Questions directed to atheists and agnostics only

[Grace Seeker]

When it comes to morality, there is no such thing as their morals or my morals or your morals.

What's morally right and wrong does (must) not change from person to person or religion to religion.

I fail to see why this would be true if there is no God. If there is no absolute being, then isn't morality just something that is "invented" by society. As such, different societies could and do invent different moralities, and without an outside source of authority, then there is no one to say that one society's morals is superior to another's, they are just different, that is all.

 

[ranma1/2]

I fail to see why this would be true if there is no God. If there is no absolute being, then isn't morality just something that is "invented" by society. As such, different societies could and do invent different moralities, and without an outside source of authority, then there is no one to say that one society's morals is superior to another's, they are just different, that is all.

Its pretty much is an action moral becuase god says it is or does god say it is moral because it is.
If the first case is true then we are in no better a situtation and morality is only based off of gods whims. If the second case is true then it is possible for us to choose what is good and we dont need god to tell us anyway.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I fail to see why this would be true if there is no God. If there is no absolute being, then isn't morality just something that is "invented" by society. As such, different societies could and do invent different moralities, and without an outside source of authority, then there is no one to say that one society's morals is superior to another's, they are just different, that is all.

I would agree with this, but add that human nature and survival dynamics frequently point each of the societies to find particularly things moral and other things immoral. Morality springs from empathy and self preservation, something common amongst societies. Often religions are grown and dressed around it and often religions are used to override it or subdue it.

And there are of course other cultural and social norms that simply come to be and do so nonuniversally, leading to great differences in what each culture sees as immoral or taboo.

Taboo language is my personal favourite. The concept of words that are not discrimnatory slurs or pejoratives can be taboo is pretty amazing.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Its pretty much is an action moral becuase god says it is or does god say it is moral because it is.
If the first case is true then we are in no better a situtation and morality is only based off of gods whims. If the second case is true then it is possible for us to choose what is good and we dont need god to tell us anyway.

So, the question then becomes: Is there such a thing as absolute good?

I don't mean is what we think of as good relative or not. Obviously it is. Societies and situations often dictate people to see polar opposite things as good. Or a thing is good in on scenario and bad in another. Thus our perceptions of what is and is not good are indeed relative. But beyond our perceptions, is there an actual concept of goodness that we can all share? If so, where does it come from?
If not, then what difference does it make how one behaves or believes with regard to anything? If there really is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, there can't really be any such thing as moral or immoral either.

 

[ranma1/2]

Howdy Grace Seeker,

So, the question then becomes: Is there such a thing as absolute good?
Yes a very important question, of course i guess we would need to define good then too..
I don't mean is what we think of as good relative or not. Obviously it is. Societies and situations often dictate people to see polar opposite things as good. Or a thing is good in on scenario and bad in another. Thus our perceptions of what is and is not good are indeed relative.
Ok
But beyond our perceptions, is there an actual concept of goodness that we can all share? If so, where does it come from?
As i said we need to define good first.
I can good or bad actions be performed if there is noone to be affected?
If not, then what difference does it make how one behaves or believes with regard to anything?
As i think Pygoscelis has said its part of living in a social group. I think it exists as a social construct to define actions that are benefital for the whole. For me a good act is a selfless act and selfish acts tend to be bad.
If there really is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, there can't really be any such thing as moral or immoral either.

I would disagree in that we do create in our own minds what we think is right , wrong, good and bad. And if there is no definitive good and bad i see no problem with that.

 

[cali dude]

I fail to see why this would be true if there is no God. If there is no absolute being, then isn't morality just something that is "invented" by society. As such, different societies could and do invent different moralities, and without an outside source of authority, then there is no one to say that one society's morals is superior to another's, they are just different, that is all.

No, I am not saying there is no God. I do believe in God but I am not convinced that everything in religions came from God.

 

[cali dude]

So, the question then becomes: Is there such a thing as absolute good?

Yes, something that has no negative effect at all

If so, where does it come from?

Of course, it has to come from God or the Creator whoever or whatever power is behind this creation. Having said that, since I don't believe that all religions present the absolute truth, I think we need to know God's reason for considering something good or bad. So, we need to know the basic reason why something could be considered good or bad. For example, alcoholism. Why is it good or bad?

 

[Pygoscelis]

So, the question then becomes: Is there such a thing as absolute good?

Independent of those to percieve it (being that human, alien or God)? No. The concept loses any coherency in that case. Asking if something is good or bad absent a mind to perceive it is like asking what colour something is absent light or what is the common opinion of people who do not exist.

But beyond our perceptions, is there an actual concept of goodness that we can all share?

No, we can not share in any concept beyond our perceptions, by definition.

The idea that morality requires an absolute law giver on what is acceptable and what is not is a fallacy. Morality requires no such thing, and if there is an absolute law giver, its laws are not necesarily moral.

If not, then what difference does it make how one behaves or believes with regard to anything?

It matters because we ARE here to perceive it. We have empathy for like beings and don't want to see them hurt or cheated.

If there really is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, there can't really be any such thing as moral or immoral either.

Are "good", "right" and "moral" not synonyms? If so, your statement is true by definition, and is also meaningless. Without cats there can't really be such a thing as cats.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Independent of those to percieve it (being that human, alien or God)? No. The concept loses any coherency in that case. Asking if something is good or bad absent a mind to perceive it is like asking what colour something is absent light or what is the common opinion of people who do not exist.



No, we can not share in any concept beyond our perceptions, by definition.

The idea that morality requires an absolute law giver on what is acceptable and what is not is a fallacy. Morality requires no such thing, and if there is an absolute law giver, its laws are not necesarily moral.



It matters because we ARE here to perceive it. We have empathy for like beings and don't want to see them hurt or cheated.



Are "good", "right" and "moral" not synonyms? If so, your statement is true by definition, and is also meaningless. Without cats there can't really be such a thing as cats.

Your view that "good", "right", and "moral" are meaningless, is exactly why I asked the question: "If [there is] not [an absolute good], then what difference does it make how one behaves or believes with regard to anything?" As I said, if there really is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, there can't really be any such thing as moral or immoral either. Then the behavior of people cannot be judged any differently than the behavior of dogs or ants. We contribute to our society or we don't, but there is no moral value to it, only an economic one at best. Thus, those things which we considered criminal are wrong, not because they are truly wrong, but because they are not in our personal best interest. I don't believe such a position to be true. I think that there actually are moral standards that are good in and of themselves. I am not saying that all laws or religious ethics are based on them or even identify them well. But I do think they exist, however poorly we have been at recognizing them. To think otherwise would be to imply that Hitler is no worse than Mother Theresa, but just made life for some of us more uncomfortable. I am not willing to make that statement, and I don't seek how one can claim that Hitler or anyone is a despot without recognizing that there is some moral authority outside both you and Hitler to which you make that appeal.

 

[Pygoscelis]

As I said, if there really is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, there can't really be any such thing as moral or immoral either.

As I responded above, if good, right and moral are synonyms, then your statement is a tautology, saying nothing. If there are no dogs, there are no dogs. Um, ya, but so what? I did not say that morality is meaningless. I said your statement was.

We contribute to our society or we don't, but there is no moral value to it, only an economic one at best. Thus, those things which we considered criminal are wrong, not because they are truly wrong, but because they are not in our personal best interest. I don't believe such a position to be true.

Nobody does. You have twisted things and built a bit of a straw man, though I don't think you realize it. You don't need some code of morality that exists absent a mind to perceive it (such a thing isn't coherent anyway) to have moral values. And any code that exists isn't necesarily moral. Why assume it would be? And by whose standards?

I think that there actually are moral standards that are good in and of themselves.

Incoherent. A thought can not exist outside a thinker.

To think otherwise would be to imply that Hitler is no worse than Mother Theresa, but just made life for some of us more uncomfortable.

That is only your straw man.

I don't see how one can claim that Hitler or anyone is a despot without recognizing that there is some moral authority outside both you and Hitler to which you make that appeal.

If you mean we need some concept of morality to judge Hitler as wrong or destructive or evil, then yes we do, and we get that concept from our culture and out sense of empathy. No Gods need apply.

If there are universal morals that we all hold regardless of culture, that is not because morality exists absent a mind to perceive it, that means that human minds and circumstance can come to universal conclusions. And that is not terribly suprising given that we all have brains that pretty much function the same and there are universal circumstances that apply to all of us (ie, none of us are immortal, etc).

 

[Grace Seeker]

If there are universal morals that we all hold regardless of culture, that is not because morality exists absent a mind to perceive it, that means that human minds and circumstance can come to universal conclusions. And that is not terribly suprising given that we all have brains that pretty much function the same and there are universal circumstances that apply to all of us (ie, none of us are immortal, etc).

But I propose that the mind you seek need not be a human mind. I propose that indeed because all men (and women) believe that there is such a thing as "good" == even though they define what good means differently they all make appeal to something known they call good. Thus giving credence to the concept of goodness existing independent of our various definitions of it. But as you say, a thought cannot exist outside a thinker, so where does this thought come from. It is common to us, but not the same so it appears to come from outside of us. I suggest that it comes from God. That we perceive a concept of goodness, precisely because a god (not the God, I'm not trying to define the nature of this God yet) some sort of supreme being has created each of us in some manner to perceive, even if only very dimly, that there does exist something outside of ourselves, and one of the ways seek to identify it is as the source of good. (Could it be the source of evil or bad, also? I don't actually think so, but that is based on other ideas I have with regard to God. As far as I have taken this argument thus far, I would not disagree with those who wanted to argue that as a option also.)

 

[ranma1/2]

That would be an agnostic. Like me.
You need to look up atheist in the dictionary. :skeleton:
It is the simplest of all. No God. :blind:

YOu can both be an agnostic and an atheists.
Atheism deals with belief agnostism deals with knowledge.

As an atheist i do not believe in the existence of god.
As an agnostic I realize that the existence of god can neither be proven with knowledge of course to the same point I am a agnostic in pink unicorns.

However if you believe in a god wether it is of religion or not then you probably fall under the category of either a theist or deist.

 

[Pygoscelis]

But I propose that the mind you seek need not be a human mind. I propose that indeed because all men (and women) believe that there is such a thing as "good" == even though they define what good means differently they all make appeal to something known they call good. Thus giving credence to the concept of goodness existing independent of our various definitions of it. But as you say, a thought cannot exist outside a thinker, so where does this thought come from. It is common to us, but not the same so it appears to come from outside of us. I suggest that it comes from God. That we perceive a concept of goodness, precisely because a god (not the God, I'm not trying to define the nature of this God yet) some sort of supreme being has created each of us in some manner to perceive, even if only very dimly, that there does exist something outside of ourselves, and one of the ways seek to identify it is as the source of good. (Could it be the source of evil or bad, also? I don't actually think so, but that is based on other ideas I have with regard to God. As far as I have taken this argument thus far, I would not disagree with those who wanted to argue that as a option also.)

Sure, there could be a thought on what is good and what is bad, a thought not within a human mind but within the mind of an entity that is not human. I think my dog sees some actions as good and some as bad. No reason why a God wouldn't have its opinions on the same.

That doesn't MAKE it "objectively" good though, just as your and my opinion on what is good doesn't. Just because this is an opinion or thought of a higher being doesn't somehow make it anything other than an opinion or thought.

Obeying the directives of this higher being is simply obedience. It is not necesarily morality.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Sure, there could be a thought on what is good and what is bad, a thought not within a human mind but within the mind of an entity that is not human. I think my dog sees some actions as good and some as bad. No reason why a God wouldn't have its opinions on the same.

That doesn't MAKE it "objectively" good though, just as your and my opinion on what is good doesn't. Just because this is an opinion or thought of a higher being doesn't somehow make it anything other than an opinion or thought.

Obeying the directives of this higher being is simply obedience. It is not necesarily morality.

Unless that being is the Creator being. Then as the creator it would seem that it does indeed determine what is and is not.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Unless that being is the Creator being. Then as the creator it would seem that it does indeed determine what is and is not.

That is a convenient fall back for anything you may care to discuss re a creator being. Black is white. Up is down. Thoughts can exist without a thinker. Because the creator being determines what is. It matters not if it is observable, logical, or even coherent (as we see here). With this kind of fall back thinking, you can claim ANYTHING, but all you really do is spin your wheels.

 

[Grace Seeker]

That is a convenient fall back for anything you may care to discuss re a creator being. Black is white. Up is down. Thoughts can exist without a thinker. Because the creator being determines what is. It matters not if it is observable, logical, or even coherent (as we see here). With this kind of fall back thinking, you can claim ANYTHING, but all you really do is spin your wheels.

I'm not claiming black is white, up is down, or that there are thoughts without a thinker. I am saying that sense we have these thoughts there must indeed be a thinker. I am also suggesting that since these thought seem to have been universally created in us, there must be a creator. You are the one who seems to be wanting to claim the existence of created thought without the existence of a creator. They just are. Are you sure you're not the one spinning your wheels?

 

[Pygoscelis]

I am saying that sense we have these thoughts there must indeed be a thinker.

Indeed. And that is us.

I am also suggesting that since these thought seem to have been universally created in us, there must be a creator.

Creator of the thoughts? That is us. You don't need any kind of creator for us to create thoughts. And since we are all part of the same species and have similar brains, and since we all have somewhat similar circumstances, we are of course going to have some universal thoughts. This is to be expected. It requires no supernatural forces.

 

[Woodrow]

Indeed. And that is us.



Creator of the thoughts? That is us. You don't need any kind of creator for us to create thoughts. And since we are all part of the same species and have similar brains, and since we all have somewhat similar circumstances, we are of course going to have some universal thoughts. This is to be expected. It requires no supernatural forces.

Just some random thoughts I have. Nope, no proof to back them up. Just my own thoughts.

I have heard it said that the belief in a superior being is simply the evolutionary result of a survival tool and that in some manner to believe in a superior being was conducive to our development.

If that is true, Where did Atheists come from?

 

[ranma1/2]

Just some random thoughts I have. Nope, no proof to back them up. Just my own thoughts.

I have heard it said that the belief in a superior being is simply the evolutionary result of a survival tool and that in some manner to believe in a superior being was conducive to our development.

If that is true, Where did Atheists come from?

there is some specualtion as to how the concept of god evolved.
As for atheism, its just a non belief in a god or gods.
i guess i would also be a
a-unicornist. : i dontbelive in unicorns.

but in general i would say atheism is the default. When you are born you dont have a concept of god ,especially a particular one. It is through curiosity and socialization that we develope the belief in a god or gods or the supernatural.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Just some random thoughts I have. Nope, no proof to back them up. Just my own thoughts.

I have heard it said that the belief in a superior being is simply the evolutionary result of a survival tool and that in some manner to believe in a superior being was conducive to our development.

If that is true, Where did Atheists come from?

Well you see, it wen't down like this. Ug the cave man was walking down he trail one day when a sabre toothed tiger jumped out of the bush and ate him up. Ug's last words were "Ug! WHY MEEE!?!". Thog and Unh were standing nearby and Thog turned to Unh and asked "Who he think he talkin to?"

Actually, I do think there is something to the theory you speak of. But belief in God is more of a side effect. We are evolved to be very keen at picking out patterns, even where none exist. We're apt at coming up with imaginative ideas too. False positives were less dangerous to our ancestors than false negatives, when considering something like if that thing in the stream ahead that you are about to step on is a rock or an alligator.