Should attitudes about atheism change?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7139
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1268 times
Been thanked: 1499 times

Should attitudes about atheism change?

Post #1

Post by Tcg »

.
Yet another study reveals that atheism does not result in immorality:
Atheism, Morality, and Society
Is God necessary for goodness?

According to a recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center, only 44 percent of Americans say that it is necessary to believe in God in order to “be moral and have good values.” Or put differently, a majority of Americans—around 56 percent—think that you can be moral and have good values, even if you are an atheist.

They are absolutely correct.

The evidence is clear that atheism does not result in immorality. If anything, secularity is strongly correlated with sound ethical living.

Despite the horrible, murderous crimes of various infamous atheist dictators—such as Cambodia's Pol Pot or the USSR's Stalin, who criminally forced their atheism on captive populations and sought to destroy religion—in societies where atheism isn't coerced, but emerges naturally in free, democratic contexts, the result is usually not inhumanity, crime, and chaos, but well-being, safety, and sound moral life.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... nd-society
Why do the 44% continue to think that one must be a theist to be moral when the data reveals that isn't true?


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3345
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 255 times
Been thanked: 920 times

Re: Should attitudes about atheism change?

Post #11

Post by Miles »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:59 pm
This depends on how one chooses to define morality, if the definition excludes God (atheism) then of course you won't need God to be moral but if the definition is in terms of God (theism) then of course you do need God.
Then let's choose English dictionaries to define morality. I've never found them to be theistically biased one way or the other.


mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/
noun: morality

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
"the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"
source: Oxford Languages Dictionary

_______________________________


morality noun
mo·​ral·​i·​ty | \ mə-ˈra-lə-tē
, mȯ- \
plural moralities

Essential Meaning of morality
1 : beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior the changing cultural morality The group is calling for a return to traditional morality.
2 : the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something
source: Merriam- Webster Dictionary

_______________________________


Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).
source: Wikipedia

_______________________________

morality
(mərælɪti )
2. countable noun
A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behavior, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
source: Collins English Dictionary

_______________________________


morality
noun
us
/məˈræl.ə.ti/
  • a set of personal or social standards for good or bad behavior and character:
  • the quality of being right, honest, or acceptable:
source: Cambridge Dictionary

_______________________________


morality
noun
/məˈræləti/

1 principles of right or wrong behavior
1a a system of principles concerning right and wrong behavior that is accepted by a particular group of people
2 the degree to which something is considered to be right or wrong
source: Macmillian Dictionary

_______________________________


morality
n. a system of beliefs or set of values relating to right conduct, against which behavior is judged to be acceptable or unacceptable.
source: APA Dictionary of Psychology

_______________________________


morality (mə' ræl'i te)
1.conformity to the right rules of conduct; moral or virtuous conduct
2 moral quality of character
3 virtue in sexual matters
4 doctrine or systems of morals
5 moral instruction
6 MORALITY PLAY
source:Random House Webster's College Dictionary



Hmmm, not one thing about god. Obviously god is superfluous to the concept of morality.


.

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1532
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: Should attitudes about atheism change?

Post #12

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:36 pm No and no. Social responsibility is a harder choice when one does not fear divine punishment, but it is not impossible, is more logical and more praiseworthy, as one is not doing it to wine a reward or escape punishment but for the good of humans as a whole.
Why do you assume I fear "divine punishment" and act out of self interest "reward"? I act often out of empathy just as perhaps you do, another word for that might be "love".
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:36 pm And Hawking was indeed one of the greatest physics minds of the modern age, even though you can't see that 'something from nothing' is the only logical solution to infinite regression (an eternal complex being with no origin is not a logical solution, but a faith based dismissal of the problem) even though physics is still groping towards the explanation of a nothing with the potentiality to become something.
Something from nothing is unscientific, it is not a scientific explanation or theory. It is both illogical and irrational particularly for empiricist atheists.

Consider how one would represent a something from nothing concept in a mathematical theory, what would the laws and equations look like?

Of course there could be no laws because if there were we could not call that "nothing".

There is no infinite regress when we posit God, a non-material, sentient, will of unimaginable capability, not subject to law but a creator of law.

The material universe cannot be invoked as its own explanation, no thing can serve as its own explanation - not in science anyway.

The universe is evidence of something but it is not evidence of itself, it is evidence of a sentient, creative, will, nothing else can explain what we see, certainly not silliness like Hawking's and Krauss's "something from nothing".

I also beg to differ regarding Hawking, I do not think he contributed any new major insights into theoretical physics, unlike say Einstein or Dirac or Planck.

But don't take my word for it. (The entire "something from nothing" insanity only serves to show how poorly the public understand the roots of science, and that's because they've been hoodwinked by celebrities like Dawkins, Hawking, Krauss et-al)

Scientific American.
Hawking managed to convince the public that his opinion always mattered. "[H]is comments attracted exaggerated attention even on topics where he had no special expertise," wrote Martin Rees, a close friend and colleague of his, "for instance philosophy, or the dangers from aliens or from intelligent machines." His overweening confidence—and his stubbornness—cost him respect from many of his colleagues, especially late in his career.
In truth, Hawking was not the greatest scientist of our time. He was an important physicist whose importance is almost universally misunderstood; a person who suffered deeply and also caused deep suffering; a celebrity scientist who broke the mold of his forebears and fundamentally changed the concept of a scientific celebrity. To truly understand Hawking—just as to truly understand science—one has to reject the myth and examine the messy reality underneath. To stop looking at Hawking as a prophet, but instead as a flawed and brilliant human being.
Prospect Magazine.
But Hawking was revered as an almost superhuman intelligence. Amid that mythmaking are some disturbing messages for our attitudes both to science and to disability, as Hawking was stripped of his personhood and turned into an icon.
Hawking did not really produce any important scientific work after A Brief History; a decade later he was left behind by a new generation of theoretical physicists. Towards the end of his career, he would float half-baked but attention-grabbing ideas. In 2004, he announced that he’d “solved a major problem in theoretical physics”—the black hole information paradox. But all he’d done was to finally convince himself of what many others already believed: that he’d been wrong to think information was erased by black holes.
So don't mistake celebrity for significance.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1532
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: Should attitudes about atheism change?

Post #13

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Miles wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:06 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:59 pm
This depends on how one chooses to define morality, if the definition excludes God (atheism) then of course you won't need God to be moral but if the definition is in terms of God (theism) then of course you do need God.
Then let's choose English dictionaries to define morality. I've never found them to be theistically biased one way or the other.


mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/
noun: morality

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
"the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"
source: Oxford Languages Dictionary

_______________________________


morality noun
mo·​ral·​i·​ty | \ mə-ˈra-lə-tē
, mȯ- \
plural moralities

Essential Meaning of morality
1 : beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior the changing cultural morality The group is calling for a return to traditional morality.
2 : the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something
source: Merriam- Webster Dictionary

_______________________________


Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).
source: Wikipedia

_______________________________

morality
(mərælɪti )
2. countable noun
A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behavior, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
source: Collins English Dictionary

_______________________________


morality
noun
us
/məˈræl.ə.ti/
  • a set of personal or social standards for good or bad behavior and character:
  • the quality of being right, honest, or acceptable:
source: Cambridge Dictionary

_______________________________


morality
noun
/məˈræləti/

1 principles of right or wrong behavior
1a a system of principles concerning right and wrong behavior that is accepted by a particular group of people
2 the degree to which something is considered to be right or wrong
source: Macmillian Dictionary

_______________________________


morality
n. a system of beliefs or set of values relating to right conduct, against which behavior is judged to be acceptable or unacceptable.
source: APA Dictionary of Psychology

_______________________________


morality (mə' ræl'i te)
1.conformity to the right rules of conduct; moral or virtuous conduct
2 moral quality of character
3 virtue in sexual matters
4 doctrine or systems of morals
5 moral instruction
6 MORALITY PLAY
source:Random House Webster's College Dictionary



Hmmm, not one thing about god. Obviously god is superfluous to the concept of morality.


.
Yes, not one thing about God because you selected definitions that exclude God.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3345
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 255 times
Been thanked: 920 times

Re: Should attitudes about atheism change?

Post #14

Post by Miles »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:52 pm
Miles wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:06 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:59 pm
This depends on how one chooses to define morality, if the definition excludes God (atheism) then of course you won't need God to be moral but if the definition is in terms of God (theism) then of course you do need God.
Then let's choose English dictionaries to define morality. I've never found them to be theistically biased one way or the other.


mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/
noun: morality

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
"the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"
source: Oxford Languages Dictionary

_______________________________


morality noun
mo·​ral·​i·​ty | \ mə-ˈra-lə-tē
, mȯ- \
plural moralities

Essential Meaning of morality
1 : beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior the changing cultural morality The group is calling for a return to traditional morality.
2 : the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something
source: Merriam- Webster Dictionary

_______________________________


Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).
source: Wikipedia

_______________________________

morality
(mərælɪti )
2. countable noun
A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behavior, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
source: Collins English Dictionary

_______________________________


morality
noun
us
/məˈræl.ə.ti/
  • a set of personal or social standards for good or bad behavior and character:
  • the quality of being right, honest, or acceptable:
source: Cambridge Dictionary

_______________________________


morality
noun
/məˈræləti/

1 principles of right or wrong behavior
1a a system of principles concerning right and wrong behavior that is accepted by a particular group of people
2 the degree to which something is considered to be right or wrong
source: Macmillian Dictionary

_______________________________


morality
n. a system of beliefs or set of values relating to right conduct, against which behavior is judged to be acceptable or unacceptable.
source: APA Dictionary of Psychology

_______________________________


morality (mə' ræl'i te)
1.conformity to the right rules of conduct; moral or virtuous conduct
2 moral quality of character
3 virtue in sexual matters
4 doctrine or systems of morals
5 moral instruction
6 MORALITY PLAY
source:Random House Webster's College Dictionary



Hmmm, not one thing about god. Obviously god is superfluous to the concept of morality.


.
Yes, not one thing about God because you selected definitions that exclude God.

Au contraire, I did no such selecting; however, the door is wide open and I invite you to find the mention of god as part of the definition of "morality" in any two secular dictionaries of your choice.


.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Should attitudes about atheism change?

Post #15

Post by alexxcJRO »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm Since it's rhetorical I won't address it.
The question was rhetorical because I was trying to make a dramatical point and because I don't believe abstract conjurings like Yahweh exist in reality. Such conjurings only exist in the gullible minds of the religious.
I was once in the no distant past suffering from such things.
But I have been since cured of such afflictions thanks to science, accumulating of knowledge and off course using my frontal cortex more.
But it must be nice to believe your beloved God is responsible for the great suffering and pain of non-moral agents(infants, non-human animals, severely mentally impaired).

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm You mean I should regard you as God? rely on your definition?
I was pointing out that there is a objective mechanism that leads to a kind of morality that is not based on whim or subjective religious ponderings of ignorant ancient desert goat herders.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm You are equating empathy with morality, if that's your definition of moral then what about cases where a person feels empathy for an immoral person?
Don't straw man please.
I said affective empathy leads to an intrinsically sense of morality mostly guided by the Golden Rule or law of reciprocity.

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm This is absurd, should I refuse to inject a child with vaccine because I feel empathy when they express extreme fear?
Furthermore on what basis can a person be deemed immoral when (as I assume you believe) we have no will, we are fantastically complex deterministic machines; how can a machine whose parts adhere to scientific laws, act in a way at odds with those laws?
The objective mechanism is not flawless off course. But for the most part works.
There is a positive feed back loop involving this mechanism when we couple it with our rational.
We also have a rational. We know without a vaccine a person might experience a much greater suffering, pain and even death then the pain and suffering from a needle. The mechanism triggers again with a much stronger response for we empathize even more thinking of the grim possible future outcome. The empathic response is greater for the much greater evil then the small one.
The small evil therefore becomes necessary.

Observation: Is still in question if the universe, our actions are fully deterministic. Quantum mechanics uncertainty leaves room for doubt.


Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm Besides why should I embrace empathy? what if I do not care about others and do not have empathy?
Sir one does not embrace affective empathy. One either has a developed affective response or not.
Off course one can ignore this morality.
The response will still exist no matter if one ignores it. I can still inflict pain but I will feel remorse after. Feel bad.
Psychopaths don't have this objective mechanism-affective empathy developed. Therefore do not have this intrinsically developed morality.
They will harm other human being with no remorse or issue.
See Ted Bundy and other such very malevolent individuals.

Off course this objective morality is better then the subjective ponderings of ignorant ancient goat herders: can kill witches, fortunetellers, gays; can beat a slave as long as him/her not dies after two days.
The religious people have been ignoring this objective morality(ex:the empathic responded triggered when one was harming a gay person, slave)for eons just to appease a fictitious being capricious needs.

Some good food for thought.
Enjoy! 8-)
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Should attitudes about atheism change?

Post #16

Post by alexxcJRO »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:31 pm There is no infinite regress when we posit God, a non-material, sentient, will of unimaginable capability, not subject to law but a creator of law.
Q: Why do you mean by material?
Q: Does this being not subject to the three fundament laws of logic?
Q: What do you mean by will of unimaginable capability?
Q: When you say sentient with unimaginable capability you include a possible hivemind?
Q: Why does the first cause have to be sentient or just one as in singular(“creator”)?
It is possible a very powerful being exists and is indifferent in respect to the well being and affairs of humans akin to the likes of “Azeroth”.

Azathoth is a mindless force of Chaos-objective randomness that happens to be extremely powerful. He simply is. Existing but not much else. With no real ability to think in either the abstract sense or the simple way non-human animals way. In his random, unintelligibly, mindless way Azathoth created or dreamed the universe as we know it into existence. He did this unintentionally, unaware of the occurrence. He will be equally oblivious, unaware when he destroys it. There's no point behind his actions, it's just happenstance when he does something.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:31 pm The material universe cannot be invoked as its own explanation, no thing can serve as its own explanation - not in science anyway.
Q: What if the universe exists in a multiverse and has a material cause inside the multiverse?
Q: What if the universe thing can serve as its own explanation(Eternalism) in a B theory of time where there is no such thing as temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time?
Every moment of time, all there is just exists at once: tenselessly.
The absurdities discussed by al-Ghazali do not arise.
The passage of time is a subjective illusion of human consciousness. Temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1532
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: Should attitudes about atheism change?

Post #17

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:16 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm Since it's rhetorical I won't address it.
The question was rhetorical because I was trying to make a dramatical point and because I don't believe abstract conjurings like Yahweh exist in reality. Such conjurings only exist in the gullible minds of the religious.
Our models, representations of reality are teeming with abstractions, "God" is but one example.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:16 am I was once in the no distant past suffering from such things.
But I have been since cured of such afflictions thanks to science, accumulating of knowledge and off course using my frontal cortex more.
But it must be nice to believe your beloved God is responsible for the great suffering and pain of non-moral agents(infants, non-human animals, severely mentally impaired).
So we have contrasting stories then, I was once immersed in science, studied theoretical physics, and was a very vocal atheism and evolution advocate before it became as fashionable as it is today.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:16 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm You mean I should regard you as God? rely on your definition?
I was pointing out that there is a objective mechanism that leads to a kind of morality that is not based on whim or subjective religious ponderings of ignorant ancient desert goat herders.
Only if I agree with your assumptions, all "objective" models in the sciences are based on assumptions and axioms, we are in such cases free to pick and choose our axioms.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:16 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm You are equating empathy with morality, if that's your definition of moral then what about cases where a person feels empathy for an immoral person?
Don't straw man please.
I said affective empathy leads to an intrinsically sense of morality mostly guided by the Golden Rule or law of reciprocity.
There is no "law of reciprocity", a law is inviolable in the sciences (which is why the term is so used).
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:16 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm This is absurd, should I refuse to inject a child with vaccine because I feel empathy when they express extreme fear?
Furthermore on what basis can a person be deemed immoral when (as I assume you believe) we have no will, we are fantastically complex deterministic machines; how can a machine whose parts adhere to scientific laws, act in a way at odds with those laws?
The objective mechanism is not flawless off course. But for the most part works.
You say it "works" so to what end? what defines "works" for you, here?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:16 am There is a positive feed back loop involving this mechanism when we couple it with our rational.
We also have a rational. We know without a vaccine a person might experience a much greater suffering, pain and even death then the pain and suffering from a needle. The mechanism triggers again with a much stronger response for we empathize even more thinking of the grim possible future outcome. The empathic response is greater for the much greater evil then the small one.
The small evil therefore becomes necessary.
Right so now you need some agreed way to measure and estimate the utility of a course of action. One that has high utility is deemed "moral" and one that has low utility is deemed "immoral".

So your argument all boils down to utility, a material way of defining some kind of material value system, but we can all define our own utility here, nothing special about your or anyone's really.

The child will perceive the vaccinator is "evil" a source of fear and pain, her measure of utility is quite different from yours.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:16 am Observation: Is still in question if the universe, our actions are fully deterministic. Quantum mechanics uncertainty leaves room for doubt.
So are you admitting there is a "free will" then? that machines like us can do things that are not governed by laws of nature?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:16 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:12 pm Besides why should I embrace empathy? what if I do not care about others and do not have empathy?
Sir one does not embrace affective empathy. One either has a developed affective response or not.
Off course one can ignore this morality.
The response will still exist no matter if one ignores it. I can still inflict pain but I will feel remorse after. Feel bad.
Yes, you keep talking about your experiences, this is hardly a way to talk about objective moral laws.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:16 am Psychopaths don't have this objective mechanism-affective empathy developed. Therefore do not have this intrinsically developed morality.
They will harm other human being with no remorse or issue.
See Ted Bundy and other such very malevolent individuals.
But does that make them immoral?
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:16 am Off course this objective morality is better then the subjective ponderings of ignorant ancient goat herders: can kill witches, fortunetellers, gays; can beat a slave as long as him/her not dies after two days.
The religious people have been ignoring this objective morality(ex:the empathic responded triggered when one was harming a gay person, slave)for eons just to appease a fictitious being capricious needs.

Some good food for thought.
Enjoy! 8-)
And there we go, a poorly disguised attempt to stereotype anyone who is not an atheist, disparaging, insulting, all so typical in such conversations.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1532
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: Should attitudes about atheism change?

Post #18

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:48 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:31 pm There is no infinite regress when we posit God, a non-material, sentient, will of unimaginable capability, not subject to law but a creator of law.
Q: What do you mean by material?
Q: Does this being not subject to the three fundament laws of logic?
Q: What do you mean by will of unimaginable capability?
Q: When you say sentient with unimaginable capability you include a possible hivemind?
Q: Why does the first cause have to be sentient or just one as in singular(“creator”)?
Fair enough, let me try to answer these for you.
1. Material is that which is subject to scientific inquiry, is the stuff we deal with when we undertake scientific inquiry. It includes matter, energy, fields, laws, all of the fundamental abstractions that are represented in our scientific theories.
2. What three laws are you referring to?
3. I mean the potential to create change in ways that our current models of reality cannot sustain.
4. No I do not mean "hivemind", I mean something that cannot be subject to reductionism.
5. Sentient is necessary here otherwise the being is acting in accordance with scientific laws, only an entity not subject to, not acting under laws can create laws where laws did not exist, in the absence of laws, laws cannot play a role, something very different is needed.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:48 am It is possible a very powerful being exists and is indifferent in respect to the well being and affairs of humans akin to the likes of “Azeroth”.

Azathoth is a mindless force of Chaos-objective randomness that happens to be extremely powerful. He simply is. Existing but not much else. With no real ability to think in either the abstract sense or the simple way non-human animals way. In his random, unintelligibly, mindless way Azathoth created or dreamed the universe as we know it into existence. He did this unintentionally, unaware of the occurrence. He will be equally oblivious, unaware when he destroys it. There's no point behind his actions, it's just happenstance when he does something.
I see.
alexxcJRO wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:48 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:31 pm The material universe cannot be invoked as its own explanation, no thing can serve as its own explanation - not in science anyway.
Q: What if the universe exists in a multiverse and has a material cause inside the multiverse?
Q: What if the universe thing can serve as its own explanation(Eternalism) in a B theory of time where there is no such thing as temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time?
Every moment of time, all there is just exists at once: tenselessly.
The absurdities discussed by al-Ghazali do not arise.
The passage of time is a subjective illusion of human consciousness. Temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality.
The term "multiverse" is a misnomer, the term "universe" means (and always has) - literally - all material, everything in totality that exists. The pseudo science term "multiverse" is an abuse of language, a far better term would have been "multicosmos" because that's actually what people mean by it.

Well in science offering up an observation as the explanation for that observation is somewhat frowned upon. It is the equivalent of answering "because" when someone asks "why is the sky blue" or "how does radio energy travel through empty space".

Answering "because" to such questions if you were a science teacher would soon have you looking for a new job. Likewise answering "because" to the question "why does the universe exist" should be treated the same way, dismissal because it is not a scientific answer.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 9059
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 157 times
Contact:

Re: Should attitudes about atheism change?

Post #19

Post by 1213 »

Tcg wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:13 am ...
Why do the 44% continue to think that one must be a theist to be moral when the data reveals that isn't true?
By what I know, modern atheists claim that atheism is nothing more than lack of belief in God. Atheism has no doctrines, no teachings of good and right. Therefore it can't provide them to anyone. This means, if atheist has moral, it comes from somewhere else. And this is why, if person is just an atheist, it can't be assumed he has moral, because atheism doesn't provide it.

Luckily people are usually something more than atheists, because then they can have also some kind of moral. Interesting question is, where do they get it, because atheism itself doesn't have it.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Should attitudes about atheism change?

Post #20

Post by alexxcJRO »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:07 am Only if I agree with your assumptions, all "objective" models in the sciences are based on assumptions and axioms, we are in such cases free to pick and choose our axioms.
Q: What are you babbling here? :?
Q: What assumptions?
Please be more specific.

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:07 am So we have contrasting stories then, I was once immersed in science, studied theoretical physics, and was a very vocal atheism and evolution advocate before it became as fashionable as it is today.
From a very vocal atheist and evolution advocate now a believer in a God that is responsible for the great suffering and pain of non-moral agents(infants, non-human animals, severely mentally impaired).
Q: Do you believe your God is some indifferent deist God? Who could care less what happens with the humans?
Q: Do you no longer believe evolution happened?
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:07 am There is no "law of reciprocity", a law is inviolable in the sciences (which is why the term is so used).
Ok if you don’t like it. Then we will say “affective empathy leads to an intrinsically sense of morality mostly guided by the Golden Rule”.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:07 am You say it "works" so to what end? what defines "works" for you, here?

Humans because of this objective mechanism don’t go out and kill, rape, torture because they find such acts abhorrent.

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:07 am Right so now you need some agreed way to measure and estimate the utility of a course of action. One that has high utility is deemed "moral" and one that has low utility is deemed "immoral".

So your argument all boils down to utility, a material way of defining some kind of material value system, but we can all define our own utility here, nothing special about your or anyone's really.

The child will perceive the vaccinator is "evil" a source of fear and pain, her measure of utility is quite different from yours.

Its irrelevant for my initial response was to this : “If the universe is simply unfeeling, uncaring, deterministic laws acting upon matter and space then I do not see how "moral" and "immoral" can be defined scientifically, they can only be defined arbitrarily, based on whim.
Are there "moral" laws of nature?”

And I pointed that there exists an objective morality that results from an objective mechanism and its not based on whim. This mechanism triggers no matter if we want or not. We find certain actions abhorrent because of it.

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:07 am Yes, you keep talking about your experiences, this is hardly a way to talk about objective moral laws.
There exists an objective morality that results from an objective mechanism and its not based on whim-subjective feelings sir. This mechanism triggers no matter if we want or not. We find certain actions abhorrent because of it. There is no choice.
If murder triggers this mechanism (because we(most of us) have a developed affective empathy) we find murder abhorrent independent of our subjective whims.

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:07 am But does that make them immoral?
According to the objective mechanism (because one has a developed affective empathy) we find murder(caused by a psychopath) abhorrent.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:07 am And there we go, a poorly disguised attempt to stereotype anyone who is not an atheist, disparaging, insulting, all so typical in such conversations.
But it’s the truth. Ignorant ancient goat herders believed their God: Yahweh wanted them to kill witches, fortunetellers, gays; that they can beat a slave as long as him/her not dies after two days.
Q: Are you not familiar with Jewish mythology?

Affective empathy still functions if one has it developed sir no matter one thinks of gays, slaves, fortunetellers.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Post Reply