atheist logic

[anatolian]

Love requires the Lover...Existence requires the Exister.

 

[M.I.A.]

Where did the universe come from?
Vs.
Where did God come from?

..the ultimate two sided checkmate.. Probably

 

[anatolian]

If God came from somewhere He would not be God...

 

[Bhabha]

Question. If the atheist does not believe in God or the afterlife and as such would not believe in heaven or hell. How does the atheist derive morality, if by virtue of his belief he would not require morality since he does not believe in heaven or hell and as such no punishments that would construct his moral choice.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Question. If the atheist does not believe in God or the afterlife and as such would not believe in heaven or hell. How does the atheist derive morality, if by virtue of his belief he would not require morality since he does not believe in heaven or hell and as such no punishments that would construct his moral choice.

Is the threat of hell and bribe of heaven really what compels you to be good to your fellow humans? Is obedience to power (God) really what brings out kindness from you? If you realized God doesn't exist, would you suddenly start robbing, raping, killing and stealing? If God demanded that you kill your son or fly a plane into a building, would you do it? I doubt it, but if so... I have to be weary of you... and asking the question of "how can atheists be moral without obedience to God" is a bad sign.

If you are being nice to me just because God tells you to, that isn't anywhere near as moral as being nice to me because you are just a nice person, and being nice feels good. Good for goodness sake, not for God's sake. Obedience is not morality.

I suspect that you area actually kind and do good for mostly the same reasons that I do, with or without a God belief. Human beings evolved an innate sense of empathy (seeing yourselves in others and feeling their pain and suffering, so wanting it to end) and an innate sense of fairness. It isn't unique to humans either. You can see it in dolphins, chimps, dogs, and most other social animals. We've even seen it in lab rats, giving up rewards to instead save a rat in another chamber.

Our empathic sense and sense of fairness is needed to keep the pack/pod/tribe functioning well. It forms the base level of what we call morality. People knew it wasn't cool to kill their families and friends before religion became a thing. We didn't wander around for milenia before suddenly being told "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER" and suddenly realizing killing people was bad.

One of my biggest concerns about religion, and especially Abrahamic religion such as Christianity and Islam, is this confusion of obedience to power for morality. That along with the tribalism religion fosters can lead to all sorts of nasty mindsets and behaviours, from denying homosexuals equal rights to murdering apostates.

Finally, the lack of an afterlife makes THIS life that much more important. This life is not a waiting room or testing chamber. This life is not a temporary shell to be discarded. This life is all that we get, so we need to make the very best of it. There is no heaven after death, so we have to make this life as heavenly as we can for one another.

 

[M.I.A.]

...the court of law says "thou shalt not muder"

...once in prison you can debate forced morality and obedience..

:|

...although thinking it a test is probably self deluding..

Ssshhh here come the skrews.. To teach us about morality.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The comparative religion section is on a 15 day trial, this thread could be doomed to self destruct shortly, but life carries on

Thanks for the reminder. I think it's going well enough, don't you?

We are here today, so something must have had no beginning or something came from nothing, is there a third option?

We simply don't know.

Whether that first cause was God or a carbon particle, science has no answer, science may be working perfectly well, but it seems woefully inadequate.

I agree. The fact that science is incomplete is unsatisfactory, but that doesn't mean we should denigrate or ignore it. That is what compels scientists to continue with research - the hope that they will keep discovering more.

The fact that religion offers an answer to this question might satisfy you, but it doesn't satisfy those of us who are non-believers, because, to us, although we have no answer, a wrong answer isn't somehow automatically better.

I have followed such arguments, but the detail of how the eye evolved is not convincing, but the greater challenge for blind nature, is how did the skeletal system evolve without a guiding hand?

What problems do you have with the evolution of the eye or skeleton? Nature presents a wide variety of both. Surely it is easy to comprehend the gradual advance in species from simple examples to increasing complexity? Both of these aspects of anatomy have been widely studied.

Not really, both you and I will be extinct within the next hundred years, what is the difference?

You and I do not constitute an entire species. That's a very big difference.

Peace

 

[Bhabha]

Is the threat of hell and bribe of heaven really what compels you to be good to your fellow humans? Is obedience to power (God) really what brings out kindness from you? If you realized God doesn't exist, would you suddenly start robbing, raping, killing and stealing? If God demanded that you kill your son or fly a plane into a building, would you do it? I doubt it, but if so... I have to be weary of you... and asking the question of "how can atheists be moral without obedience to God" is a bad sign.

If you are being nice to me just because God tells you to, that isn't anywhere near as moral as being nice to me because you are just a nice person, and being nice feels good. Good for goodness sake, not for God's sake. Obedience is not morality.

I suspect that you area actually kind and do good for mostly the same reasons that I do, with or without a God belief. Human beings evolved an innate sense of empathy (seeing yourselves in others and feeling their pain and suffering, so wanting it to end) and an innate sense of fairness. It isn't unique to humans either. You can see it in dolphins, chimps, dogs, and most other social animals. We've even seen it in lab rats, giving up rewards to instead save a rat in another chamber.

Our empathic sense and sense of fairness is needed to keep the pack/pod/tribe functioning well. It forms the base level of what we call morality. People knew it wasn't cool to kill their families and friends before religion became a thing. We didn't wander around for milenia before suddenly being told "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER" and suddenly realizing killing people was bad.

One of my biggest concerns about religion, and especially Abrahamic religion such as Christianity and Islam, is this confusion of obedience to power for morality. That along with the tribalism religion fosters can lead to all sorts of nasty mindsets and behaviours, from denying homosexuals equal rights to murdering apostates.

Finally, the lack of an afterlife makes THIS life that much more important. This life is not a waiting room or testing chamber. This life is not a temporary shell to be discarded. This life is all that we get, so we need to make the very best of it. There is no heaven after death, so we have to make this life as heavenly as we can for one another.

Have you ever read Dostoevsky? Morality as derived from Socrates if we take the philosophical approach is what humans, and as such would consider good or evil. Correct? If a human being, considers the killing of another as a means to redress injustices, they have assured that their moral position is that which considers killing for justice is good and as such is morally sound. If the person perceives that killing another who has committed wrong to them is good, this is according to the conception of morality (derived from a philosophical standpoint) that it is morally acceptable and thus permissible to kill.

There seems to be the assumption that tribes / pods existed without some sort of boundaries that would structure their cohabitation and relationships. However, this is a disregard for the historical account of many civilizations, who have all existed with the understanding that there is either a God, or gods (as deities) which act as their overseer. From the Mayans, to the Aztecs, to indigenous communities in North America, to tribes spanning across the bulk of Africa, to Asia, to the Middle East, etc. etc. etc. There has always existed a relationship that establishes the understanding that there is a superior deity to whom we have to give an explanation regarding our behavior on earth. God, the afterlife and as such the punishments for misbehaving in on earth have been present throughout historical analysis of the major and to some extent the minor civilizations expressing this connection.

Civilizations, people would not exist and would not be able to co-exist without structures and laws that dictate their limits. Why? "For the laws of nature (as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to) of themselves, without the terror of some power, to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge and the like. - Thomas Hobbes

Our natural inclinations are not to do good, our natural inclinations of pride, vanity, greed, lust, gluttony are seen all around. We have laws that emulate the relationship between God and his/her servant, the fact that we cannot take "justice into our hands" but leave it to the law, is an emulation of this kind of relationship. It is not up to the citizen to judge and thus cast punishment to the person who commits a crime, because they will be judged by the person in power, the state or the leader. Where do you think this kind of design came from? If not from the evolution of systems that initially established a relationship between God and his/her servants?

There is no such thing as fairness, goodness and morality outside of one that is derived with the understanding that there is an afterlife that will measure your actions. Perhaps it could be argued that "God" was taken out of the equation of morality with the inscription of laws into legal doctrines and the division of the religion from politics. You might be a good person, (good is a religious term b.t.w), but if we are dealing with finance, if I am allowing you to talk to my family, trusting you with something, how can I measure your intentions since you do not believe you will be judged or punished were you commit wrong in the transactions? There is nothing from limiting you to transgress my trust, because morality for you in this case is thin as opposed to a thicker concept of morality.

 

[ardianto]

Greetings,



I still call it coincidence, and I think it would be even more extraordinary if surprising coincidences like this never happened.

I also still believe you are a sensible person, as well as kind. When you offered to pay Eric H's jizya the other day I was on the verge of standing up next to my computer to give you a round of applause.



During my time at Catholic school I had plenty of opportunities to try out prayer, with plenty of advice from monks and priests (I have known many). No results.



I'm glad you feel your belief gives you meaning in your life. I have just never seen any evidence that is remotely compelling.

Peace

Greetings,

there was a question that came into my mind, why there are many conflicts that backed by religion, between people from different religions, or between people from same religion but have different understanding. However, different than Atheists who concluded that religion is the cause of these conflicts, I concluded, not the religion itself that become the cause, but the religious people wrong understanding on religion that become the cause.

I always believe that religion teaches love and care, and I hope every religious person realize it. So, there will be no violence that backed by religion.

Frankly, I see Pygoscelis signature is interesting "Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Obedience is doing what you are told regardless of what is right. Never confuse the two.". Yes, there are religious people who oppress other people as form of obedience. But obedience to who?. To God?. No, no, they just obey some religious leaders, but the do not realize it. That's why in one thread I remind Muslims to not attached only to one or few scholars, but must learn Islam from many more scholars. So they will easily know if some scholars actually twist Islam only to justify their own agenda.

I can understand if you cannot find God although you pray when you studied in Catholic school. I myself studied in Catholic elementary school, and I still Muslim.

Peace.

 

[Pygoscelis]

There is no such thing as fairness, goodness and morality outside of one that is derived with the understanding that there is an afterlife that will measure your actions. Perhaps it could be argued that "God" was taken out of the equation of morality with the inscription of laws into legal doctrines and the division of the religion from politics. You might be a good person, (good is a religious term b.t.w), but if we are dealing with finance, if I am allowing you to talk to my family, trusting you with something, how can I measure your intentions since you do not believe you will be judged or punished were you commit wrong in the transactions? There is nothing from limiting you to transgress my trust, because morality for you in this case is thin as opposed to a thicker concept of morality.

First, I noticed that you didn't answer my questions, though I did answer yours.

You say that you could not trust me and be weary of me, because I do not fear a supreme being. I say that I could not trust you and would be weary of you because you confuse obedience and fear of a supreme being with morality. What is to stop you from doing a horrible thing if you become convinced that your supreme being demands it? Would you kill your son for God? Would you fly a plane into a building for God?

 

[Bhabha]

First, I noticed that you didn't answer my questions, though I did answer yours.

You say that you could not trust me and be weary of me, because I do not fear a supreme being. I say that I could not trust you and would be weary of you because you confuse obedience and fear of a supreme being with morality. What is to stop you from doing a horrible thing if you become convinced that your supreme being demands it? Would you kill your son for God? Would you fly a plane into a building for God?

Fly a plane into a building for God, I see some hinting here at something. ^o)

Your same assumption about me is the same assumption I have of you, as someone whose morality is not guided and thus is random. However, mine is within limits you would be able to reconcile and see. Like the law that stipulates the punishment for homicide, it is not a random law, but it is reasonable. If there was no law that would stipulate the punishment for homicide, how would people who transgress be dealt with?

If you do not believe in God, what do you believe in? How can I know what your limitations and boundaries are?

 

[Pygoscelis]

If there was no law that would stipulate the punishment for homicide, how would people who transgress be dealt with?

If you do not believe in God, what do you believe in? How can I know what your limitations and boundaries are?

There are laws against homocide because we want to live in a safe society, and we work as a group to keep each other safe. Most of us don't need such laws, and will not go killing each other though even without such laws, because we have an empathic sense and recoil at the idea. You can know what my limitations and boundaries are by talking to me and getting to know me, the same way I can do with you. It is no different. You can't tell just by knowing I have no God belief that I am a good person, and I can not tell just by knowing that you have a God belief that you are a good person. God belief is not a marker of human decency. Believers can be very kind and gentle and caring. But God belief has inspired plenty of people to do plenty of horrific things as well.

Again, when people ask how can we have good without God, I am immediately put on guard. I see it as a warning of socipathy. How can I trust or let my guard down around somebody with no sense of empathy or right and wrong outside of obedience to power? Again, would you kill your son if God ordered it? Would you drink poisoned cool-aid and feed it to your children if God said to? Would you fly a plane into a building if God said to? Would you strap a bomb to your chest? Kill an apostate? Become bigoted against homosexuals? Burn a witch? Rip a still beating heart out of a virgin (going way back to the Aztecs for that one)? What would stop you from doing these things if you came to believe that God demanded it of you? If you have a strong sense of empathy, independent of your obedience to power, you may be able to resist.

I believe that we all have this evolved sense of empathy and fairness, and that religion (as well as nationalism and some other methods) is used to bury it deep down where some folks can no longer see it. If you take your sense of right and wrong from a book or from an order, instead of from yourself, you potentially become a very dangerous tool.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Have you ever read Dostoevsky?

I've read Crime and Punishment, Notes from the Underground and The Brothers Karamazov and enjoyed them very much. Thank you for asking.

Morality as derived from Socrates if we take the philosophical approach is what humans, and as such would consider good or evil. Correct?

I've also read much of Plato, but I don't really understand this question. Is there a word missing?

There seems to be the assumption that tribes / pods existed without some sort of boundaries that would structure their cohabitation and relationships.

Tribes without rules and boundaries would die out relatively quickly. This is one reason why (according to Émile Durkheim and others) religion was invented.

I don't know who you think is making the wrong assumption that you mention.

It is not up to the citizen to judge and thus cast punishment to the person who commits a crime, because they will be judged by the person in power, the state or the leader. Where do you think this kind of design came from? If not from the evolution of systems that initially established a relationship between God and his/her servants?

I have no doubt that you are right. Religion was absolutely necessary in the early stages of our species, and we would probably all have died out without it. None of this means that religion is true, however.

There is no such thing as fairness, goodness and morality outside of one that is derived with the understanding that there is an afterlife that will measure your actions.

There are plenty of philosophical accounts of morality that make no reference to the afterlife.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."

Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science" New York Times Magazine, 1930

Peace

 

[Bhabha]

Greetings,



I've read Crime and Punishment, Notes from the Underground and The Brothers Karamazov and enjoyed them very much. Thank you for asking.



I've also read much of Plato, but I don't really understand this question. Is there a word missing?



Tribes without rules and boundaries would die out relatively quickly. This is one reason why (according to Émile Durkheim and others) religion was invented.

I don't know who you think is making the wrong assumption that you mention.



I have no doubt that you are right. Religion was absolutely necessary in the early stages of our species, and we would probably all have died out without it. None of this means that religion is true, however.



There are plenty of philosophical accounts of morality that make no reference to the afterlife.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."

Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 1930

Peace

Albert Einstein, the man who unleashed the atomic bomb on the world and then regretted it after it had been used to destroy civilians. ^o)

 

[keiv]

:Emoji7::Emoji7::Emoji7:

The best joke I've heard in my life!!!

Putting "atheist" and "logic" together is even better.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Albert Einstein, the man who unleashed the atomic bomb on the world and then regretted it after it had been used to destroy civilians. ^o)

If you have any substantial response to my post, that would be welcome.

Peace

 

[ardianto]

There are plenty of philosophical accounts of morality that make no reference to the afterlife.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."

Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science" New York Times Magazine, 1930

Greetings,

my anthropology teacher in highschool always quoted Einstein in his teaching, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". He always reminded students that religion should not become a reason to reject science, and science should not become a reason to reject religion. My teacher himself was a devout Muslim, and he taught evolution which considered as forbidden knowledge by ultra-conservative religious people.

Okay bro, if you do not mind I want to know your view on religious people regarding science. Do you see religious people have tendency to reject scientific fact if they think it's maybe contrary with religious scripture?. If yes, then which religious people that have strongest tendency?. Muslims?, Christians, Hindus?, Others?.

If you do not mind. If you are not willing to share your view, it's okay.

Peace.
[MENTION=9285]Pygoscelis[/MENTION] ..... you can share your view too.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Okay bro, if you do not mind I want to know your view on religious people regarding science. Do you see religious people have tendency to reject scientific fact if they think it's maybe contrary with religious scripture?. If yes, then which religious people that have strongest tendency?. Muslims?, Christians, Hindus?, Others?.

If you do not mind. If you are not willing to share your view, it's okay.

Peace.
[MENTION=9285]Pygoscelis[/MENTION] ..... you can share your view too.

I don't think it is any particular religion that does it the most, so much as it is the fundamentalists within each religion. And it isn't necessarily religion doing it to the religious either. It could be that the same thing that leads them to be religious (seeking easy and certain answers) leads them to deny complicated and malleable scientific understanding ("Its JUST a theory!" "I'm not an animal" "If humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys??" :facepalm. We see the same that we see in evolution denial in climate change denial (which doesn't seem to have a religious component but runs most strongly in the religious political right).

 

[M.I.A.]

^ And czgibson has evidence that Superman is real. He calls it D.C. Comics.

...well, put winged horses alongside walking on water..or suliman phub..

Strange days where you won't believe in them and yet air Jordan's have a couple decades on them.

The hilarity of superman wishing to remain anonymous is not lost on me..

No mention of caves... For fear of plagiarism

No mention of the ark of the covenant... No winning without it?


...and...back to morality..

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

It could be that the same thing that leads them to be religious (seeking easy and certain answers) leads them to deny complicated and malleable scientific understanding

But you say yourself, science has no answers as to how the universe came about, and you say science has no need for God to be a part of that explanation. You seem to be asking us to accept inconclusive evidence, that there is no God. To my way of thinking, religious people can still believe in God, and not go against science.

("Its JUST a theory!" "I'm not an animal" "If humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys??" :facepalm. We see the same that we see in evolution denial in climate change denial (which doesn't seem to have a religious component but runs most strongly in the religious political right).

Because of the complexities of life, I firmly believe that even if evolution happened, it could not happen without the guiding hand of God.

Nature needs mechanisms to cause mutations. If I moved to Kenya, my skin would become darker, if I had a child with a black Kenyan woman, some changes would come from a mixture of black and white parents. I understand the principle of the roughest toughest male in the flock, gets to pick the girls, so the best is passed onto a next generation.

Less than a billion years ago, what would cause bones to form in early species? More importantly, what forces of nature what would cause these bones to mutate and take the shape of vertebra, skulls, limbs, ribs etc?

From the time the first bones appeared in living species, to the formation of a full skeletal system, probably happened in less than 500 million years, or about 500 million generations. But what forces of nature would cause ligaments, tendons and muscles to link bones together to create movement?

Just some little details that lead me to doubt the creative powers of the ToE.