Free-will and Atheism

Post Reply New Topic

If the bible is considered evidence of a moral absolute, this conversation is absurd anyway. My values are superior to those of the bible.

I don't believe in slavery and I don't believe in killing non-virgins, snotty kids or raped women who didnt "cry loud enough" to be heard. That's bronze age insanity smeared on a page by savage tribal thugs. They'd be arrested and tried as maniacs today.

It's not necessary for God to get it from anywhere. If God "gets" it from somewhere, it is from His very own nature.

If God decides it, which is how I feel about it, then it's objective since the source of a moral standard is God Himself. The only sense in which it is subjective is the sense in which we either fail to see and live God's standard to its fullest or we refuse to even try to see it at all. Moral laws are not the same as laws in a different sense because moral laws can be broken, ignored, or rationalized in the mind of the perceiver. You can rationalize breaking a rule to the point you become numb to it or even start to think that breaking a particular rule is actually a good thing.

You make a couple of errors here, the biggest one is your suggestion that God's morality may not be a good one and listing your personal grievances in support. The first glaring mistake is failing to understand why it is God would do anything. If morality comes from God, and if God is good and perfect, then it is not God who makes the mistake but rather the human beings who have been punished for their evil deeds. If God does it, it is inherently good due to the inherently good nature of God. The second obvious mistake is imposing your own subjective opinions on God. It is man who is subject to the power of God, not God subject to the power of man.

I think of our understanding of morality as a collection of varying views of the same thing. It never changes in spite of how we might change in relation to it. That there are a few things in which most people almost universally agree makes me tend to think that morality is much more objective than we're really willing to think it is. We may not all agree on what exactly constitutes murder. We agree that murder is any unjustified killing, while at the same time there are legitimate reasons for justified killing. We just disagree on what constitutes a justification.

Incidentally, it seems to me that any discussion on morality is ultimately going to have the appearance of an appeal to majority. The reason why is that for a moral rule to be detected, at least two people have to be involved--one person to do wrong, and a victim. If you want to make a case for objective morality, the best evidence you can get will be the actual cognitive and physical behavior of people acting in accordance to a specific moral objective. If you see commonalities among various people that apply almost globally for extended lengths of time, one possible conclusion from behavioral evidence is that an objective moral rule is being observed.

Hoxha was Muslim, not an atheist. Albania was declared an atheist state, but Hoxha was not an atheist.

Really? I didn't know that... He went so far as to ban beards at some point as a method of preventing Islam being visible in society.

Yep. It happens in politics like that sometimes.

But I'm sure the Christians have something to say about the Iron Guard in Romania, the Utase regime in Yugoslavia, Mexico in the 1930s, and Franco's regime in Spain? I think half of Europe wasn't Christian during the 1930s and '40s (exaggeration of course). There were a LOT of posers and false believers on the continent at that time.

You're employing circular reasoning here. You're saying that God's morality is good, because God is perfect. But your concept of perfection comes from that morality. God can do no wrong because God defines what is wrong.

Your second mistake is in thinking that this makes morality objective. It does not. Objective morality would apply absolutely - no exceptions. And that includes God. An easy one for you - murder, say. We'd agree that was morally wrong, and indeed God says so himself (it's one of the commandments). And yet God breaks this law himself on countless occasions and, having given us mortality in the first place, is arguably indirectly responsible for every death throughout creation. Either murder is not absolutely immoral, or God is not perfectly good. God's morality is subjective, and must be so, because God has a viewpoint and a purpose, and is able to make decisions and take action and change his mind.

My opinions on God's specific morality are irrelevant. I do feel that any specific morality that has been ascribed to God is really the work of man. This would make far more sense of why this "absolute" morality is both so easily discarded and so prone to change over time.

When you're doing mathematics, and you think that you have proven a theorem T, but you notice that T would imply 2+2=5, then you should probably look at your work. There's probably a mistake in it.

When you're doing philosophy, and you start claiming that you are not certain that you exist, it might be a good time to think about how you got backed into this corner. You must have made a mistake somewhere.

Or I understand something you don't. That is not a corner "one gets backed into". It is not an error. It has nothing to do with math either, your correlation is the error. You have made a mistake and should rethink your approach...

No one can positively describe what gives them a perspective, and we cannot be certain anything other than the self has consciousness. That I exist, as I understand myself to be, is not a certainty. That I exist in any sense at all, is highly likely, but cannot be completely certain.

The only thing you could say I do believe, is that there is nothing that is certain...but I'm not completely certain about that either.

Many, many things approach certainty, but nothing reaches it. It's like matter and the speed of light, matter can reach close to the speed of light, but never quite reach it.

So, bearing in mind I do not believe in anything, whatsoever. Communicating in this language gets problematic, we speak in terms of certainty, we declare what is or what isn't. We can use language to describe things in varying degrees of probability, sure, but these can arbitrarily gloat communication and dilute the point, it is not efficient, and it is often extremely subjective. It is practical to avoid doing this, most of the time.

Sorry for double quoting this, but I forgot something.

They do go for big cliche names. I do know of one act of suppression a Communist government did that had a strong religious undertone to it, but I don't bring it up because the Christian apologist fleas will use tortured and dead people as some crusade against atheism. Let them find it themselves if they care so much.

you're torturing them now, they're gonna want to know what this act is so they can beat atheists over the head with... the follies of Communism!!

This is uncontroversial. What you said is that you are not certain that you exist. You didn't say that you are not certain that you are really a human, or whatever. You cannot be certain that you are not in some sort of simulation, but you can be certain that you exist.



No, you are certain of it. If you deny this, absurdity results. If you are not certain that you exist, then what on earth do you mean when you use the word "I"? Are you saying that there is not necessarily anything that you are referring to when you use the word "I"? Let me rephrase: are you saying,


Do you see how silly this is? Your very use of language presupposes that you exist. You cannot use language and not be certain that you exist.

I am doing it, so you are wrong.

I JUST said,

So, bearing in mind I do not believe in anything, whatsoever. Communicating in this language gets problematic, we speak in terms of certainty, we declare what is or what isn't. We can use language to describe things in varying degrees of probability, sure, but these can arbitrarily gloat communication and dilute the point, it is not efficient, and it is often extremely subjective. It is practical to avoid doing this, most of the time.

So yes, I do find the use of language problematic, but I have worked through this problem, if not entirely, nearly so, by simply expressing something as if it was a certainty when it is nearly so, and only expanding on that uncertainty when it is practical or important enough to do so.

So I repeat, to think you can decide for me what I believe or not believe is the height of arrogance. I expressed what I feel is not certain, being everything. You obviously are threatened or something by that view. But to deny my view in this manner is simply preposterous!

I am not certain I exist. Believe it or don't. But do me the kindness of not saying I don't think this so, because I do. I am certain of nothing, there is always doubt.

Hello Mr Tadzio,

In England we have a saying that "One swallow does not make a summer", which I think is relevant here. Just because I've used William Craig for one discussion regarding the objective nature of morality, is not enough evidence that I espouse all of his views. Case by case basis.

As for your ideas regarding my doubts, I think you are very wide of the mark. One of the main characteristics of AS is monotropism, keeping all ones eggs in one basket, having a narrow focus of interest. This affects me, and it's where I find my doubts coming in: its a case of being so intense about the particular that I lose track of the wider picture. It tends to correct itself after a while. It passes. Yes I do wonder sometimes if God cares, I wonder whether the Catholic Church is actually the unique sign of God's presence when I've suffered at its hands. And I wonder sometimes what the purpose of my life is - I had my DX late in life, and AS has been the bain of my life: in terms of breaking rapport with people on so many occasions, plans that haven't come to fruition, a non-existant career despite being well qualified, and a painful divorce, mild depression on lots of occasions, and difficulties with controlling my anger - oh yes, my beliefs haven't made me immune from these problems, not one bit.

You might want to say, well why don't you just jack in the God bit? Throw it away and find a different way, start a new chapter? Well that's all very well, but the trouble is I haven't found a lifestyle where I could make a difference to others that doesn't involve believing in God. I find atheism to be a very selfish form of existance, and I certainly haven't found any better answers from the athiests on this forum. And I have to take seriously the question "Where were YOU when I laid the foundations of the world?" (Job)

I find solace and comfort in the words of Cardinal John Henry Newman, recently declared Venerable:

God has created me to do Him some definite service.
He has committed some work to me which he has not committed to another.
I have my mission in this life - I may never know it in this life,
but I shall be told it in the next.
I am a link in a chain, a bond of connection between persons.
He has not created me for naught.
I shall do good,
I shall do his work,
I shall be an angel of peace,
a preacher in my own place while not intending it -
if I do but keep his commandments.
Therefore I will trust Him
Whatever, wherever I am I can never be thrown away.
If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve Him,
in perplexity, my perplexity may serve Him;
he does nothing in vain.
He knows what he is about.
He may take away my friends.
He may throw me among strangers.
He may make me desolate,
make my spirits sink,
hide my future from me - still He knows what he is about.

If you have any better answers Mr Tadzio, you know where I am.

^^^^^^

I like how all the Christians who complain about atheists being condescending are OK doing it in return. Some of them extend this to liberal Christians and Catholics as well, and I don't even want to know what they think about Muslims. You think if they don't like it happening to them, they would stop other Christians from doing it as well, but whatever.

I called you a flea, by the way. I figure since you keep dishing it out like this that you can take it in. I also said Fascism is tied to Christianity as well, and I gave some examples a couple posts back. If you're going around claiming Communism is related to atheism, then I can make an (even better) argument about Fascism and Christianity.

You know what act of suppression I was talking about a couple posts back?

Are you certain about this?

I'm sorry, but that just can't be true. I'm not accusing you of being a liar, I'm just accusing you of being confused.

Let's talk about unicorns instead, for an analogy. Now, either unicorns exist, or they don't exist. But whether or not unicorns exist, I still know that the concept of unicorns exists. The question is simply whether this concept is actualised in the world or not.

Now let's talk about me. Either I exist, or I don't exist. But whether or not I exist, I still know that the concept of me exists. The question is simply whether this concept is actualised in the world or not. But this means that I do exist. Because if I didn't, then that would mean that I know that the concept of me exists, but this concept is not actualised in the world. But it is actualised in the world, because I just said "I know"!

There is no way of thinking or talking about my existence that does not immediately imply that I exist.