beneficial to man, like democracy and the scientific method.

Besides gods, man has created organized, politicized religion, which has had the opposite effect. It acts like an anchor retarding progress and is seen increasingly as mean-spirited and irrelevant to modern life. That is a convention we will be better off without.

He's a humanist. You espouse a millennia-old worldview and moral set. It's you that's been left behind.

You have no special knowledge, just an ancient religion which as I noted is becoming increasingly irrelevant in modern society. The zealots, bigots, and anti-intellectuals are increasingly becoming marginalized as they once marginalized the atheists, whose star is on the rise. Think about the roles the religious zealot and the atheist played a century or more ago. They've been reversed. The atheist is no longer isolated or seen as the immoral one. That's the role the zealot plays now.

Look at what's becoming of the American church in the wake of its misogynistic, theocratic incursions into secular government. It's despised for that by tens of millions. This is as bad for organized religion as the Catholic church pedophile coverup, and televangelists repeatedly being exposed as hypocrites.

A hundred years ago - the days of the Scopes trial - somebody like me would be playing the role of outlier in a discussion like this one. I'd be the one seen as out of step and I'd be rebuked for it. Today, it's the religious zealot who plays that role and who is treated like that.

How in the world did you manage to get 4 likes on this post?

 

[DNB]

Interesting. You keep saying this, so let's explore it....

What is wisdom in this context?

• Knowledge and Experience: Wisdom builds on factual knowledge and the lessons learned through life experiences.
• Self-Awareness: Understanding one's own strengths, weaknesses, biases, and motivations.
• Perspective-Taking: The ability to view situations from multiple angles, including those of others.
• Open-Mindedness: A willingness to consider new ideas and challenge one's own beliefs.
• Intellectual Humility: Recognizing the limits of one's knowledge and the potential for being wrong.
• Managing Uncertainty: Navigating ambiguity and making decisions despite incomplete information.

I would very much agree that morality is the result of a process of learning though experience and builds on our evolving understanding knowledge and results in a more refined idea of what we call moral or immoral. However, this is counter intuitive to the idea of an objective morality, as an objective morality is one whose precepts exist independent of human experience. Otherwise, we'd call that subjective as humans are subjects using their experience and knowledge to derive outcomes based on what they value, for example the desire to co-exist in a flourishing society and be happy, healthy and have a state of well-being. Since or experiences are subjective and wisdom applied would by definition be subjective.

Environment very much has an effect on morality. For example, during times of great scarcity, when every ounce of human labor are needed to ensure people don't suffer and die of starvation, making young children work hard would be seen as necessary (and therefore not immoral), but in a society of abundance, making those same children work should be seen as immoral.

As far as the justification of wickedness, I'm reminded of the acceptance of slavery in 1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT and Ephesians 6:9.

Now, I'll admit that while the 1 Timothy passage doesn't advocate for slavery, it doesn't condemn it either. It perhaps reflects the realities of the world in which it was written? Understanding this context is crucial, but leads to one of two inexorable conclusions;

1. Slavery was permitted in the Bible (new and old testaments), something that today we know to be a grotesque affront to human justice and liberty, or:

2. That morality is relative to the time and place it happens, perhaps because of the environment that existed at the time.

So which is it?

That said, I'm not a relativist, but I do think there are things external to human control or understanding that can lead to actions that are deemed immoral in one place and not another (see the example above). That said, when it comes to things that humans can control and should be expected to understand, I think morality is grounded in human values without exception.

That said, wisdom of which knowledge is a component are the keys to unlocking our understanding of how to better realize moral states of human experience and the values that naturally follow that are the foundation of human morality.

As far as humans being the only animals capable of wisdom, that's just hubris.

You're confusing a very basic and common activity by man, to be a subjective endeavour - it's not.
When man through the course of his life discovers scientific phenomena, laws of nature, and physics, we don't call his conclusions 'subjective' - he has established maxims of the universe.
Same with anthropology and sociology - each man does not define right and wrong. The human obligation is to find where true love resides.
Man's wisdom determines that avoiding conflict is always better than engaging or escalating it.
Hedonism destroys good character - no matter who you are.
Selfishness is tantamount to weakness and cowardice - not enough strength to help others.
Turning the other cheek always exposes more than any other method, the wickedness of the antagonist, and protects the victim from the same accusation.

 

[EconGuy]

You're confusing a very basic and common activity by man, to be a subjective endeavour - it's not.

Perhaps not, but you've not offered anything as evidence to your claim.

Oh and:

Glass houses and all that

When man through the course of his life discovers scientific phenomena, laws of nature, and physics, we don't call his conclusions 'subjective' - he has established maxims of the universe.

Your confusing things that objectively happen and exist with our subjective experience of it. Human senses are fallible and can easily be fooled, which is why science exists, as an attempt to remove our fallibility in as much as possible, but there are things that do not exist and yet humans perceive them. An example is color. We think of color as an objective property of the universe, when in fact it is purely subjective. Color is the result of electromagnetic wavelengths that are interpreted by our brains (or the brains of other creatures on this planet) and may not exist outside human brains. There's also the fact that some people see color differently.

each man does not define right and wrong.

Correct, just as one man can't be a team. Morality is a group sport.

The human obligation is to find where true love resides.

Says who? What are you even going on about?

Man's wisdom determines that avoiding conflict is always better than engaging or escalating it.

Ok, but how does anything you've written (or avoided in my posts to you) get us any closer to the idea of an objective morality?

Hedonism destroys good character - no matter who you are.
Selfishness is tantamount to weakness and cowardice - not enough strength to help others.
Turning the other cheek always exposes more than any other method, the wickedness of the antagonist, and protects the victim from the same accusation.

Now you're just preaching.

I hope your next post is more interesting as this "discussion" is getting boring

 

[McBell]

you meant 'adieu', ...not surprised

Nope.
I meant ado.

Perhaps you should stop making so many assumptions?
You definitely need to stop trying to dictate to others what they mean.

 

[McBell]

My flippin' point is, one or two extremely isolated examples, of what appears to be signs of a sense of morality in the animal kingdom, does not warrant even speculating on the matter.

Except there are more than 'one or two examples'.

Like I said, the kill one another indiscriminately.

So do humans..

They constantly kill another's offspring, and will tear you apart if you go near theirs.

Source

It is impossible for them to be compassionate and to do unto others...

bold empty claim.

 

[Mock Turtle]

My flippin' point is, one or two extremely isolated examples, of what appears to be signs of a sense of morality in the animal kingdom, does not warrant even speculating on the matter. Like I said, the kill one another indiscriminately. They constantly kill another's offspring, and will tear you apart if you go near theirs. It is impossible for them to be compassionate and to do unto others...

I don't think many will be expecting otherwise, given we aren't saying that any non-human species has a worked out system of morality (or a God-given one for many perhaps) but that many species show the signs of a developing morality - that which tends to serve their social groupings - and as to such will perhaps point to where human morality came from. Given that we are as much an evolved species as any other and hence will likely share much of the same development. That is, if one can accept the evolution of the human species as depicted by science, and which has enough evidence to show this is the most likely scenario - rather than some unevidenced explanation, like the creation story.

 

[Mock Turtle]

For crying out loud - NOT FROM A RELIGUIOUS TEXT - FROM LIFE. The Biblical text underscores what was already evidenced through the course of one's life on earth.

We seem to be seeing life differently then. I see lots of things that I would consider bad but they have to be put into perspective, and often only apply to the few rather than the many, hence I don't have some overriding view as to people becoming more 'bad' - although many countries do have their own unique issues. Life in the UK has generally gotten better for most I suspect since I was born, especially as to toleration concerning others, even if every generation might have their own particular problems.

...funny about Dylan, he was very rebellious and defiant, even to his fans: played whatever he wanted to, however he wanted to, and whenever he wanted to. Never one to sell out, even to his fans.

I'm sure most of those who possibly didn't like the electric backing got over such - as I did - especially since he carried on performing just as well with such.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For crying out loud - NOT FROM A RELIGUIOUS TEXT - FROM LIFE. The Biblical text underscores what was already evidenced through the course of one's life on earth.

Most if not all of your religious dogma comes from a book or some interpretation of that book by trusted clergy (from a pulpit). Nothing in nature that you think points to a god points to a specific god including one that is intolerant of "sin" and who issues commandments from outside the universe.

one or two extremely isolated examples, of what appears to be signs of a sense of morality in the animal kingdom, does not warrant even speculating on the matter.

Sure it does. That is very meaningful evidence regarding the naturalistic evolution of a moral sense. It's the prelinguistic phase of moral evolution, which begins in the animal kingdom prior to the advent of man.

How in the world did you manage to get 4 likes on this post?

Maybe you should take that question seriously and try to find an answer to it. What were the ideas offered? You have no reason but faith to believe the religious dogma you believe, man created the idea of gods, some institutions have been beneficial to man but not organized, politicized Abrahamic religion, it is the Christian and not the humanist who has been left behind in his intellectual and moral evolution, such religions are becoming increasingly unpopular and irrelevant in people's lives, and whereas once it was the unbeliever who was cast in the role of the immoral outsider it is now the religious zealot playing that part as this thread demonstrates.

Ask yourself what part of that you think others like and why, and do so with an open mind. You might benefit from that.

each man does not define right and wrong.

Many people do. I do. I decide that for myself based in the intuitions of my conscience.

And you do as well when you accept somebody else's list that shalts and thou shalt nots. YOU chose to follow those rules assuming that you could have done otherwise.

Man's wisdom determines that avoiding conflict is always better than engaging or escalating it.

That is not wisdom. That's spinelessness. One needs to pick his battles wisely, but it is not wisdom to avoid all conflict. "Grant me the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed, the courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the difference."

See below for more on this. Meekness is NOT a virtue. It is a type of poverty of character. It is not the same as humility or politeness or generosity. It's being a doormat and not standing up for what one ought to stand up for. Casper Milquetoast was meek. Milton from Office Space was meek. Gary Cooper's movie persona was humble, not meek. Caine from Kung Fu was humble, not meek.

Hedonism destroys good character - no matter who you are.

I suspect that your definition of hedonism is the pursuit of happiness and satisfaction. Along with life and liberty, that's actually considered a worthy pursuit according to the Declaration of Independence, and I agree.

I've been called a hedonist by many believers simply because I live outside of religion, which is often described as an immoral attempt to live a libertine life free from accountability and to rebelliously establish myself as a god. I leave that guilt trip to those willing to believe it. I'm anticipating a morning of leisure with my wife and dogs in our home followed by an afternoon of bridge at the bridge club and a nice dinner afterward with another couple followed by a return home to watch the sun go down on our terrace while watching the news, Jeopardy, Kimmel and Colbert's monologues, and then music videos over wine. I'm certain that you disapprove.

Christianity is all about getting you to sacrifice your own pleasure for others. You're to raise a slew of children however impoverished that makes you and them, and to give to the church until it hurts. You're to forsake pleasure that costs money and to feel guilty about spending money on yourself. As I said, I leave that to people that will buy into that mindset.

Turning the other cheek always exposes more than any other method, the wickedness of the antagonist, and protects the victim from the same accusation.

Turing the other cheek is foolish advice, as is loving enemies. It just invites further violence. It's begging for it. Better advice would be to try to negotiate a peace and walk away if that turns out to be impossible. And if he takes another shot at you, at least cover your face if not hit back in self-defense. Turn the other cheek is what you tell a slave to do when you strike him. So is loving enemies. What did you think all of that talk about being longsuffering and meekness being a virtue was for? It's what you tell people that you are exploiting who you want to stand down and accept their lot as God's will, for their reward comes after death if they'll just be good slaves (or subjects or wives) and take whatever is dished out to them and smile throughout. Once again, I leave that to those willing to see such behavior as virtuous. I don't:

• "How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte
• "If you want to control a population and keep them passive ... give them a god to worship" ~ Noam Chomsky

The people advising you to think and live like that are not your friends. They are not concerned with your best interests. They're concerned with their own and those of the church. That's why they advise you to scrimp and tithe generously. That's why they advise you that meekness is a virtue.

 

[setarcos]

Sorry, the content of any abstract concept has no "class" just because the content says so.

Hey F1fan, don't be sorry, just have some "class" and don't be rude.
Hmmm...where to begin, I've got so many thoughts but dang if what time can be allotted to this is never enough. I do love that you've given me things to think about...fun fun. I'm only going to shoot out one reply to one part of one reply and get to the others when I can...or never...whichever comes first. As if you'd care I'm thinking.
So, couple of things here that your sentence brings up to question.
1) Does an abstract concept dictate its own content? 2) Can abstract concepts be classed?
I think we can answer 1) pretty straightforwardly. Since an abstraction is a product of sentience we may conclude that abstractions do not dictate their own content...even if the sentience that did the abstracting says it does. That would be a logical fallacy and unrealistic and is in no way reflective of anything I said or implied.
Of note, and in relation, since human beings cannot directly derive reality -mentally or physically- and are limited in their communicative abilities via languages etc., all human thought is abstract in one way or another. Even the fundamental reality of existence can only be scientifically abstract since we cannot directly experience what our science is telling us. Science is ultimately built upon abstractions.
Also of note, I think, is that we can pretty safely say that the content of anything derived from human thought did not dictate itself. The content - trash or not - has no say so in the information it contains. Unless you believe that we are the content that we think about?
As for 2), that takes a bit more thought.
Hmmm....️‍I think they can. Lets list a few abstractions ; (Numbers(mathematics), subatomic particles, logical concepts, theories...gosh, some would say the entire universe is an abstraction.
So, can those abstractions be separated into classifications? I think so.
Numbers: real, complex, imaginary, rational, natural...
Subatomic particles: leptons, baryons, mesons....subject to change
Logical concepts : Informal, Formal, Symbolic...
Etc.
What is meant by class, or classification?
"Classification theory, principles governing the organization of objects into groups according to their similarities and differences or their relation to a set of criteria. Classification theory has applications in all branches of knowledge" According to Britannica as is aptly suitable to how I've used the word. Books have been written on this theory but of course we've got to mostly stick with the simple concepts here due to space and time restraints.
To sum up...perhaps you'll agree,
1) Abstractions do not dictate their own content.
2) Abstractions can be classified.
Should I choose to answer more of your reply these conclusions will be relevant. That's why I hope we can agree on them.

 

[DNB]

Nope.
I meant ado.

Perhaps you should stop making so many assumptions?
You definitely need to stop trying to dictate to others what they mean.

No, you meant adieu

 

[DNB]

bold empty claim.

...there's a lot of emptiness going one, and it ain't coming from me.

 

[DNB]

I don't think many will be expecting otherwise, given we aren't saying that any non-human species has a worked out system of morality (or a God-given one for many perhaps) but that many species show the signs of a developing morality - that which tends to serve their social groupings - and as to such will perhaps point to where human morality came from. Given that we are as much an evolved species as any other and hence will likely share much of the same development. That is, if one can accept the evolution of the human species as depicted by science, and which has enough evidence to show this is the most likely scenario - rather than some unevidenced explanation, like the creation story.

Morality is not based on pragmatism - it doesn't develop. It is a matter of the heart.
Because morality is good, there is a direct correlation with its efficacy and practicality. But predominantly it stems from wanting to do what is just, fair, and edifying.
Sacrificing one's life for another is antithetical to practicality for both parties. Donating money to a foreign cause also offers no direct benefit to the donor.
There are beneficial purposes for all good deeds, but that requires a spiritual understanding of the nature of righteousness and its source.

 

[DNB]

We seem to be seeing life differently then. I see lots of things that I would consider bad but they have to be put into perspective, and often only apply to the few rather than the many, hence I don't have some overriding view as to people becoming more 'bad' - although many countries do have their own unique issues. Life in the UK has generally gotten better for most I suspect since I was born, especially as to toleration concerning others, even if every generation might have their own particular problems.

I'm sure most of those who possibly didn't like the electric backing got over such - as I did - especially since he carried on performing just as well with such.

I don't like folk music, so I definitely preferred the electric adaptation.