The pursuit of knowledge and truth, through God, through science, through civil and engaging debate

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51  Next

Reply to topic
Guest
First Post
PostPosted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:04 pm  I am seriously questioning my atheism Reply with quote

Disclaimer: This post may be out of place on the Christianity and Apologetics forum (even though it does have some relation to Christianity), if it is, I apologize and ask that it be moved to a more appropriate place on the forum. However, I do intend this thread to be a discussion, if not a debate, so I felt this was the best place for it.

As many of you know, I am an ex-evangelical Christian and a current atheist. By "atheist," I mean I lack belief in god(s) of any kind, although I do not assert that there are definitely no gods. Since departing from Christianity, everything has made so much more sense: an eternal Universe (defined as the totality of natural existence) explained existence, evolution explained the diversity of life on earth, the absence of god(s) explained the problems of evil, inconsistent revelation, and so on.

However, there is one thing that I have been unable to account for under atheism: morality. Atheists almost invariably state that moral values and duties are not objective facts, but are simply subjective statements of preference and have no ontological value. That is, of course, until we are presented with cases of true evil, such as the Holocaust, the atrocities of Pol Pot, or the horrible psychopathic serial killings of individuals like Jeffery Dahmer. Then we as atheists tacitly appeal to objective moral values and duties, saying that individuals who commit should be severely punished (even executed) for doing "evil," saying that they "knew right from wrong." But if right and wrong are simply statements of subjective opinion, then how can we say that others knew "right from wrong" and are accountable for their actions? If relativism is true, they simply had differing opinions from the majority of human beings. However, it seems obvious to me (and to the vast majority of others, theist and atheist alike) that this is absurd -- the monsters who carried out the aforementioned acts really, objectively did evil.

Given this, the only reasonable conclusion is that moral facts and imperatives exist.

However, atheism appears to offer no framework for moral facts. Because of this, a few weeks ago, I started up a discussion on Wielenbergian moral realism, which states that objective moral values are simply "brute facts" that exist without any explanation. However, others rightly pointed out that the existence of "brute facts" is ontologically problematic and that the best explanation (on atheism) is that morality is simply subjective. Additionally, even if atheistic moral facts existed, the Humeian problem of deriving an "ought" from an "is" would preclude them from acting as moral imperatives; commands which human beings are obligated to follow.

In light of these airtight logical objections to atheistic moral realism, I was forced to abandon my position on moral facts and tentatively adopt moral relativism. However, relativism still seems problematic. After all, if morality is subjective, no one person can accuse another of failing to recognize the difference between "right and wrong," however, it is obvious to me (and, I would suspect, to other atheists as well) that right or wrong really objectively (not subjectively) exist.

The only rational conclusion I can seem to come up with is that there is a (are) transcendent moral lawgiver(s) who both grounds moral facts and issues binding moral commands on all humanity; i.e., God(s). This echoes evangelical Christian philosopher William Lane Craig's moral argument, which syllogism reads:

WLC wrote:
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists


Premises 1 and 2 seem bulletproof -- (1) was demonstrated earlier in this post, leaving (2) as the only premise to attack. However, (2) seems to be as obvious as a hand in front of my face. The conclusion necessarily follows from (1) and (2), so is there any rational reason for me to reject the conclusion of the argument?

Remember, I am no believer of any kind. I am a staunch, educated, informed atheist, and I am well aware of the philosophical arguments against God(s), such as the problem of evil, the dysteleological argument, the problem of omniscience, etc. I'm also well aware of the plentiful empirical evidence against the existence of God(s), for instance, evolution, mind-body physicalism, etc. These are the reasons I reconverted from Christianity in the first place. However, I don't see way around this problem other than to accept either that our apparently obvious sense of moral facts is somehow mistaken, or that (a) theistic being(s) exist.

Debate question: Are my issues with atheism legitimate? Can atheism provide a coherent moral framework other than nihilism, relativism, or subjectivism? Do these problems really present evidence for theism? Is William Lane Craig right? Is this a real problem for atheism, or are my (our) emotions simply overriding my (our) rationality?

Feel free to present evidence for or against atheism, Christianity, or any religious or nonreligious perspective in this thread.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 481: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:09 pm
Reply

Like this post
Artie wrote:
. Why have believers committed any atrocities at all if they have God to guide them? http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm


I chide theists on the accuracy of their sources, and I think in all honestly, I will have to do the same for the 'Truth be known' site. D. M. Murdock. also known as Acharya S, is hardly a reliable and honest source. I put her reliability very low down the scale.. she is biased, and inaccurate. I would use different sources .. she is inaccurate enough that anything that comes from her is tainted.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 482: Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:03 am
Reply

Like this post
1robin wrote:
I don't think I made any point about you being haveing to defend atheism.

I was referring to this "I was making a point that in atheism there is no compelling reason to respect or value other life forms that do not directly help you in some way."

Quote:
This thread was concerning the justification of values in atheism vs a religion, or that's what I thought anyway.

It was, and Haven was making the same mistake you are. One shouldn't look to atheism for to justify their values.

Quote:
Because some values can't be accounted for by atheism. Which you admitted: "It is because atheism doesn't claim to provide justification for beliefs like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, justice etc". Since Christianity couldn't have borrowed the values that atheism doesn't have, if atheists profess these values then it must be the other way around.

False dichotomy - People borrowing their values from atheism and people borrowing their values from Christians aren't the only two options. I've already mentioned that people get their basic values from humanism.

Quote:
Well could you list the ones that come from Humanism in your opinion and why they didn't come from the religion of Abraham.

I've already named the Golden rule for predating Jesus. This didn't come from the religion of Abraham because the same rule appeared in other civilisations that hasn't been reached by Judaism.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 483: Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:43 am
Reply

Like this post
Goat wrote:
Artie wrote:
. Why have believers committed any atrocities at all if they have God to guide them? http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
I chide theists on the accuracy of their sources, and I think in all honestly, I will have to do the same for the 'Truth be known' site. D. M. Murdock. also known as Acharya S, is hardly a reliable and honest source. I put her reliability very low down the scale.. she is biased, and inaccurate. I would use different sources .. she is inaccurate enough that anything that comes from her is tainted.
Thanks for the tip I will check her out.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 484: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:22 am
Reply

Like this post
[quote="Bust Nak"]
1robin wrote:
I don't think I made any point about you being haveing to defend atheism.

I was referring to this "I was making a point that in atheism there is no compelling reason to respect or value other life forms that do not directly help you in some way."

Quote:
This thread was concerning the justification of values in atheism vs a religion, or that's what I thought anyway.

Quote:
It was, and Haven was making the same mistake you are. One shouldn't look to atheism for to justify their values.
I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. It's more complecated than you are saying I assume in Atheism that evolution is taken for granted and natural selection it's driving force even though I may not spell it out like that. Their morals must be accounted for by these forces alone which in m y opinion they are not.

Quote:
Because some values can't be accounted for by atheism. Which you admitted: "It is because atheism doesn't claim to provide justification for beliefs like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, justice etc". Since Christianity couldn't have borrowed the values that atheism doesn't have, if atheists profess these values then it must be the other way around.

Quote:
False dichotomy - People borrowing their values from atheism and people borrowing their values from Christians aren't the only two options. I've already mentioned that people get their basic values from humanism.
When discussing a religion there are two groups, believers, and atheists (although non-believers might be more accurate). Humanism did not exist as a defined philosophy until the 1500's. You cant just create a vaige all incomposing philisophical catch all which is so ill defined there is no way to establish what it could or couldn't be responsible for. How in humanism would a society decide who's morality is correct. There is nothing but other subjective cases for comparison and no ultimate objective authority to decide the matter.

Quote:
Well could you list the ones that come from Humanism in your opinion and why they didn't come from the religion of Abraham.

Quote:
I've already named the Golden rule for predating Jesus. This didn't come from the religion of Abraham because the same rule appeared in other civilisations that hasn't been reached by Judaism.
First of all Jesus wasn't the insitutor of morals, he clarified and expanded them. Secondly the bible teaches that all men have been given a conscience from God which would contain the golden rule and so nothing would predate this. Thirdly what sources are you using to support the existance of "the golden rule" in societies more than 4000 yrs old. I do not see the "golden rule" the dominant force in human or animal societies today or in the past. Thousands of people each year commit suicide for the reason that they hate mans constant me first attitude. Are wolves showing this attitude when they maul and drive out any new males that show up, no they are following the exact opposite paradigm. Benevolence in nature is due to the desire to conserve energy, the law of deminishing return, tribal bonds, etc..... and is the more rare case when compared to the number of me or us first and everyone else last cases.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 485: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:37 am
Reply

Like this post
1robin wrote:
I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. It's more complecated than you are saying I assume in Atheism that evolution is taken for granted and natural selection it's driving force even though I may not spell it out like that. Their morals must be accounted for by these forces alone which in m y opinion they are not.

So when you said "I was making a point that in atheism there is no compelling reason to respect or value other life forms..." you actually meant "that in evolution there is no compelling reason to respect or value other life forms..."?

Quote:
When discussing a religion there are two groups, believers, and atheists (although non-believers might be more accurate). Humanism did not exist as a defined philosophy until the 1500's. You cant just create a vaige all incomposing philisophical catch all which is so ill defined there is no way to establish what it could or couldn't be responsible for.

Right, but I clarified that, I said the name is new but the ideas aren't. Any social ideals that binds humanity together is humanism. To establish whether a value is due to humanism, just see if it mentions deity. Any that doesn't is human centric.

Quote:
How in humanism would a society decide who's morality is correct. There is nothing but other subjective cases for comparison and no ultimate objective authority to decide the matter.

That's an oxymoron, either it is objective and hence no need for an authority at all, or it is subjective relating to an authoritive figure. (Assuming you mean objective as in objectivism, as opposed to objective as in fair.)

Quote:
First of all Jesus wasn't the insitutor of morals, he clarified and expanded them.

You are thinking of God as insitutor of morals, right?

Quote:
Secondly the bible teaches that all men have been given a conscience from God which would contain the golden rule and so nothing would predate this.

This is why I told you I couldn't prove it because it would involve disproving the existence of gods when you asked me the first time round.

Quote:
Thirdly what sources are you using to support the existance of "the golden rule" in societies more than 4000 yrs old.

I don't know about more than 4000 years old, I am thinking of ancient Egypt which is around 4000 years old. And more to the point, the Abrahamic religions didn't reach places like China until around 600AD.

Quote:
I do not see the "golden rule" the dominant force in human or animal societies today or in the past. Thousands of people each year commit suicide for the reason that they hate mans constant me first attitude.

There are rules and there are rule breakers. The breakers are far from the norm in human, and others have given you prenty of references to other social animal behaviour.

Quote:
Are wolves showing this attitude when they maul and drive out any new males that show up, no they are following the exact opposite paradigm.

Correct, but they are showing this attitude when they share their food after a hunt. Or when they assist in looking after another's pups.

Quote:
Benevolence in nature is due to the desire to conserve energy, the law of deminishing return, tribal bonds, etc.....

So you do accept benevolence happens in nature?

Quote:
and is the more rare case when compared to the number of me or us first and everyone else last cases.

In the totality of nature, sure. This isn't true though if the scope is limited to social animals.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 486: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:20 am
Reply

Like this post
[quote="Bust Nak"]
1robin wrote:
I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. It's more complecated than you are saying I assume in Atheism that evolution is taken for granted and natural selection it's driving force even though I may not spell it out like that. Their morals must be accounted for by these forces alone which in m y opinion they are not.

Quote:
So when you said "I was making a point that in atheism there is no compelling reason to respect or value other life forms..." you actually meant "that in evolution there is no compelling reason to respect or value other life forms..."?
I don't regard them as seperate in this sense anyway. If there are no Gods then evolution is the all that is left. This is only true for the atheistic evolutionary model not for the theistic evolutionary model. There is no objective justification for morality in Atheism which includes evolution.
Quote:
When discussing a religion there are two groups, believers, and atheists (although non-believers might be more accurate). Humanism did not exist as a defined philosophy until the 1500's. You cant just create a vaige all incomposing philisophical catch all which is so ill defined there is no way to establish what it could or couldn't be responsible for.

Quote:
Right, but I clarified that, I said the name is new but the ideas aren't. Any social ideals that binds humanity together is humanism. To establish whether a value is due to humanism, just see if it mentions deity. Any that doesn't is human centric.
Well not exactly you can't say every moral commandment that doesn't contain God said is humanistic because humanism isn't a force it's an arbitrary unproven description that has no creative power. Suppose I said that xism is the cause of all why would this be any less true than humanism.

Quote:
How in humanism would a society decide who's morality is correct. There is nothing but other subjective cases for comparison and no ultimate objective authority to decide the matter.

Quote:
That's an oxymoron, either it is objective and hence no need for an authority at all, or it is subjective relating to an authoritive figure. (Assuming you mean objective as in objectivism, as opposed to objective as in fair.)
There is no source of objective directives in atheism only subjective opinion. Which authority figure and why? Nature suggests the strongest which is inherently malevolent. Religion suggests God which is inherently just (you may not agree with that but you get the idea I hope) Objective means an ultimate standard that is correct regardless of subjective opinion in this case.

Quote:
First of all Jesus wasn't the insitutor of morals, he clarified and expanded them.

Quote:
You are thinking of God as insitutor of morals, right?
Yes but I should amend my statement to say that his earthly ministry wasn't the beginning or morals. He very well could be the first source of them in the beginning though as he is God and eternal.

Quote:
Secondly the bible teaches that all men have been given a conscience from God which would contain the golden rule and so nothing would predate this.

Quote:
This is why I told you I couldn't prove it because it would involve disproving the existence of gods when you asked me the first time round.
Fair enough, but then you cannot claim that Atheism does account for morals. You can say that you believe it does. I consider that illogical but you are entitled to believe that.
Quote:
Thirdly what sources are you using to support the existance of "the golden rule" in societies more than 4000 yrs old.

Quote:
I don't know about more than 4000 years old, I am thinking of ancient Egypt which is around 4000 years old. And more to the point, the Abrahamic religions didn't reach places like China until around 600AD.
This is sort of a moot point if man has a concience from God. If they all had an overarching golden rule philisophy from evolution why did they spend great parts of their individual histories killing each other.

Quote:
I do not see the "golden rule" the dominant force in human or animal societies today or in the past. Thousands of people each year commit suicide for the reason that they hate mans constant me first attitude.

Quote:
There are rules and there are rule breakers. The breakers are far from the norm in human, and others have given you prenty of references to other social animal behaviour
. They have only given a behavior without a know motivation or proven cause. The animal world is more characterized by indifference and struggle even though it has I am sure examples of the opposite.

Quote:
Are wolves showing this attitude when they maul and drive out any new males that show up, no they are following the exact opposite paradigm.

Quote:
Correct, but they are showing this attitude when they share their food after a hunt. Or when they assist in looking after another's pups.
Why is this not simple tribal empathy or instincts given by God for survival.

Quote:
Benevolence in nature is due to the desire to conserve energy, the law of deminishing return, tribal bonds, etc.....

Code:
So you do accept benevolence happens in nature?
I accept actions that appear benevolent happen but I deny that anyone knows the reason or cause.

Quote:
and is the more rare case when compared to the number of me or us first and everyone else last cases.

Quote:
In the totality of nature, sure. This isn't true though if the scope is limited to social animals.
If you remove indifference and the motivations I listed above then I disagree. Why are most animals non-social if social is such an advantage?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 487: Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:38 am
Reply

Like this post
1robin wrote:
I don't regard them as seperate in this sense anyway. If there are no Gods then evolution is the all that is left. This is only true for the atheistic evolutionary model not for the theistic evolutionary model. There is no objective justification for morality in Atheism which includes evolution.

Ok, two issues here. First is whether atheism include evolution or not, second is whether evolution provide objective justification for morality. On the first issue, I would say no, evolution isn't included by atheism. This is because atheism is one specific idea, that we don't believe in gods. Atheists also believe in many other things, but they are incidental.

On the second point, I agree, evolution explains where our morality comes from, but that is no objective justification. The same way evolution explains why human perfer fatty and sweet food, but that is not a justification for us choosing sweet and fatty food.

Quote:
Well not exactly you can't say every moral commandment that doesn't contain God said is humanistic because humanism isn't a force it's an arbitrary unproven description that has no creative power.

Humanism isn't suppose to be a creative force - humans are. Humanism is just an umbella term for the social rules adoped by human.

Quote:
Suppose I said that xism is the cause of all why would this be any less true than humanism.

Well that depends on whether you mean the religion, or the Christian God. Both have been touched on already. For the former, people have independly came up with the golden rule for example; for the latter, no, I cannot disprove God.

Quote:
There is no source of objective directives in atheism only subjective opinion.

I agree. But I would point out not all atheists are subjectivists.

Quote:
Which authority figure and why?

Speaking as a subjectivist, that authority figure would be me, the reason being I am the world's foremost expert on the opinion of Bust Nak.

Quote:
Nature suggests the strongest which is inherently malevolent.

The way to become strong does not necessarily mean being mean or overcoming others. Specifically working together can be a way of beinging strong. Hence being strong is not inherently malevolent.

Quote:
Religion suggests God which is inherently just (you may not agree with that but you get the idea I hope) Objective means an ultimate standard that is correct regardless of subjective opinion in this case.

So does that include the subjective opinion of God? However this may be more suitible for the Euthyphro's Dilemma thread. Basically, either the ultimate standard is dependent on God, or independent of God, with either option having some interesting logical outcome.

Quote:
Yes but I should amend my statement to say that his earthly ministry wasn't the beginning or morals. He very well could be the first source of them in the beginning though as he is God and eternal.

Right,

Quote:
Fair enough, but then you cannot claim that Atheism does account for morals. You can say that you believe it does. I consider that illogical but you are entitled to believe that.

Well I would say humanity as a whole account for morals. Like other atheist, we believe empathy is the source of morality.

Quote:
This is sort of a moot point if man has a concience from God. If they all had an overarching golden rule philisophy from evolution why did they spend great parts of their individual histories killing each other.

Because there are other conflicting desires other than empathy at work.

Quote:
They have only given a behavior without a know motivation or proven cause. The animal world is more characterized by indifference and struggle even though it has I am sure examples of the opposite.

Well, all motivation boils down to to preference. What motivate you to follow the golden rule? Because Jesus ordered it. Why do you want to do what Jesus ordered? Because you want to please God. What do you want to please God? And I can keep going and going until there is no answer other than just because I want to.

Quote:
Why is this not simple tribal empathy or instincts given by God for survival.

Tribal empathy is an instinct - you don't need to learn empathy. You and I differ on the source of that instinct. But whether it is natural evolution or God given, you can conclude it is not from religion.

Quote:
I accept actions that appear benevolent happen but I deny that anyone knows the reason or cause.

Well, would you agree we know enough to conclude it is not form religion?

Quote:
If you remove indifference and the motivations I listed above then I disagree. Why are most animals non-social if social is such an advantage?

Forming society and working together is just one out of many different strategy. The advantages comes with a cost, other strategies have different cost and advantages.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 488: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:09 am
Reply
Re: I am seriously questioning my atheism

Like this post
Artie wrote:
1robin wrote:
I think I finally understand why you said things the way you did but it still strikes me as if you are making the point that God is evil which would quite a different conversation. Your facts about Satin are not quite right according to the bible Satin is responsible for leading 100s of millions of people who ejected God into eternal damnation but like I said this is a huge seperate subject. I however do appreciate your comments. What did you think of the disparity of intelligence point I made.
How would you measure and evaluate animal and human intelligence for a comparison?


My claim is so apparent that I am suspicious of your motivation for asking your question. It shouldn't be hard to establish a test just take the principles involved in existing intelligence tests for humans and animals and merge them in an unbroken linear scale.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 489: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:31 am
Reply

Like this post
[quote="Bust Nak"]
1robin wrote:
I don't regard them as seperate in this sense anyway. If there are no Gods then evolution is the all that is left. This is only true for the atheistic evolutionary model not for the theistic evolutionary model. There is no objective justification for morality in Atheism which includes evolution.

Quote:
Ok, two issues here. First is whether atheism include evolution or not, second is whether evolution provide objective justification for morality. On the first issue, I would say no, evolution isn't included by atheism. This is because atheism is one specific idea, that we don't believe in gods. Atheists also believe in many other things, but they are incidental.
Well let me amend my statement. I think if Atheism exists then evolution must be used as the most likely force that results in morals as the non-belief in something can't produce morals.

Quote:
On the second point, I agree, evolution explains where our morality comes from, but that is no objective justification. The same way evolution explains why human perfer fatty and sweet food, but that is not a justification for us choosing sweet and fatty food.
If evolution is the producing agent then Stalin's, Charles Manson's, and Mother Theresa's morals are all equally valid and there is no objective criteria by which to invalidate any of them.

Quote:
Well not exactly you can't say every moral commandment that doesn't contain God said is humanistic because humanism isn't a force it's an arbitrary unproven description that has no creative power.

Quote:
Humanism isn't suppose to be a creative force - humans are. Humanism is just an umbella term for the social rules adoped by human.
This definition is so arbitrary that it can include anything and exclude anything because there is no standard and so is useless.

Quote:
Suppose I said that xism is the cause of all why would this be any less true than humanism.

Quote:
Well that depends on whether you mean the religion, or the Christian God. Both have been touched on already. For the former, people have independly came up with the golden rule for example; for the latter, no, I cannot disprove God.
I ment I could just make up a name and claim it caused everything and it would be just as valid as your definition humanism.

Quote:
There is no source of objective directives in atheism only subjective opinion.

Quote:
I agree. But I would point out not all atheists are subjectivists.

Could you clarify this? Please explain how we can select the objective standards we have if by your admission Atheism is insuffecient to do so.
Quote:
Which authority figure and why?

Quote:
Speaking as a subjectivist, that authority figure would be me, the reason being I am the world's foremost expert on the opinion of Bust Nak.
But you live within a society that has objective standards that trump your individual ones. In atheism this would be unjustified.

Quote:
Nature suggests the strongest which is inherently malevolent.

Quote:
The way to become strong does not necessarily mean being mean or overcoming others. Specifically working together can be a way of beinging strong. Hence being strong is not inherently malevolent.
The label given to nature is survival of the fittest not survival of the most benevolent.

Quote:
Religion suggests God which is inherently just (you may not agree with that but you get the idea I hope) Objective means an ultimate standard that is correct regardless of subjective opinion in this case.

Quote:
So does that include the subjective opinion of God? However this may be more suitible for the Euthyphro's Dilemma thread. Basically, either the ultimate standard is dependent on God, or independent of God, with either option having some interesting logical outcome.
Agreed but if God exists then the discussion is pointless.
Quote:
Yes but I should amend my statement to say that his earthly ministry wasn't the beginning or morals. He very well could be the first source of them in the beginning though as he is God and eternal.

Right,

Quote:
Fair enough, but then you cannot claim that Atheism does account for morals. You can say that you believe it does. I consider that illogical but you are entitled to believe that.

Quote:
Well I would say humanity as a whole account for morals. Like other atheist, we believe empathy is the source of morality.
Empathy seems to contradict survival in some aspects.

Quote:
This is sort of a moot point if man has a concience from God. If they all had an overarching golden rule philisophy from evolution why did they spend great parts of their individual histories killing each other.

Quote:
Because there are other conflicting desires other than empathy at work.
Like Sin?

Quote:
They have only given a behavior without a know motivation or proven cause. The animal world is more characterized by indifference and struggle even though it has I am sure examples of the opposite.

Quote:
Well, all motivation boils down to to preference. What motivate you to follow the golden rule? Because Jesus ordered it. Why do you want to do what Jesus ordered? Because you want to please God. What do you want to please God? And I can keep going and going until there is no answer other than just because I want to.
i am not sure how this is applicable to this discussion.

Quote:
Why is this not simple tribal empathy or instincts given by God for survival.

Quote:
Tribal empathy is an instinct - you don't need to learn empathy. You and I differ on the source of that instinct. But whether it is natural evolution or God given, you can conclude it is not from religion.
If it is God then is inherent but confirmed and made objective by religion (Chrisianity)

Quote:
I accept actions that appear benevolent happen but I deny that anyone knows the reason or cause.

Quote:
Well, would you agree we know enough to conclude it is not form religion?
See above

Quote:
If you remove indifference and the motivations I listed above then I disagree. Why are most animals non-social if social is such an advantage?

Quote:
Forming society and working together is just one out of many different strategy. The advantages comes with a cost, other strategies have different cost and advantages
. Evolution apparently can use any concept whatsoever for survival: good, evil, force, cooperation, empathy, brutality, even a list of benevolent contributions of Christians working by faith in God is proof, of evolutionary morality, etc........What a convient theory in that it is proven by any assertion.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 490: Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:06 am
Reply

Like this post
1robin wrote:
Well let me amend my statement. I think if Atheism exists then evolution must be used as the most likely force that results in morals as the non-belief in something can't produce morals.

Ok, I can understand that, we atheist think human are the product of evolution, and any product of human can be treated as product of evolution indirectly.

Quote:
If evolution is the producing agent then Stalin's, Charles Manson's, and Mother Theresa's morals are all equally valid and there is no objective criteria by which to invalidate any of them.

I agree there is no objective criteria to judge them by, but that doesn't mean they are all equally valid, since I can still judge them to be different via subjective means. In the same way, I favor certain food over others, even though there is no objective criteria to distinguish between taste.

Quote:
This definition is so arbitrary that it can include anything and exclude anything because there is no standard and so is useless.

I ment I could just make up a name and claim it caused everything and it would be just as valid as your definition humanism.

Well, think of it as human tribal empathy then. I like that term you introduced. Morality is the produce of human tribal empathy. You and I differ in what we think the source of that empathy is.

Quote:
Could you clarify this? Please explain how we can select the objective standards we have if by your admission Atheism is insuffecient to do so.

You can't select the objective standard. Subjectivists say such a thing doesn't exist.

Quote:
But you live within a society that has objective standards that trump your individual ones. In atheism this would be unjustified.

I live in a society that has many subjective standards, some align with mine more closely than others.

Quote:
The label given to nature is survival of the fittest not survival of the most benevolent.

In the same way the label given is not survival of the most malevolent. You can become "fitter" by many ways, being a bully is but one way, being a team player is another, amongst many other ways.

Quote:
Empathy seems to contradict survival in some aspects.

In some aspects, sure. I would say the benefit out weight the cost, you'd be hard pressed to argue humanity could get to where we are today without working together.

Quote:
Like Sin?

I wouldn't put it in religious term, but I guess "sin" would get the idea accross.

Quote:
i am not sure how this is applicable to this discussion.

If all motivation can be boiled down to "because I want to" then there is no fundamental between how other self-aware animal and human behave, the difference is in degree of instinct / mental processing.

Quote:
If it is God then is inherent but confirmed and made objective by religion (Chrisianity)

But even if God is the source of morality it is still not the teaching of Christianity that lead to human morality. The main objection of your original post was that we borrow our morality from Christianity. From your prespective, we don't need to borrow anything if it's already written in our heart, from my prespective, we get from nature.

Quote:
Evolution apparently can use any concept whatsoever for survival: good, evil, force, cooperation, empathy, brutality, even a list of benevolent contributions of Christians working by faith in God is proof, etc........What a convient theory in that it is proven by any assertion.

Evolution explains how living things came to be the way they are, of course it is expected to be able to explain good, evil, force, cooperation, empathy, brutality etc. Put another way, evolution is designed to explain all biological features, and hence all these things.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version