Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[atanu]

you see, i'm not that smart. in fact i don't get what you're saying here

In post 635, you asked "Is it my fault the fact that I don't indulge in believing simply what i want to believe?" and I agreed that it could not be your fault.

 

[Mister Emu]

So you do found morals in personal feelings: the personal feelings of God (or the feelings you attribute to God). How could God's whim ever be the basis for morality?

No, I base it in the objective condition the universe ought to be in.

I disagree.

P1: Good is that which best serves me.
P2: I have an opportunity to perform x(evil act, burning down an orphanage/running a brutal NKesque regime) to my benefit.
C: It is good/right/moral to perform x.

What logical appeal can you make to dissuade me, to attack premise 1?

That is what I mean by lacking weight.

Since we're talking about rules of behaviour in social groups, then how would this "defeat the purpose"?

We're discussing the inability of materialistic naturalism to provide for an ought condition to the universe, a necessary component of morality. Specifically, the given was said naturalism and the idea of a non-material reality defeats the purpose.

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about, as I quoted, you absolving yourself of responsibility for logically defending your morality(even if we don't have a foundation for why we value as we do) and then suggesting that someone with different values could try to support theirs. At least they'd have tried.

Not true. If you're talking about basing morality on different values than they are, then you're arguing about facts about the real world that can be true or false.

Yes, true. I disagree with your ethical stance. You have no facts that demand I shift.

If you want to talk about reasons why you should be moral, we can do that, but the fact that you don't see the need to behave in a moral way doesn't change what is and isn't moral,

We actually agree in this. I am saying, however, that you can't show that what you say is moral coincides with what is moral.

If you want to get more into the nitty-gritty of it, you're welcome to read Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape or check out Matt Dillahunty's lecture The Superiority of Secular Morality:

I'm familiar with, and unimpressed by, Harris' ideas. Has he ever addressed that he contradicts the claim of identity central to the work? I've not read or heard Dillahunty before and that is a long video... is there a choice portion?

Meaning what, exactly?

Exactly what I said, it is a quality of our existence. A thread, if you will, in the fabric of reality.

 

[Mister Emu]

It is opinion yes. That does not mean the good of a few do not outweigh the bad of the masses.

The meaning changes from one culture to the next.

What I would call barbaric unmoral actions of a people and their treatment of women, is law to them and very moral.

Yes, exactly. Thank you. Moral non-realism is the logical consequence of a materialistic look at morality.

 

[Mister Emu]

i see it in a slightly different way. Let's assume i meet a priest. Even if i can prove to him that Jesus never existed he would be so much into it that would reject all the possible evidences i can provide or argument i can have and stick to what he wants to believe simply because he wants to believe that.

I love how people always pick things that they have no ability nor intention to follow through with when they make these claims. You are quite safe in stronghold because you know your claim will never be tested, so it can stay valid in your mind. Those theists just won't ever change even if I proved them wrong!*

is it morality anything different than a shared set of values that we tend to agree on?

If it is to be valuable or meaningful at all, yes.

*Proof to be provided at a later date

 

[cambridge79]

I love how people always pick things that they have no ability nor intention to follow through with when they make these claims. You are quite safe in stronghold because you know your claim will never be tested, so it can stay valid in your mind. Those theists just won't ever change even if I proved them wrong!*

I took the general figure of a priest to show someone who has shaped his whole life around his religion. What do you think a 50 year old priest that has no professional preparation, no family to go to, could do in that situation? He can go into denial. Or he can admit that he has wasted 50 years of his whole life for no reason at all, wich would be an extremely painfull and stressfull experience and he than has to start all over again and his only option his to become a homeless person because he has no real professional preparation.

but if you want a real example, go to this discussion:
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/what-did-jesus-look-like.62945/page-18
and look user Theunis. He sustained a thing. He has been shown to be 100% wrong, with evidence denying his claims because he was referring to fraudolent material to prove his point.
What he is doing is going into denial, ignore what you write to him, covers his ears and so on.
If i was in his position my reaction would be "i'll check the evidences you provided me. If they happen to show i was wrong i'll thank you for proving me wrong because now i'm a more wise person and i'll embrace your view"
this is the way I deal with the things i believe in.
and that's why i used to be a christian and than became an athesist when comparing arguments of both sides i've found the latter make much more sense, not because i wanted to be an atheist.

 

[prometheus11]

Atheistic naturalism is a better moral foundation than any God belief or religion.

 

[cambridge79]

Atheistic naturalism is a better moral foundation than any God belief or religion.

actually it depends where it leads you. if you think for example that we should live according to how nature works, where the strongs careless eat the weak and who can't fight dies, well that's not the kind of world i personally want to live in.

not saying this is what you would suggest, just saying that could be one of the possible paths one could suggest.

 

[prometheus11]

actually it depends where it leads you. if you think for example that we should live according to how nature works, where the strongs careless eat the weak and who can't fight dies, well that's not the kind of world i want to live in.

We are social, pack animals that have evolved empathy. We know of no higher intellect in the inverse than our own.

The sooner we realize that morality is ours to figure and it always has been, the faster we advance our own moral code for our specific species.

 

[cambridge79]

We are social, pack animals that have evolved empathy. We know of no higher intellect in the inverse than our own.

The sooner we realize that morality is ours to figure and it always has been, the faster we advance our own moral code for our specific species.

our structure is more complex than simply "social". We are social within our group of people. Our society is structured in groups of people: Families, Cities, nations, companies. Nations are in competitions, companies are in comptition. families are in competition. We don't simply take each others by hand and sing kumbaya.
We may have emphaty but still people care more about their dogs than about the homeless guys that begs for money outside their church every Sunday.

 

[prometheus11]

our structure is more complex than simply "social". We are social within our group of people. Our society is structured in groups of people: Families, Cities, nations, companies. Nations are in competitions, companies are in comptition. families are in competition. We don't simply take each others by hand and sing kumbaya.
We may have emphaty but still people care more about their dogs than about the homeless guys that begs for money outside their church every Sunday.

All true.

We know of no higher intelligence than ours, though. So we need to figure out our values and go for the best morality we can manage.

Did you have another option?

 

[Mister Emu]

I took the general figure of a priest to show someone who has shaped his whole life around his religion...

I was referring to the claim you proposed, that if you could prove Jesus non-existent they wouldn't change, without ability or intention to show. You're quite safe in the claim because you know you'll not have it tested. It is funny that you picked that example, because it is usually the inverse: there are atheists who have a YEC fervency level belief in the non-historicity of Jesus and won't accept any evidence to the contrary.

but if you want a real example, go to this discussion

Congratulations, you've shown that people who believe in ancient aliens are incorrigible.

 

[prometheus11]

I would gladly accept evidence as would most atheists. Why the defeatism?

 

[Mister Emu]

Atheistic naturalism is a better moral foundation than any God belief or religion.

It has not philosophical foundation for morality... so...

I would gladly accept evidence as would most atheists. Why the defeatism?

I didn't say you personally would or wouldn't, I just thought it funny that the example chosen was one where it is routinely the atheist that has the incorrigible and unreasonable belief.

 

[prometheus11]

It has not philosophical foundation for morality... so...

Philosophies are constructs of human minds....so.

I didn't say you personally would or wouldn't, I just thought it funny that the example chosen was one where it is routinely the atheist that has the incorrigible and unreasonable belief.

I've noticed the opposite.

 

[Mister Emu]

Philosophies are constructs of human minds....so.

C'mon guy, ellipses aren't hard to get the hang of.

Are you attacking philosophy? The idea that we should be philosophically sound, rational and logically valid? I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get out of this.

I've noticed the opposite.

Like finding out you're talking to a young-earther...

 

[prometheus11]

C'mon guy, ellipses aren't hard to get the hang of.

Are you attacking philosophy? The idea that we should be philosophically sound, rational and logically valid? I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get out of this.


Like finding out you're talking to a young-earther...

That's your criticism?!? LOL!!! One extra period, oh nooees!!!

No, I'm not stacking philosophy. Ideas should be rational and sound.

I have no idea what YEC has to do with this subject?

 

[cambridge79]

All true.

We know of no higher intelligence than ours, though. So we need to figure out our values and go for the best morality we can manage.

Did you have another option?

absolutely not, i'm on that boat too, i was just suggesting that it may be a more complex and struggling process than people may be led to believe. I'm aware there are atheists out there that believes that once they get rid of all religions people will suddenly become reasonable and rational. I'm not one of those. I think people are naturally irrational and that's what lead them into believing in religions, not that religions make people act irrationally. So you get rid of religions those people will just find another way to decline their irrationality.
I think because of our nature we'll never be able to accomplish an utopic society ( greed will always be for example something we'll have to deal with because is part of what we are. people will always seek power because evolution lead us into being hierarchical social animals ).
We'll just have to end up picking the less worse society we can come up with.

 

[Thief]

God gave Man dominion.

unfortunately Man wants to use that ability upon his fellowman.

sooner (I hope) than later we will stop doing that.

 

[McBell]

Atheistic naturalism is a better moral foundation than any God belief or religion.

What is this "atheist naturalism" you speak of and how is it different from "naturalism"?

 

[prometheus11]

What is this "atheist naturalism" you speak of and how is it different from "naturalism"?

Not believing in undetected deities or mystical powers. I was just putting the two words together portmanteau style.