Do Internet Atheists Have Anything New To Say?
How do we "know" right from wrong?
.
We find out by working out systems that permit us to live together with minimum antagonisms and maximum benefits from our associations. Any cooperative successful human organization decides amongst its members how to behave.
I phrased the question badly.
How does any one individual know right from wrong? How do you personally, or anyone else, know right from wrong?
If not because you are "told", one way or another, by some "authority" or another.
.
I phrased the question badly.
How does any one individual know right from wrong? How do you personally, or anyone else, know right from wrong?
If not because you are "told", one way or another, by some "authority" or another.
.
We are not individuals floating in a social vacuum awaiting instruction from an unseen magical superbeing. We grow up in families and with others growing up and the bulk of social information is established through family tradition. If the families are religious that is part of the tradition. My family had nothing to do with religion so I learned what was proper and accepted through my parents, my associates, my teachers etc. I would think this is obvious.

What a bunch of bullsh*t!
What was that for?
Yes. So?
I'm not absolutely certain, but it seems a reasonable conclusion. I remember a bible verse being used to make this point also, but I can't remember enough details to find it.
If you're trying to bring up occam's razor, that won't help you. The existence of God explains a number of things. A simpler explaination, such as "God doesn't exist", wouldn't explain those things. So it is not unreasonable of me to believe that God does exist.
Not likely. But then purple dragons aren't omniscient or omnipotent, are they? So theoretically, I could try to outsmart the purple dragon and detect it while it wasn't looking.
No, if statement A is false, then a statement that hasn't been verified may or may not be true. Statement A can be false. Statement A can also be true, but only if it is verified. You advanced statement A as true, so I pointed out that you needed to verify it.
No, they're inconsistent.
It's not automatically true, no.
That would be a physical statement that would be subject to physical verification, so that would be reasonable.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
Anacalgon and Awesomelyglorious: The reason why I am not a believer in God is for 2 important reasons:
1. NO physical evidence presented to me that a supernatural, supreme being exists.
2. NO personal contact with such a being; not even within my mind.
The conclusion that God wishes to remain undetectable is just a pathetic excuse unless you can provide some EVIDENCE(physical OR nonphysical) of it. You see, you are NOT going to convince me to take God seriously with philosophical arguments. Because after all, rhetoric can be used to construct an argument for ANYTHING, not matter how absurd or inaccurate.
As for the Bible, it is nothing more than a Book AFAIC. I could write a book that says the Earth is a flat plate resting on the back of a giant tortoise and the Moon is made of green cheese.
That would be a physical statement that would be subject to physical verification, so that would be reasonable.
Ahhhhh! So you admit that when it comes to statements about the physical world that such statements do require verification after all! THAT is what I was specifically referring to when I said that Truth requires verification.
Last edited by Haliphron on 02 May 2009, 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For "free-thinkers" I suppose it must be difficult not to think up original arguments.
Here is a good view of the Internet: "vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the chatter abideth for ever."
Do you believe in Donald Duck?
If not: Why?
1. NO physical evidence presented to me that a supernatural, supreme being exists.
2. NO personal contact with such a being; not even within my mind.
Do you believe in "truth", or "beauty" or "justice" or "right and wrong"? If so, why?
.
Yes, it is, which is why I don't understand what is offensive about believing that one's idea of right and wrong comes from god.
.
The offensive element is not that right and wrong came from God. It is that humans are inherently incapable of discovering what rules their society should live by. Since the words presumed to come from God have always been proclaimed by men and since it is not common experience or validated experience to have contact with God directly I and many others logically assume that the claims to speak words from God is a scam to gain power over society. To some degree it seems to have worked which indicates not that God exists but that a great many gullible people exist.
1. NO physical evidence presented to me that a supernatural, supreme being exists.
2. NO personal contact with such a being; not even within my mind.
Do you believe in "truth", or "beauty" or "justice" or "right and wrong"? If so, why?
.
Yes I do, but HOW does this follow from what you quoted me saying?
If you're trying to bring up occam's razor, that won't help you. The existence of God explains a number of things. A simpler explaination, such as "God doesn't exist", wouldn't explain those things. So it is not unreasonable of me to believe that God does exist.
If there is NO effective way to test the validity of the claim that God exists than God's existence is NON-falsifiable.Actually, Occams razor certainly DOES help me quite a bit. You are trying to argue that God exists and since you are making the claim you bear the burden of demonstrating this claim and convincing your opponents. Im not claiming God does not, or cannot exist. But you are claiming "he" does. As for the Purple Dragon, HOW do YOU know he isnt omiscient and omnipotent?
As I pointed out in a much older thread, ominpotence has some Major Problems.
Last edited by Haliphron on 02 May 2009, 2:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Nonphysical evidence includes philosophical arguments, which you reject completely.
I wish you'd stop labelling things as pathetic excuses, just because you happen to disagree.
That would be a physical statement that would be subject to physical verification, so that would be reasonable.
Ahhhhh! So you admit that when it comes to statements about the physical world that such statements do require verification after all! THAT is what I was specifically referring to when I said that Truth requires verification.
Are you rejecting non-physical truth? If so, why do you use logical arguments? Logic is non-physical.
If that is what you mean by "truth", then you shouldn't use the word truth. Use something like "physically verified statement".
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
Yes, it is, which is why I don't understand what is offensive about believing that one's idea of right and wrong comes from god.
.
Let me ask you this: If there is no god and you still believe there exists, which appears to be the case, wouldn't you still have that so-called concept of morals?
_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Nonphysical evidence includes philosophical arguments, which you reject completely.
I wish you'd stop labelling things as pathetic excuses, just because you happen to disagree.
That would be a physical statement that would be subject to physical verification, so that would be reasonable.
Ahhhhh! So you admit that when it comes to statements about the physical world that such statements do require verification after all! THAT is what I was specifically referring to when I said that Truth requires verification.
Are you rejecting non-physical truth? If so, why do you use logical arguments? Logic is non-physical.
If that is what you mean by "truth", then you shouldn't use the word truth. Use something like "physically verified statement".
"Non-physical" makes no sense to me. Even concepts such as philosophy and logic is extension of our brain. Please explain what you mean and how you know it.
_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Nonphysical evidence includes philosophical arguments, which you reject completely.
I wish you'd stop labelling things as pathetic excuses, just because you happen to disagree.
That would be a physical statement that would be subject to physical verification, so that would be reasonable.
Ahhhhh! So you admit that when it comes to statements about the physical world that such statements do require verification after all! THAT is what I was specifically referring to when I said that Truth requires verification.
Are you rejecting non-physical truth? If so, why do you use logical arguments? Logic is non-physical.
If that is what you mean by "truth", then you shouldn't use the word truth. Use something like "physically verified statement".
Philosophical arguments are purely rhetoric unless you can demonstrate that they have some basis in Reality. As for logic, it turns out that it IS physical. Logic(and even mathematics)is hardwired into the nervous systems of many animals, including us.

If someone claims God exists and cant provide any sort of tangible evidence(to my external sense OR directly through my mind), and then tells me that God is undetectable, the conclusion I draw is that they are trying to cover up the fact that the cannot prove it to me. This is consistent with the fact that people can be dishonest and dont like to admit to being wrong.
This isnt an accusation against you personally , but its a histogram of my thought processes.
Last edited by Haliphron on 02 May 2009, 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1. NO physical evidence presented to me that a supernatural, supreme being exists.
2. NO personal contact with such a being; not even within my mind.
Do you believe in "truth", or "beauty" or "justice" or "right and wrong"? If so, why?
What physical evidence do you have for the existence of any of those? And isn't your "contact" with any of them limited to purely subjective experience?
.