Question for Atheists: about your view of the world

[Magic Man]

Geez, fine prove it. you assert this to be true, prove it...

I'm not sure why you're getting so huffy here. You asked a question. How do you want me to prove it to you? I thought it was pretty obvious. Let's go with a couple of questions.

Do you think goodness is a concept invented by humans?

If so, how is justice any different from goodness?

 

[Magic Man]

No kidding, I have too! I am dealing with a barrage of no related posts, and have had not a single opportunity to even give the argument. Again, I could or should have done this differently, but I still thing people are SO high strung on the RF, it makes it difficult to even get a serious discussion going without people acting like ********...

Not saying you are one of them, but it seems the decent thing to do would be to ask for my reasoning, rather than attack some imaginary figment of me in there mind.

I have to go for now, and I'll try again later.

For those that can't see past the dirty glasses on their nose, I am not trying to convert you oooohhhhh scaaaarrry. I'm just having a discussion (see up top General Discussion)

Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thread, but you started with the question of whether or not atheists think the natural world or universe is naturally an unjust place. That question leads to the response that it is neither just nor unjust because those things are not inherent properties of the universe, but they are labels we apply to things.

So, what is the argument you'd like to make?

 

[linwood]

If you were asked, and you are right now, do you feel the natural world or all that you know and experience operates on a fundamental that nothing is particularly fair. In other words the world is naturally an unjust place.

Could you please comment? Thanks...

No, there is no inherent cosmic justice in the universe.
I would assume anyone who has ever read a newspaper would realize this.

We design and implement our own in order to bind a culture/society for safety.

 

[Revoltingest]

....people are SO high strung on the RF, it makes it difficult to even get a serious discussion going without people acting like ********....

True dat. I'm amazed at the incivility I see. But it beats over-moderation. We just need to deal with it properly.
Anyway, I didn't find your questions offensive.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I'm not sure why you're getting so huffy here. You asked a question. How do you want me to prove it to you? I thought it was pretty obvious. Let's go with a couple of questions.

If you go back to page one and look at the progression, I asked some specific questions that have been completely ignored. So yes it is frustrating to see a thread derailed for false assumptions. I can say confidently that people have not been interested in specific points I have raised. They are being glossed over.

Do you think goodness is a concept invented by humans?

No.

If so, how is justice any different from goodness?

If you are intere3sted in my explanation of the above so be it, if not, that is OK too.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

If you were asked, and you are right now, do you feel the natural world or all that you know and experience operates on a fundamental that nothing is particularly fair. In other words the world is naturally an unjust place.

Could you please comment? Thanks...

Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thread, but you started with the question of whether or not atheists think the natural world or universe is naturally an unjust place. That question leads to the response that it is neither just nor unjust because those things are not inherent properties of the universe, but they are labels we apply to things.

So, what is the argument you'd like to make?

From the OP above, see bolded. I did not mean to exclude the human experience either.
I am so late for dinner I need to force myself out of here. I hope you are still interested later.

Thanks...

 

[Just_me_Mike]

We design and implement our own in order to bind a culture/society for safety.

Is this opinion?

 

[linwood]

It seems once you declare "better" you also declare some standard by which you are comparing. What is that standard, by which your views become "better"?
Where did the standard come from?

For me that standard is "Non-violation".
I try to violate other peoples interests as little as possible.

For me that standard came through my upbringing and analysis of human understanding and a need for a cohesive society.

If justice has to do with an individual, what makes one nations agreed upon rules any better or worse then the next?

Nothing, their rules either fit within your ethical standards or they don`t.
Whether they do or not has a great effect upon how you should deal with them concerning your own rights/safety according to your ethical standards.

Do you never look at a nation and say, this one is better or worse than that one?

Yes.

I suspect you don't if you really feel there is no real justice.

Bob didn`t say he felt there is no justice.
I don`t know of anyone who feels "there is no justice".
We just feel it comes from different places.

If our morals can be said to improve over time or from nation to nation, we must have some standard by which to make this comparison, if not there is no difference in savage morals or decent morals.

Yes, that standard is given value by the culture which is judging.
Our ethical system looks like hell itself to most mid-eastern Muslims and theirs looks the same to us.
Which one of us is right?
Niether and both.
We differ because each of those two cultures puts value on different things.
Looking around the world it seems pretty obvious there is no "universal ethos" considering the constant culture clash globalization has brought us across the globe.

So, have I not given a reason to wonder if indeed moral law or law of human decent may be a real thing?

Of course it`s a "real thing" it`s just a different thing for different people.
It is not an a priori cosmic force.
To believe so is to deny what you see happening in the world around you.
To believe so brings death and destruction to those who differ and lack power.
This history has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Stating the standard is yours, means what? A standard exists outside of the things in question. If we are discussing human decency and justice, what does it mean to say it is mine? That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense.I fail to see why the concept would be difficult to grasp.

If you are suggesting you make you own up as you go along, I doubt you seriously believe that. If you do please correct me.

Consider yourself corrected.

In other words, I don't think when you see a girl drowning and a rope is on shore, that it is something "you" invented to consider throwing the rope out.

Perhaps I didn`t invent it but it fits with the ethical system I have designed for myself.
There is also no guarantee I`ll throw the girl that rope.
There are a few people that my ethical system would deem less harmful if allowed to drown.

I can show how justice in the sense of human decency is not something we can wish away or reduce with semantics (though we often do) to be something that is just "important" or "real", but in fact exists as a truth no different than any other law.

That would be quite entertaining I`m sure.Please do.

I can't see how one could develop any human decency if there is no real sense of justice or decency.

Why do you keep saying justice is not "real" if humans created it?
Can humans not make "real" things/concepts in your mind?
Justice is "real" it`s simply not universal.Can`t you see this in the world around you? We agree on practically nothing from culture to culture and never have.

It has already been explained to you, son. You're just trying to boil it down to "no invisible sky daddy = nihilism" and you're dismissing anything that doesn't jibe with your preconceived notions.

So that`s why he thinks ethics can`t be "real".

Geez, fine prove it. you assert this to be true, prove it...

LMAO..Another theist begging for "proof" of a negative.
Hilarious!

 

[LuisDantas]

So to you there is non real sense of justice.
When I consider that position, I cant help but think of Nazi values, and why we migt view them as inferior to our views if in fact we felt no real sense of justice.
Is that not a fair question?

There is no inherent fairness in existence. But there is the capability to develop a more fair existence by human effort. And because it is possible and needed, it is also a moral duty.

Why you think we have no right of recognizing the disaster that is what passes for Nazi moral values, I don't know. Would we need an inherently fair universe to have that capability? If so, why?

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems once you declare "better" you also declare some standard by which you are comparing. What is that standard, by which your views become "better"?
Where did the standard come from?

Mostly from philosophy, particularly utilitarian ethics. It is not particularly challenging to find a workable source of same.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

LMAO..Another theist begging for "proof" of a negative.
Hilarious!

Asking Mball to prove we invented fairness and justice, is asking to prove a negative? I didn't know that...
I didn't ask to prove there is no justice or fairness, which would be asking to prove a negative.
So someone please tell me is asking Mball to prove we invented fairness and justice asking to prove a negative?

My problem with everyone asserting we invented it iron clad end of discussion, is that is so elementary to say such a thing without explanation, which is what I asked Mball for.
If there is no good explanation other than it is just what we believe, than there should be room to expand the knowledge of the subject.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Mostly from philosophy, particularly utilitarian ethics. It is not particularly challenging to find a workable source of same.

Are you speaking from authority here or opinion?

 

[Father Heathen]

See? You really aren't satisfied with anything other than "goddidit".

 

[jarofthoughts]

OK I give up, you guys when. You are not reading what I am saying. Evolved instincts are one thing, and the ability to wield them is another. I am not arguing that altruism is an instinct, please point to where I have, if not stop bringing it up and pay attention to the content I am putting forth.

Some of you are SO eager to argue a non point just to argue, you obviously show you have spent ZERO time contemplating the material at hand.
For those of you that have considered, I appreciate it.

Mate, I was replying to your original question. That was my first post in this tread...

Edit: And seeing as I've now read through the whole tread I find my reply fully consistent with your questions, follow-up questions and arguments.

So, please respond as to why you think my view is faulty, if that is indeed what you think.

 

[Revoltingest]

Stating the standard is yours, means what? A standard exists outside of the things in question. If we are discussing human decency and justice, what does it mean to say it is mine? That makes no sense.
If you are suggesting you make you own up as you go along, I doubt you seriously believe that. If you do please correct me.

I really do believe it. I have the values which I acquired as I grew up in my family & in this culture. I don't see any absolutely true source,
only that these are the values I have. I consider them, & they develop over time & experience, but I don't see any moral authority out
there which can be shown to be true or inerrant. I understand that my worldview is quite foreign to believers who have a codified dogma,
but it feels quite normal to me. In fact, it's your approach which strikes me as problematic. But as long as you're a decent person by my
standards, I'm OK with it.
Btw, the underlined portion of your post could be viewed as offensive by thinner skinned posters.

In other words, I don't think when you see a girl drowning and a rope is on shore, that it is something "you" invented to consider throwing the rope out.

I'd throw a rope & help simply because that is who I am & how I act. I don't even claim to have "invented" my morals & ethics.
Perhaps I came up with something original, but I doubt that. We absorb that which is around us. I don't claim to
fully understand how we each become who we are....but I see that it happens.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I have suggesting nothing other than this last option. I am in fact curious after the argument has been laid out thoroughly to an atheist how such a thing in fact does exist, why they might not still accept it as fact.

Well, I can only speak for myself in this matter, but it seems to me that there is not a shred of evidence in favour of there being some external universal form of justice.

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you speaking from authority here or opinion?

That is a weird question. I have personal authority, as has anyone else.

 

[Magic Man]

If you go back to page one and look at the progression, I asked some specific questions that have been completely ignored. So yes it is frustrating to see a thread derailed for false assumptions. I can say confidently that people have not been interested in specific points I have raised. They are being glossed over.

What are these questions/points? It doesn't seem to me like anyone would be intentionally glossing over your points because they didn't like them. They may have been trying to address them in different ways, or thought that they weren't relevant to the real point of the discussion.

I went back and read some of the pages. It seems to me that there is some miscommunication. Whatever it is you're trying to argue or discuss doesn't seem to be coming out right. At this point I'm really not sure what it is you're trying to argue.

No.

If you are intere3sted in my explanation of the above so be it, if not, that is OK too.

I would like to hear your explanation. I'm not quite sure how you can consider goodness or badness an inherent quality of things. For instance, some people would say apple pie has the quality of goodness. How is that goodness an objective quality of that thing that would exist without humans?

 

[ninerbuff]

I believe nature is completely fair. Fair in that it treats everyone the same(good and bad).

Just is dependent on your view and has nothing to do with nature.

I agree. In this world it's all about survival and passing on your genes. View of what is good and bad is dependent on how your see it.

 

[Magic Man]

So you are appealing to your sense of justice as purely a learned and human convention/invention.
What I would ask you to consider is that one can take for granted that things learned must be human convention. Example, the multiplication table, it is certain we are taught this, but whether we are taught it or not does not make the table any truer or not. So in arithmetic we may get false sums, but we correct for it and progress. It is this progress that allow the multiplication table to be a standard by which we can compare our progress.
So to I admit we learn decent behavior from our parents, schools, books etc... This must not mean that it can only be a human convention. If our morals can be said to improve over time or from nation to nation, we must have some standard by which to make this comparison, if not there is no difference in savage morals or decent morals.

What we find in your cultural example is that the moral law existed just as the multiplication table existed, we just were missing the mark and still do plenty of times, but we must ask which class the moral progression really belongs too, real truth or human convention.
So, have I not given a reason to wonder if indeed moral law or law of human decent may be a real thing?

It depends on what you mean by "real thing". Morality is indeed a real thing. But it's a real thing that was invented by humans. Most people agree that the best morality is to treat others as you'd want to be treated. We're doing that more than people were 100 year ago and 500 years ago. But ultimately, morality is just a code of conduct for interacting with other people. If you don't interact with other people, morality is irrelevant (unless you believe in a god who says that silly things like masturbation are immoral).

The standard I use for my morals is the golden rule, along with reason and logic. So, yes, there is a difference to me between savage morals and decent ones.