Do Athiests have morals?

[1robin]

I hope you indulge me if I do not take the Bible as being evidence of anything in this area.

I can accept it but I cannot excuse it. It meets every requirement to by submersible as evidence under ancient document laws but nothing I said here requires it to be. The bible in my claims has been a premise which bore out under investigation. The bible posits a rational God who would create a rational universe. A rational universe is found which validates the bible.

I don't think that the fact they we perceive the Universe as rational is surprising. It is actually what I would expect if naturalism is true.

That is not the consensus view. I have heard so many times that the chances are so astronomically against blind forces creating rationality either in nature or in our minds to decode it that despite I do not understand that exactly I do respect the pervasiveness of that claim.

I think it is self evident that living beings import, in their phenotypes, information about their environment. If I observe a stick insect in a natural museum, I can infer a lot about its native environment. This is what natural selection does, among other things. It filters out information that has environmental significance.

Looking at stick insects is not really the place where this becomes apparent. It is more in the ability to comprehend abstract mathematical principles and physical deductions. Natural selection might explain why looking at a horse communicates the fact he is strong but it does not explain why we can tear his muscles apart and figure out exactly how they work. To debate what time is. To discourse on the nature of morality. In fact it is so rare that of all the minds we are aware of only one has the capacity to reason out the riddles of the universe proper. Any Library will contain only a few percent of material hat has any survival value but tons that contain learning for the sake of learning. Most animals seem to think primarily about things related to survival and little more but we are totally unique in our capacity to extract meaning and principle from reality.

In the same way, our mind must contain information about the mechanisms of the world in order to make sense of them. No matter what they are like, if they can evolve duplicating entities, then any such being, once it reached a certain intellectual complexity, is bound to perceive them as agreeing with its forma mentis.

That explains why I might think something is good or bad not why I would think hat good or bad is an objective realm. It explains why I might think the sun is hot not why I think about thermodynamics. Explains why I might understand two pieces of food are better than one not why I think about triple integrals. Explain why I know I should not jump from a cliff not why gravity is related to mass.

But even that "rationality" will be limited by what is necessary and sufficient in order to survive in said environment. Some of our most successful theories seem to escape this innate "rationality" when we move beyond our limited ecosystem. Quantum Mechanics comes to mind. As R.Feynman would say, QM appears to be a correct description of the microscopic world, even though nobody understands it.

So since our ability to rationalize is quantum leaps ahead of what we need to survive you have disproven your own argument. Out of our eco systems? We are out of our galaxy in knowledge long before we have really left our planet physically.

So, saying that nature is rational is as meaningful as saying that forests and bushes are stick-insect-like.

If you find a principle existing in nature then you need to account for it. If we find the universe is lawful then that needs an explanation. It is either a natural necessity or it is in need of a transcended explanation. Rational things like freewill (and the ability to reason about what that means), morality, a lawful universe, mathematics, what gravity is, etc.. do not seem to have any natural explanation. They are abstract furniture we just happen to find in existence without an explanation beyond God.

Now, back to your claim that logic, or mathematics, presuppone the existence of God in order to work reliably. This is a pretty big claim, that would require proportionally big evidence. The question is how you intend to provide such evidence without begging the question.

Well like I said (I didn't say to work properly by the way) brute facts only have two explanations. The first is not really an explanation but it is where many people stop. Either natural necessity can account for a thing or something transcendent must. You have nature and beyond nature to shoes from. If it is not the former the later is the only refuge left. I will let another give you a quote the bears this out.

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."
Fred Hoyle

When Mr. Hoyle says you need the transcendent to account for science then attempts to dismiss the idea seem absurd.

Any logical argument you can present to show its plausibility is doomed to assume the thesis in the premises in order to be considered valid.

So, no matter what variant you choose, it is invalid:

Well that is disconcerting.

1) If the laws of logic are reliable only because of God, then this assumption would make any argument in its favor circular. And circularity would be a (reliable) logical reason against it.

2) If the laws of logic are reliable independently of God, then any argument that wants to show otherwise would be self defeating.

3)If the laws of logic are not reliable then, well, any argument is obviously useless. Including yours and mine.

Ciao

- viole

Hey don't include me in your intellectual self annihilation or nihilism.

Let me ask this. Are there laws of logic?
Does mathematics exist?
Does gravity exist?
Does morality exist?
Does abstract reasoning exist?
Does a lawful universe exist?
Do any of the things found as brute facts without much in the way of a natural necessity exist?

 

[1robin]

I can't speak for all atheists, but *most* of them that I know are fans of the enlightenment. The "Stalin, Pol Pot, and so on", argument misses the point that these despots were NOT students of the enlightenment, they were instead trying to create their own new dogma. They had more in common with religion than with the enlightenment.

As Hitchens said: "Show me a society based on Spinoza and the enlightenment that's run amok, and then you'll have my attention."

I was evaluating secular societies. The ones I mentioned are as close to that as can be found. I don't know of any Spinoza or enlightenment nations so I can't judge them. I know of Spinoza but what I know of him makes using him as a political orientation a strange idea. If that has not been tried and it is a good idea why not. We have governments of every shade in history, of course what Hitch says is always a little bizarre. You ever seen him debate his twin brother? That was weird.

 

[Nietzsche]

I was evaluating secular societies. The ones I mentioned are as close to that as can be found. I don't know of any Spinoza or enlightenment nations so I can't judge them. I know of Spinoza but what I know of him makes using him as a political orientation a strange idea.

Prussia between 1740-1786 is my favorite example.

 

[1robin]

Prussia between 1740-1786 is my favorite example.

It only lasted 46 years? It must have failed in some respect. Do you have a link to whatever inspired you to post this? Nations built on the enlightenment is not really my specialty. BTW Christianity was enormous influence on the enlightenment.

 

[Cephus]

I know all of this but that was such a weird point of contention I could not decide if that was the one your were making. So you agree that objective morality requires a transcendent source but you only balk at my claiming that my God is that source? Fine lets move on.

It's not a weird point of contention, it's something that I see a lot of Christians try, either intentionally or not. They use "God" for everything and then, without demonstrating that their particular deity is the one in question, simply assume that everything is all about their deity. And no, I don't agree that objective morality requires a transcendent source, I don't think there's any such thing as objective morality at all. Don't put words in my mouth.

Are you going to rely on splitting hairs as the only tactic. First of al the Earth being round is common language use and so it is justifiable in a debate. Second the earth is not specifically any shape. It has bulges, bumps, valleys, and is not a perfect anything. Why are you being technical only to an arbitrary point? Either be purely technical or allow for normal language use. Anything else is contrived and a tactic. I have a degree in math and we have not invented a single mathematic fact in our entire history. We did not invent 2 entities plus two entities equals 4 entities. We simply came up with a language to describe this brute fact. God is supported by evidence which is why so many of the greatest minds in the fields of testimony and evidence, history, mathematics, philosophy, etc.... are men of faith. Christianity literally invented modern science including many of it's very fields. 78% of Nobel's are Christians and any list of great scientific minds is dominated by Christians and Jews.

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm pointing out the reality. There are lots of people who aren't aware of the reality, they are simply repeating the same things they've heard their entire life without ever bothering to check it out. That relates to religion as well, most people just absorb stories about religion without ever taking a step back to see if they are actually so. They proclaim they must be true without having the slightest idea whether they are. You have to remember that most of the scientists who usually get mentioned come from an era where not claiming to be a Christian was dangerous, not only to your career and reputation, but often to your life. Everyone pretended to be a Christian whether they were or not. It's not that impressive. However, if you look today, the overwhelming majority of scientists are not religious, 93% of the National Academy of Sciences members are atheists.

That is not what I said. I said you might actually be the first to find out that it is wrong, but the concept is so sophisticated and has stood up to so much scrutiny for so long that saying it is laughable says way more about you than it.

That's the problem, it is neither sophisticated, nor has it stood up to much real scrutiny, it's typically been examined by people who believe it already, who are unwilling to question the core premises because they really want it to be so. Regardless, you're still engaging in the fallacy listed and I beg to differ with you that nobody else has ever seen through it, lots of people have, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

Nothings existence depends on my being able to define it especially since my definition will be critiqued by arbitrary standards. I can't properly define most objects that exist in space yet they do not go away because I cannot define them in exactness. We still do not know what is in 95% of the seas yet we know all the seas exist, the backside of the moon existed before we got to it, and quantum physics was doing it's thing billions of years before anyone knew it existed. Morality means the apprehension of a realm of actual right and wrong. No one need know how it works for virtually all of us to know it exists.

No, but your argument for existence certainly does and you're doing a **** poor job, as pretty much all theists do. Your analogy actually is quite good here, indeed we do not know 95% of the seas, yet rational people don't go inventing mysterious creatures in that 95% gap and insisting they are real. We wouldn't find it acceptable for scientists to declare that there must be sea monsters out there, just because they might wish there were. Yet that's exactly what theists do. They just make things up that are not supported by objective evidence. Let me know when you can demonstrate the actual existence of God. I won't be impressed until you do.

I have no need of personal commentaries. Concentrate on evidence instead of declarations, arguments instead or proclamation, and use consistent criteria to judge what you accept.

Yet that seems to be all you can offer. I'm waiting for you to provide evidence, you seem to have a particular allergy to doing so when it comes to your religious beliefs. I wonder why.

 

[Nietzsche]

It only lasted 46 years? It must have failed in some respect. Do you have a link to whatever inspired you to post this? Nations built on the enlightenment is not really my specialty. BTW Christianity was enormous influence on the enlightenment.

Wasn't a nation, was a state. Specifically a Kingdom, the Kingdom of Prussia under Frederick 'The Great' von Hohenzollern. He was one of the few genuinely enlightened monarchs, and his rule saw some things we now take for granted. Religious liberty, sexual liberty, the notion that the state rather than the leader is the most important aspect.

He(Frederick the Great) was a correspondent of Voltaire as well. Also an atheist(both of them). When the reign passed to his brother(Frederick had no children) these liberties were curtailed.

 

[Nakosis]

Nice deceleration, where the evidence? Declarations are not arguments.

Really? You need proof that man has the ability to make crap up? I make up stuff all the time and others have to accept it as truth. Someone has to take that responsibility. It is often the only way to give people the feeling of certainty they need. If they need certainty on their certainty I can even do that for them. They go about with their certainty and point to me as their authority. Whatever the reality of it is, that makes the world go around.

Disbelieve in the truth that you need to pay your taxes, see how that works out for you. My authority is enforced by other people, that is what makes it work.

I have a degree in math and not one single mathematical fact is man made. Mathematics as a language describes relationships in nature which are objective and absolute. We do not and cannot invent mathematic truths. We discover them and codify them in language we can use. Since your declaration is based on a perfectly wrong analogy then the declaration is no longer valid if it ever was.

A declaration made by you, based or your authority? Sorry, no one about to enforce it.

Apparently your response is to pile one declaration on another without the slightest attempt to show that any of them are true.

My response is to make statements which you should be able to determine the truth of for yourself. Of course depending on your experience this may not be true. I know the truth of them. Your ability to know their truth, I can't say.

From where does man derive authority and how do we acquire it? In fact what does that even mean. Authority over what? What authority? What do you mean by authority?

We get authority because other people choose, for whatever reason to listen to us. You choose for your own reasons to listen to biblical prophets which gives them authority. It's your choice which provides the authority. The more you can convince people to listen, the greater your authority. Whether it is by your own will/wit or pure physical enforcement.

Why did people like Jefferson just not cite man's authority instead of stating that only with God does man have rights and he was certainly no Christian. Why did Martin Luther king not just cite man's authority instead of grounding his rights on God's nature and not cite Humanists as the guaranty behind his promissory instead of the Christian founders?

Yeah, I don't read minds, especially the minds of dead people. However I'd suspect it is easier among a majority of believers to cite God's authority rather then your own. If you can argue with confidence a position of authority with a God they already happen to believe it, so much the easier. If they accept that authority then they accept that authority, your job is nearly done.

Why does no one (not even you) and no society live as if these declarations are true you have made. Everything we do from making laws to justifying war is grounded in objective truths not declarations.

People believe in them. Their actual existence is not required, only the belief. A society based on reality is probably one of chaos. Man as a species has probably survived because of his acceptance of authority. The acceptance of authority, it's a trait which promotes survival. So here we are. A product of genetic or cultural evolution. Mostly followers.... As followers we can work towards common goals. Without it, we'd probably end up killing each other.

You will never declare reality into existence or declare the reality that does exist into going away.

I declare numerous rules into existence. I get rid of some rules on occasion too. People follow what I declare as true to avoid the chaos.

So, yeah, people accepted the authority of prophets in the past especially when failure to do so resulted in chaos. Get a majority of people to accept the authority of whoever, prophets, kings, presidents etc. That acceptance provides the authority.

We accept the authority to provide order and order promotes individual and group survival.

You can give that authority to whoever. Anyone you can convince to accept that authority will probably further support your survival. This need for authority is a built in survival trait. It'd be kind of stupid for you or anyone else to ignore it.

The survival of man is not important to the universe. It doesn't care about our choice of authority. However you and I, we care. Generally I go forth by my own authority. Except where some other authority is enforced and it becomes a necessity of survival.

My authority, and the authority of anyone else comes from their ability to enforce their will.

If your God can enforce his will great. Who's going to with the ability to enforce that kind of will? The problem is, God's ability to enforce his will is not evident. However man's ability to enforce his will is evident.[/quote]

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We atheists have more morals than you can shake a stick at, and we thought them up ourselves. So there!

 

[icehorse]

I was evaluating secular societies. The ones I mentioned are as close to that as can be found. I don't know of any Spinoza or enlightenment nations so I can't judge them. I know of Spinoza but what I know of him makes using him as a political orientation a strange idea. If that has not been tried and it is a good idea why not. We have governments of every shade in history, of course what Hitch says is always a little bizarre. You ever seen him debate his twin brother? That was weird.

Hi 1robin,

Stalin and Pol Pot were rejecting religious dogma and inserting their own dogma. Most of the atheists I know are opposed to dogma. Since the despots you mentioned were creating their own new dogma, I don't think it's really accurate to call them secular. Secularism is to separate church and state, and these guys were just creating a new church. Your argument is a little bit like saying that since Hitler was a vegetarian, vegetarians are bad.

Yes, I've seen the Hitchens brothers debate, odd indeed

 

[1robin]

It's not a weird point of contention, it's something that I see a lot of Christians try, either intentionally or not. They use "God" for everything and then, without demonstrating that their particular deity is the one in question, simply assume that everything is all about their deity. And no, I don't agree that objective morality requires a transcendent source, I don't think there's any such thing as objective morality at all. Don't put words in my mouth.

In my experience you guys are resistant to the concept of God all together and not concerned with which one is on the table so it was strange to me. It does not matter whether you agree or not objective morality requires a transcendent source. You are certainly free to suggest that objective morality does not exist though you do not live that way (no one does). However that is a much more defensible position that the former.

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm pointing out the reality. There are lots of people who aren't aware of the reality, they are simply repeating the same things they've heard their entire life without ever bothering to check it out. That relates to religion as well, most people just absorb stories about religion without ever taking a step back to see if they are actually so. They proclaim they must be true without having the slightest idea whether they are. You have to remember that most of the scientists who usually get mentioned come from an era where not claiming to be a Christian was dangerous, not only to your career and reputation, but often to your life. Everyone pretended to be a Christian whether they were or not. It's not that impressive. However, if you look today, the overwhelming majority of scientists are not religious, 93% of the National Academy of Sciences members are atheists.

The reason I said that is your arbitrarily turned up the technicality filter to suggest the earth is not round but stopped so you could claim it was spheroid. The filter makes sense to be set on either maximum or on common language use. Setting it exactly where you need to contend with a meaningless secondary detail seems like splitting hairs to me. Actually many of those (quite a few of the biggest names) were at odds with the church and broke away from dogmatic Church traditions. They were the rebels of their day and their personal testimonies leave no doubt as to their sincerity. For example did you know Newton wrote more on theology than science. The man was not faking anything and seethed with distrust and hatred of the establishment and rightly so. Those men created modern science in spite of the Church not because of it. Why did that revolution only occur in the Christian west and not in the rest of the world mostly non Christian.

That's the problem, it is neither sophisticated, nor has it stood up to much real scrutiny, it's typically been examined by people who believe it already, who are unwilling to question the core premises because they really want it to be so. Regardless, you're still engaging in the fallacy listed and I beg to differ with you that nobody else has ever seen through it, lots of people have, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

It is hard to debate a proclamation devoid of evidence. About the only thing I can do is disagree. Forget the history of the argument and lets see if you can find a problem with it. Do I need to state it formally?

No, but your argument for existence certainly does and you're doing a **** poor job, as pretty much all theists do. Your analogy actually is quite good here, indeed we do not know 95% of the seas, yet rational people don't go inventing mysterious creatures in that 95% gap and insisting they are real. We wouldn't find it acceptable for scientists to declare that there must be sea monsters out there, just because they might wish there were. Yet that's exactly what theists do. They just make things up that are not supported by objective evidence. Let me know when you can demonstrate the actual existence of God. I won't be impressed until you do.

There are mysterious creatures in that 95% and we find them constantly. Things that glow in the dark, that can take enormous pressures, that have eyes unlike any other, that can survive heat that would melt led. If that is not mysterious then nothing is. So not only would suggesting it contains them be rational but it has been proven. However none of that was the issue. We do not have to have full knowledge to know w thing exists. I do not have to be able to explain in great detail how we have come to comprehend an objective moral realm to know that the fact we do is common knowledge. It is part of legal systems (in fact it is the very root of justice), part of every cultures history, part of academic discourse and moral theory, etc....... If I cannot force you to grant that there is a universal comprehension of an objective moral realm then I am not attempting anything further because it seems that preference and not evidence is driving your position.

Yet that seems to be all you can offer. I'm waiting for you to provide evidence, you seem to have a particular allergy to doing so when it comes to your religious beliefs. I wonder why.

In your case because you make such horrific arguments for denial. I am not wasting evidence on someone who does not value it. However chose your poison.

1. The existence of anything rather than nothing. Assuming you grant the existence of something or is that out as well?
2. Fine tuning.
3. Rational warrant.
4. History.
5. Philosophy. Aquinas' five ways, etc...
6. Testimony.

 

[Harikrish]

Why wouldn't they be? They not only have to worry about this life but the next life too.

Atheists can die with no worry. Religious folks have to go meet their maker hoping they made all the right choices to get into Heaven.

It cannot be very comforting to know the one who promised eternal life was himself tried, convicted and put to death for blasphemy and returned with only flesh and bones a vampire of sorts drained of all blood.

 

[1robin]

Wasn't a nation, was a state. Specifically a Kingdom, the Kingdom of Prussia under Frederick 'The Great' von Hohenzollern. He was one of the few genuinely enlightened monarchs, and his rule saw some things we now take for granted. Religious liberty, sexual liberty, the notion that the state rather than the leader is the most important aspect.

Both Greece and Rome did the first two. Persia was famous for doing the first one. Democracy even as Greece practiced it also stressed the latter point. Fredrick may have done some good things but I don't think he pioneered any of them.

He(Frederick the Great) was a correspondent of Voltaire as well. Also an atheist(both of them). When the reign passed to his brother(Frederick had no children) these liberties were curtailed.

Voltaire of the famed quote that "Christianity will be dead in fifty years" I presume. Well he was dead in 50 years and they used his house to print bibles in. I have lost track what the issue was.

I do see that some good things may have been present in that nation but I am unclear how that nation was founded on the enlightenment. Prussia is a pretty old kingdom and probably had deep roots in pre-enlightened culture on which the enlightenment then had influence. The things you mentioned are not exclusive to or products of the enlightenment though there may have been some revival of them. Lets say I granted everything you have claimed. What is the conclusion? Maybe that will give me the context by which to evaluate this better.

 

[Nietzsche]

Both Greece and Rome did the first two. Persia was famous for doing the first one. Democracy even as Greece practiced it also stressed the latter point. Fredrick may have done some good things but I don't think he pioneered any of them.

Pioneered? No. But you do not ever see them being implemented by religious authorities, either directly(various ecclesiastical states in the HRE) or indirectly(the multitude of monarchs and republics that had the backing of the various churches).

Voltaire of the famed quote that "Christianity will be dead in fifty years" I presume. Well he was dead in 50 years and they used his house to print bibles in. I have lost track what the issue was.

No one has ever been right about all things.

I do see that some good things may have been present in that nation but I am unclear how that nation was founded on the enlightenment. Prussia is a pretty old kingdom and probably had deep roots in pre-enlightened culture on which the enlightenment then had influence. The things you mentioned are not exclusive to or products of the enlightenment though there may have been some revival of them. Lets say I granted everything you have claimed. What is the conclusion? Maybe that will give me the context by which to evaluate this better.

If we look at the states that instituted progressive civil codes, the United States, the French Republic & Empire, Prussia, the Dutch Republic and so on, they only did so either independent(the United States, Dutch Republic, Prussia) or in direct defiance(French Republic) of religious authorities. It was never a "church-down" movement. It was secular authorities who adopted & enforced these things.

I do not doubt there were some genuinely good people in the various Christian, Muslim and such religious establishments who supported and aided these things. But they are the exception, not the rule. It was largely a movement by people who were at best Deists(a non-intervening god) or outright Atheists.

 

[1robin]

Really? You need proof that man has the ability to make crap up? I make up stuff all the time and others have to accept it as truth. Someone has to take that responsibility. It is often the only way to give people the feeling of certainty they need. If they need certainty on their certainty I can even do that for them. They go about with their certainty and point to me as their authority. Whatever the reality of it is, that makes the world go around.

The fact we can invent untruths does not necessitate that we did so where you indicated. That is what I need proof of. I do not take it on your authority. You said the fact people can make things up shows that morality was made up so it's your burden.

Disbelieve in the truth that you need to pay your taxes, see how that works out for you. My authority is enforced by other people, that is what makes it work.

There is no truth that I need to pay my taxes unless God has ordained that I should. If not then there is only costs and preferences about whether I pay them. Nothing actually right or wrong about it. The ability of the government to thro me in jail does not mean that that makes paying taxes right or wrong. Might can't make right. It can only coerce actions.

A declaration made by you, based or your authority? Sorry, no one about to enforce it.

Mathematics enforces it. You jump off a mountain and see if arguing with gravity will help. However enforcement was not the issue. The objective nature of it was. We can describe how gravity effects other things but we can't force that into being true. No human has ever made gravity from nothing nor do we even know what it is. We find it as a brute force in nature and construct languages to describe what it is related to and in what capacity it acts.

My response is to make statements which you should be able to determine the truth of for yourself. Of course depending on your experience this may not be true. I know the truth of them. Your ability to know their truth, I can't say.

So far you have said mathematics was created by humanity and that is wrong unless you merely mean the language used to describe it. You said that since we can make stuff up that that means we made morality up. I cannot asses that truth of that and I don't think you can either, nor do I think it is true. You claimed that might can make right which is literally impossible. Etc....... So your claims about your claims do not hold up when examined.

We get authority because other people choose, for whatever reason to listen to us. You choose for your own reasons to listen to biblical prophets which gives them authority. It's your choice which provides the authority. The more you can convince people to listen, the greater your authority. Whether it is by your own will/wit or pure physical enforcement.

That explains why a man is perceived to have authority, it does not explain how he actually got it if he has it. A man is perceived to have authority over nature until eaten by it, perceived to have authority over a nation until it rebels (all authority in this context is subsidiary to consent), is perceived to have authority over himself until he dies or is forced to do otherwise. I want to know what actual authority (objective authority) man has and how he got it.

Yeah, I don't read minds, especially the minds of dead people. However I'd suspect it is easier among a majority of believers to cite God's authority rather then your own. If you can argue with confidence a position of authority with a God they already happen to believe it, so much the easier. If they accept that authority then they accept that authority, your job is nearly done.

How about books? They are on the bad list, or what about founding documents? Everything I said is a matter of record and that record is the result of undeniable deduction. If we have rights then something gave them to us and Governments do not have them to give, in any warehouses anywhere, and nature can't tell us the way things should be, so that kind of narrows it down the same way it did to the (non-Christian) Jefferson. You either have no rights or your need a transcendent source for them. BTW rights are things the Government is not supposed to take away not things they bestow. Without God your claims to rights are illusions no better than the weapons you have to ensure them. With God they are inherent and no one escapes depriving another of them.

People believe in them. Their actual existence is not required, only the belief. A society based on reality is probably one of chaos. Man as a species has probably survived because of his acceptance of authority. The acceptance of authority, it's a trait which promotes survival. So here we are. A product of genetic or cultural evolution. Mostly followers.... As followers we can work towards common goals. Without it, we'd probably end up killing each other.

So nothing you have said we have do we actually have then. We do not have any authority only a belief that we do, we do not have rights just the belief, we do not have morals just the belief we do. Thanks God no society has ever been formed by those standards. How do you make a society from nihilism? A society based on your reality really would be chaos.

 

[1robin]

Hi 1robin,

Stalin and Pol Pot were rejecting religious dogma and inserting their own dogma. Most of the atheists I know are opposed to dogma. Since the despots you mentioned were creating their own new dogma, I don't think it's really accurate to call them secular. Secularism is to separate church and state, and these guys were just creating a new church. Your argument is a little bit like saying that since Hitler was a vegetarian, vegetarians are bad.

Yes, I've seen the Hitchens brothers debate, odd indeed

Hello icehorse. Well all societies operate on dogmas. Laws themselves are dogmatic, conventions are dogmatic, even traditions are. I don't know how you go about forming a society free of dogma. Secularism must fill the void left by dogma with it's own dogma. For example social Darwinism or materialism would be just as dogmatic. Trying to eliminate dogmas causes interesting paradoxes.

For example saying there is no such thing as absolute truth: is probably the most dogmatic method of eradicated dogmas possible. It can't be true unless it isn't but if it isn't then it is.

You don't get secularism by eliminating dogma you get nihilism.

 

[gsa]

In my experience you guys are resistant to the concept of God all together and not concerned with which one is on the table so it was strange to me. It does not matter whether you agree or not objective morality requires a transcendent source. You are certainly free to suggest that objective morality does not exist though you do not live that way (no one does). However that is a much more defensible position that the former.

What is meant by "transcendent source" here? Karma works just as easily as "God." You could also just adopt Platonism or simply state that it is intrinsic to human consciousness as a feature of evolution. But more to the point: Objectivity morality is a chimera that doesn't even exist within orthodox Christianity. Divine command theory is not "objective morality" in any meaningful way. The theory is also useless as a practical matter because the so-called moral truths of Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions are entirely opaque and contradictory. Karma is only marginally better because morality is written into the cycle of death and rebirth, thus making it operate more like a natural law; it just lacks any kind of independent verification that this is the case.

I do not have to be able to explain in great detail how we have come to comprehend an objective moral realm to know that the fact we do is common knowledge. It is part of legal systems (in fact it is the very root of justice), part of every cultures history, part of academic discourse and moral theory, etc....... If I cannot force you to grant that there is a universal comprehension of an objective moral realm then I am not attempting anything further because it seems that preference and not evidence is driving your position.

This is nonsensical to me. A very simple investigation into legal systems, cultural history, academic discourse or moral theory demonstrates significant diversity. This would suggest that there is no common knowledge of an "objective moral realm," because the vision of what is contained in that "realm" is wildly different across time and space.

 

[icehorse]

Hello icehorse. Well all societies operate on dogmas. Laws themselves are dogmatic, conventions are dogmatic, even traditions are. I don't know how you go about forming a society free of dogma. Secularism must fill the void left by dogma with it's own dogma. For example social Darwinism or materialism would be just as dogmatic. Trying to eliminate dogmas causes interesting paradoxes.

For example saying there is no such thing as absolute truth: is probably the most dogmatic method of eradicated dogmas possible. It can't be true unless it isn't but if it isn't then it is.

You don't get secularism by eliminating dogma you get nihilism.

The definition of "dogma" that I'm using here is "that which must be followed without question or revision". Using that definition, I'd say that modern secular societies attempt to minimize dogma. From a philosophical perspective I'd agree that even science is based on values that are dogmatic (evidence, logic, reason, discovery, parsimony).

But with all of that said, could we agree that life under Stalin was a lot more dogmatic than life in Denmark in 2014?

 

[1robin]

Pioneered? No. But you do not ever see them being implemented by religious authorities, either directly(various ecclesiastical states in the HRE) or indirectly(the multitude of monarchs and republics that had the backing of the various churches).

Well it would take some investigation to see that. I don't walk around knowing the histories of 46 year nations that existed over 200 years ago in too many cases. I will take your word for it for now. Do you think one nation over 46 years is a large enough data set to conclude anything?

No one has ever been right about all things.

Well besides Jesus I would say that is a fact.

If we look at the states that instituted progressive civil codes, the United States, the French Republic & Empire, Prussia, the Dutch Republic and so on, they only did so either independent(the United States, Dutch Republic, Prussia) or in direct defiance(French Republic) of religious authorities. It was never a "church-down" movement. It was secular authorities who adopted & enforced these things.

I am probably an expert on none but I am competent on one. The US was formed by people who were 95% Christians. There is a bible in the corner stone of the Washington monument, scripture on the walls of the capitol, and there at least used to be chaplains for both sides of congress. Religion was heavily influential on US policy when formed. I have debated this quite a bit and I can give you quotes from Washington, Jefferson, etc.. until your eyes bleed. The whole weird notion that the US was formed independent from faith is concerning it's idea of separating Church and state (which it never said). That belief came from the rules about not respecting one religion. That came from the rejection of institutionalized religion as Britain had done. Actually they were not really mad at that idea anyway. They were mad because Britain had done such a lousy job at it. I don't know about the others but the formation of US character is inexorably tied with faith. They were just not so dogmatic about it.

I do not doubt there were some genuinely good people in the various Christian, Muslim and such religious establishments who supported and aided these things. But they are the exception, not the rule. It was largely a movement by people who were at best Deists(a non-intervening god) or outright Atheists.

I would doubt that in Frances case and I know that is not the case in the US formation. The US was very tolerant of non-Christians and their views (adopting many, but even most of them were theistic). Whatever the US character started off as is the overwhelming result of Christian faith, where we are going since the 50's not so much so. However since almost every moral statistic went south about that same time that also counters your thesis in a way. I am no expert on the Dutch, French, or Prussians but if you want to discuss the US in exhaustive detail I am more than prepared. I however am leaving soon so have a good afternoon, for now.

 

[Cephus]

In my experience you guys are resistant to the concept of God all together and not concerned with which one is on the table so it was strange to me. It does not matter whether you agree or not objective morality requires a transcendent source. You are certainly free to suggest that objective morality does not exist though you do not live that way (no one does). However that is a much more defensible position that the former.

I'm resistant to fantasy, God gets no special treatment, I also reject Bigfoot, alien abductions and leprechauns. You're not talking to "you guys", you're talking to me. If you want to go talk to "you guys", I don't know what to tell you. And you are correct that it doesn't matter if I agree that objective morality requires a transcendent source or not, my agreement has no bearing on objective reality, any more than your faith does. It doesn't matter what you believe, it only matters what's actually so. Your problem is that you're incapable of seeing anything but objective morality and no morality at all, you can't understand that what actually exists is a socially-dictated subjective morality. Nobody on the planet lives as though there is an objective morality, if you did, you'd follow all of the laws that God dictated in the OT. You don't. Nobody does. You just make up excuses for why things changed and those "objective moral principles" are no longer valid. If it changes, it isn't objective!

The reason I said that is your arbitrarily turned up the technicality filter to suggest the earth is not round but stopped so you could claim it was spheroid. The filter makes sense to be set on either maximum or on common language use. Setting it exactly where you need to contend with a meaningless secondary detail seems like splitting hairs to me. Actually many of those (quite a few of the biggest names) were at odds with the church and broke away from dogmatic Church traditions. They were the rebels of their day and their personal testimonies leave no doubt as to their sincerity. For example did you know Newton wrote more on theology than science. The man was not faking anything and seethed with distrust and hatred of the establishment and rightly so. Those men created modern science in spite of the Church not because of it. Why did that revolution only occur in the Christian west and not in the rest of the world mostly non Christian.

The point here is that common language usage isn't actually true. Just because a belief is common doesn't make it correct. There was a time when most people believed the Earth was flat. They were all wrong. It is a common belief today that there are gods. They could all be factually incorrect. Just saying that most people believe at thing means nothing whatsoever. There are all kinds of common absurd superstitions and folk beliefs that are just plain wrong. Tradition is no more reliable a means of determining truth than how many believe it.

It is hard to debate a proclamation devoid of evidence. About the only thing I can do is disagree. Forget the history of the argument and lets see if you can find a problem with it. Do I need to state it formally?

You're the one making claims without evidence, not I. I am simply rejecting your claims for lack of evidentiary support. Let me know when you actually have something to show that anything you present is factually correct.

There are mysterious creatures in that 95% and we find them constantly. Things that glow in the dark, that can take enormous pressures, that have eyes unlike any other, that can survive heat that would melt led. If that is not mysterious then nothing is. So not only would suggesting it contains them be rational but it has been proven. However none of that was the issue. We do not have to have full knowledge to know w thing exists. I do not have to be able to explain in great detail how we have come to comprehend an objective moral realm to know that the fact we do is common knowledge. It is part of legal systems (in fact it is the very root of justice), part of every cultures history, part of academic discourse and moral theory, etc....... If I cannot force you to grant that there is a universal comprehension of an objective moral realm then I am not attempting anything further because it seems that preference and not evidence is driving your position.

None of which match what I asked about. Nobody is saying there is a giant monster in the deep that has specific characteristics. There's probably something there. We don't know what it is. We don't pretend to know what it is. When we find it, we will believe in it and not until. That's not at all what you do with your God. You assert that God is real, that you know what God wants and how God thinks when you cannot demonstrate any of it. It's like saying there's a race of mermaids in the sea and here's their opinion on American politics. Science will not accept the existence of those mermaids until we have demonstrable objective evidence of their actual existence. We need proof and will not believe in them one second before we have it. You don't do that with God. You just make stuff up that makes you happy.

In your case because you make such horrific arguments for denial. I am not wasting evidence on someone who does not value it. However chose your poison.

1. The existence of anything rather than nothing. Assuming you grant the existence of something or is that out as well?
2. Fine tuning.
3. Rational warrant.
4. History.
5. Philosophy. Aquinas' five ways, etc...
6. Testimony.

All of which have been completely discredited. Come on, that's absurd apologetic nonsense. If you want to have a specific debate on any of those subjects, start a thread and I'll be happy to debate you. You're not going to do well though, I warn you.

 

[Harikrish]

1robin said: ↑
In my experience you guys are resistant to the concept of God all together and not concerned with which one is on the table so it was strange to me. It does not matter whether you agree or not objective morality requires a transcendent source. You are certainly free to suggest that objective morality does not exist though you do not live that way (no one does). However that is a much more defensible position that the former.

How can the transcendent source (God) represent object morality?
In the 10 commands Gid moralized.

1. Thou shall not kill.

Yet God destroyed most of earth in the giant Noah's flood.


2. Thou shall not covert another mans wife.

God impregnated Joseph's wife Mary when they were still married.

3. Thou shall have no other Gods besides him.

Yet God wanted the world to accept there were a triune of Gods.

There is no moral objectivity when one accepts a transcendent source. Objective morality then becomes arbitrary and moralistic projection and nothing more.