Page 19 of 33 [ 517 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ... 33  Next

pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

25 Jun 2015, 8:39 pm

Lintar wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
The problem here is that evolutionary ethics still doesn't have any way to endorse what we typically consider moral behavior. Surely if we think along such utilitarian trains of thought, it becomes acceptable to make cruel and callous decisions in both paradigms. We would have to seriously split some hairs and perform great mental gymnastics in order to support ideals like altruism and equality using either paradigm. Evolution is harsh...


Yes, and that was precisely my point. I may not have used the correct terminology, but whichever way you look at it neither system you mention (i.e. evolutionary ethics, moral relativism) can provide the solid and objective standard that is needed for a system of such ethics.

And yet we still have them. Atheists rule!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

25 Jun 2015, 10:15 pm

pcuser wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
The problem here is that evolutionary ethics still doesn't have any way to endorse what we typically consider moral behavior. Surely if we think along such utilitarian trains of thought, it becomes acceptable to make cruel and callous decisions in both paradigms. We would have to seriously split some hairs and perform great mental gymnastics in order to support ideals like altruism and equality using either paradigm. Evolution is harsh...


Yes, and that was precisely my point. I may not have used the correct terminology, but whichever way you look at it neither system you mention (i.e. evolutionary ethics, moral relativism) can provide the solid and objective standard that is needed for a system of such ethics.

And yet we still have them. Atheists rule!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


You haven't been paying proper attention to this discussion, have you?

NO ONE ever made the claim that atheists either can't have moral standards, or that they cannot behave ethically. That's not the point. What they cannot do is explain why morals should matter at all in the first place if all we are IS matter.

Get it? Do you see the conundrum here? Do I really need to spell it out again, for your benefit?

"Atheists rule"? - sheer poppycock.



AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

26 Jun 2015, 2:27 am

Wolfram87 wrote:

AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
Atheism is only a position on one question - the existence or not of God, godesses, gods, however understood. Not all or even most atheist philosophers reject meaning or ethics; in practice most humans continue to live as though there were some moral absolutes, even if we disagree as to the boundaries and frequently fall short of even our own standards.

Thank you Alexander, for acknowledging this.


You are welcome, Wolfram. I thought it was important to acknowledge this, as some seemed to have taken others as implying that somehow there was a direct correlation between one's view on this question and one's degree of virtue, or indeed belief in the possibility of meaning, which I think may have been a misreading, but I still felt it important to make clear that this is not the case. Both from people I have met and people I know of, it seems to be somewhat more complex than that. Also, some might speak as though there was only one philosophical viewpoint that all atheists adopted with one ethos following, which is not so. Not that I wish to be understood that there are no ethical consequences from theological beliefs (indeed it would strange to me if there were not, as surely if one adheres to any faith tradition one would need to at least seek to follow the ethical teachings seriously, however understood, and however problematic in some cases) just that clearly integrity, honour, compassion, love of learning and wisdom, etc., are not the preserve of adherents of one faith-tradition, or conversely of one atheistic philosophy. I realise much of this will be obvious to many here, I just thought it needed saying.

I think in any case that this was not the intent of theists such as myself in speaking of this ethical question (well, obviously I can only really speak of my own intentions with any great degree of authority). Rather, given the existence of any ethics at all, let alone overlapping ethics, one of the philosophical arguments in defence of theism may wish to ask what can be the source of enduring values, if ethics is simply the result of a response to the need for human societies to avoid collapse (simplifying a bit there). Now clearly many people who have a range of views on religion follow at least some virtues, while perhaps rejecting others, and equally clearly there are many instances of us failing to honour the principles we profess to adhere to, whatever source one claims for one's morality. I know from my own experience that I do not always even act in accordance with what I know or believe to be right; I fall short, and it seems that humans share this state of susceptibility to failure and error, while also being capable of remarkable achievements - there are many people who in at least one area of their lives, put me to shame, which can be humbling, yet while there are many humans across history whom one might respect or even admire, who have also done appalling things to fellow human beings. So this problem of why there is evil in the world, and how we are to live, seems really important to me, and one that is or should be in some sense relevant to us all, as we do share this world with each other, and how we can live together and seek peace with justice tempered by mercy, is as pertinent now as ever.

One of the oldest arguments raised against the existence of God, which has troubled minds across much of human history, is why does the world have so much suffering and wickedness in it? Now, obviously it has a great deal of good and wonder as well, but this question does not get any easier. Glib answers might seem persuasive in theory, but feel hollow in the face of many real instances of suffering and evil, as well as at times shockingly insensitive.

Yet the very fact that such questions are asked, and that people do seek meaning and to live lives of compassion and courage, seems to me at least evidence for the existence of God, not withstanding that the troubling questions raised remain incompletely addressed. If all were the result of chance, why should we expect otherwise? Why should we feel the injustice as though it were an affront to the natural order of things? Yet we do. In any case a certain amount of human responsibility for many causes of suffering needs to be acknowledged; that still does not answer the question of many natural disasters for which humans have no responsibility. This is an age old question, and not one likely to be answered to the satisfaction, but it is important to ask these sorts of question, to get the ball rolling as it were.

Thank you all for so many thoughtful contributions, by the way.


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

26 Jun 2015, 6:22 am

Lintar wrote:
NO ONE ever made the claim that atheists either can't have moral standards, or that they cannot behave ethically. That's not the point. What they cannot do is explain why morals should matter at all in the first place if all we are IS matter.


Atheists have no problem explaining the subjective value of morals. You may not like the answers, but that alone cannot render them null.

AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
One of the oldest arguments raised against the existence of God, which has troubled minds across much of human history, is why does the world have so much suffering and wickedness in it? Now, obviously it has a great deal of good and wonder as well, but this question does not get any easier. Glib answers might seem persuasive in theory, but feel hollow in the face of many real instances of suffering and evil, as well as at times shockingly insensitive.


The question is redundant. One does not start with "God" and set out to disprove "him". God is the hypothetical argument, not the lack thereof.

Quote:
Yet the very fact that such questions are asked, and that people do seek meaning and to live lives of compassion and courage, seems to me at least evidence for the existence of God, not withstanding that the troubling questions raised remain incompletely addressed. If all were the result of chance, why should we expect otherwise?


The existence of a question does not prove the existence of your preconceived answer. Such questions constitute evidence of man's thirst for knowledge, of our desire to understand the how and why of everything we encounter. "God" is the name we give to our hubris, a lie we tell ourselves and each other to maintain our illusion of superiority. We are no more valued by the cosmos than any other creature that resides on Earth.



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

26 Jun 2015, 9:37 am

Lintar wrote:
pcuser wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
The problem here is that evolutionary ethics still doesn't have any way to endorse what we typically consider moral behavior. Surely if we think along such utilitarian trains of thought, it becomes acceptable to make cruel and callous decisions in both paradigms. We would have to seriously split some hairs and perform great mental gymnastics in order to support ideals like altruism and equality using either paradigm. Evolution is harsh...


Yes, and that was precisely my point. I may not have used the correct terminology, but whichever way you look at it neither system you mention (i.e. evolutionary ethics, moral relativism) can provide the solid and objective standard that is needed for a system of such ethics.

And yet we still have them. Atheists rule!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


You haven't been paying proper attention to this discussion, have you?

NO ONE ever made the claim that atheists either can't have moral standards, or that they cannot behave ethically. That's not the point. What they cannot do is explain why morals should matter at all in the first place if all we are IS matter.

Get it? Do you see the conundrum here? Do I really need to spell it out again, for your benefit?

"Atheists rule"? - sheer poppycock.

Since God/Gods don't exist, God doesn't cause morality or ethics. Explain how you 'magically' came to have them...



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

26 Jun 2015, 1:56 pm

Lintar wrote:
What they cannot do is explain why morals should matter at all in the first place if all we are IS matter.
.


Morals matter because this is all we have. Life on earth is precious because life on earth is what there is for us. Morals don't matter to me because of heaven or hell. They matter to me because we're matter. (Using 'matter' as both a noun and a verb is getting a bit confusing.) This is our only chance. There are no do-overs. There is no God to ask forgiveness from. It's all on us.

There is a saying in the U.S., "let go and let God". I understand the appeal of religion. It would be very relaxing to just 'let go and let God', secure in the knowledge that no matter what horrors happen here on earth, heaven awaits. But it's just a story people tell themselves and I can't suspend disbelief and believe this story, regardless of how stress-relieving it would be.

Not being able to look forward to heaven( or behaving to avoid hell) puts a tremendous importance on right here, right now. I don't try to live as morally as possible so I'll get into heaven. I try to live as morally as possible because this life right here is all I have and all any living thing has. That makes it precious, more precious than if this life were a mere way-station on the way to afterlife.



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

26 Jun 2015, 2:23 pm

Janissy wrote:
Lintar wrote:
What they cannot do is explain why morals should matter at all in the first place if all we are IS matter.
.


Morals matter because this is all we have. Life on earth is precious because life on earth is what there is for us. Morals don't matter to me because of heaven or hell. They matter to me because we're matter. (Using 'matter' as both a noun and a verb is getting a bit confusing.) This is our only chance. There are no do-overs. There is no God to ask forgiveness from. It's all on us.

There is a saying in the U.S., "let go and let God". I understand the appeal of religion. It would be very relaxing to just 'let go and let God', secure in the knowledge that no matter what horrors happen here on earth, heaven awaits. But it's just a story people tell themselves and I can't suspend disbelief and believe this story, regardless of how stress-relieving it would be.

Not being able to look forward to heaven( or behaving to avoid hell) puts a tremendous importance on right here, right now. I don't try to live as morally as possible so I'll get into heaven. I try to live as morally as possible because this life right here is all I have and all any living thing has. That makes it precious, more precious than if this life were a mere way-station on the way to afterlife.

Very well said...



Oren
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,058
Location: United States

26 Jun 2015, 2:27 pm

AspieOtaku wrote:
You heard it God does not seem to exist he does not provide evidence of existing nor does he answer prayers It is easy to assume he is nothing more then a metaphor! Evolution has been proven but as for god and a young earth nope! Godjust seems to be a metephore,ion other words he is not real in any way shape or form but a concept as a means to not kill rape or simply be a jerk to others.

Religion is a good way to teach moral codes.

What brought you to this sudden realization at age 33?


_________________
Semi-Savant


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

26 Jun 2015, 3:38 pm

pcuser wrote:
Lintar wrote:
pcuser wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
The problem here is that evolutionary ethics still doesn't have any way to endorse what we typically consider moral behavior. Surely if we think along such utilitarian trains of thought, it becomes acceptable to make cruel and callous decisions in both paradigms. We would have to seriously split some hairs and perform great mental gymnastics in order to support ideals like altruism and equality using either paradigm. Evolution is harsh...


Yes, and that was precisely my point. I may not have used the correct terminology, but whichever way you look at it neither system you mention (i.e. evolutionary ethics, moral relativism) can provide the solid and objective standard that is needed for a system of such ethics.

And yet we still have them. Atheists rule!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


You haven't been paying proper attention to this discussion, have you?

NO ONE ever made the claim that atheists either can't have moral standards, or that they cannot behave ethically. That's not the point. What they cannot do is explain why morals should matter at all in the first place if all we are IS matter.

Get it? Do you see the conundrum here? Do I really need to spell it out again, for your benefit?

"Atheists rule"? - sheer poppycock.

Since God/Gods don't exist, God doesn't cause morality or ethics. Explain how you 'magically' came to have them...



It's really simple; and by the way this is NOT directed at 'YOU'..;)

It is a monologue; and THAT is what 'Gillberg Criteria Asperger's does'..;)

God is the Force of Nature as Naturally evolving NOW.

NOW IS ALL THAT EXISTS.

NOW IS GOD.

And God does evolve 'humans';
'normal humans', anyway;
with affective empathy
that allows humans to
feel the pain of other
humans; children
share laughter
with other
children;
not 'cause
of church
but because of all naturAlly
evolving innate instinct and
intuition to do JUST THAT;
BUT THEN; cognitive empathy
comes from trial and error
in socially cooperating with other
human beings for greater chances at human survival.

Alphabets and written language are developed to enhance this
survival with written text of what works best for human peace of
mind and overall subsistence activities to maintain and thrive the
human population alive as is; particularly, in food gathering, shelter
making, and reproductive activities. So the bible is developed as a
rudimentary written code to enhance the survival of the social group;
and in doing this the laws of human nature are uncovered that include
a Universe of much differently experienced emotions and senses among
a tribe of human beings; but never the less, consistencies are observed that
make life work better, overall, for survival; so the great work of human survival
goes on; God exists as all of this; and strange that people cannot see THAT reality
of how this started and how it goes on; people get caught up in semantic differences
of abstract language code to describe, as much of reality that varies in mileage from each
human being; particularly, psychopathic leaning individuals that are totally selfish and don't
give a crap about the rest of the social group; there is a time when they are pushed off of cliffs
as they serve no useful purpose for the survival of the social group as one with the GOD of Nature;
now they are tolerated no matter how silly they act in selfish ways of more or less, trying to feel a love
in life that is to lost to them; for reasons of screwed up nurturing parents; or whatever it is in social stress
that kills their ability to feel a full nuanced life of heart in emotion, balance in emotions and senses in soul;
and the ability to fully express spirit of emotions verbally/non-verbally to carry on the mission of survival of
human beings that has been going on for thousands and thousands of years with great success; anyway, GOD
exists as Nature; always has and always will long after human beings disappear from the face of the earth will all
their verbal disagreements over a reality that is as clear as the nose on their face and emotions of love, hope, faith
and belief in the laws of Nature AKA GOD that truly work super cool for those who do work in alignment with those
laws of GOD AKA Nature, instead of going against them; like sitting still as a couch potato with a remote control
watching TV everyday; consuming sugar and fats all the time; and in general, falling to the 'sin of culture' rather
than living in accordance with the LAWS OF HUMAN NATURE AS ASCRIBED BY THE NATURE OF ALL AKA GOD..:)

HAVE A NICE NOW; it's all one gets; all one ever had; and all one ever will be with the GOD of Nature as ONE
FORCE OR ILLUSION OF SEPARATION;
THE greatest GOD Delusion
of IT
ALL;
Yes, separation
from GOD as Nature..:)

The Jesus of Gnostic Gospel of Thomas attempts
to explain this in parables, as Lord knows if anyone
with this much common sense did it in plain language
it would be too simple for most minds to understand this TRUTH.
Culture clouds the God of Nature; always has; always will; to escape
Culture in mind and body balance is to once again 'join hands' with GOD;
and be born
AGAIN WITH THE
GOD OF Nature, instead
of Insane rules of Culture
that make no real human nature
sense AGAINST the Laws of Nature AKA GOD;
as applicable to Nature and Human
Nature, specificAlly as
Core TRUTH.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

SAME STUFF OF THE BIBLE;
for those with
deeper eyes and ears
who are not afraid of the Truth;
but of course most people cannot
handle the TOUGH LOVE TRUTH OF
GOD THAT rarely stays fair through the
course of a lifetime; and yes, in this way;
GOD is a lot like Jack Nicholson in this
play of life that is more like reality
than any bible school
class of
study; afraid of THAT
FACT THAT ALL WE
GET IS
NOW;
TO make the best
of it is truly SUPER COOL..:)

BUT AGAIN; most people
CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH
THAT GOD EXISTS; BUT
GOD AIN'T FAIR;
AT LEAST NOT in
one
lifetime
for NOW..:)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

27 Jun 2015, 10:51 pm

You can find the Bible in the fiction section next to Greek Mythology at your local library as well as the book store!


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

29 Jun 2015, 2:10 am

Oh horrors to you AO. Some "moderator" has been sleeping and I managed to log in.

The only thing that has been proved about "evolution" is that it is a scientific impossibility. The "Origin of the Species" and all subsequent fantasies should also be catalogued next to Greek mythologies.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

29 Jun 2015, 3:15 am

Oldavid wrote:
Oh horrors to you AO. Some "moderator" has been sleeping and I managed to log in.

The only thing that has been proved about "evolution" is that it is a scientific impossibility. The "Origin of the Species" and all subsequent fantasies should also be catalogued next to Greek mythologies.


One wonders if you dress in Motley, carry a Marotte and have bells on the end of your shoes.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

29 Jun 2015, 3:55 am

adifferentname wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
Oh horrors to you AO. Some "moderator" has been sleeping and I managed to log in.

The only thing that has been proved about "evolution" is that it is a scientific impossibility. The "Origin of the Species" and all subsequent fantasies should also be catalogued next to Greek mythologies.


One wonders if you dress in Motley, carry a Marotte and have bells on the end of your shoes.

D: All of the above.

These multiple choice questions are really easy if you're even slightly more knowledgeable than the examiner.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

29 Jun 2015, 4:01 am

Oldavid wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
Oh horrors to you AO. Some "moderator" has been sleeping and I managed to log in.

The only thing that has been proved about "evolution" is that it is a scientific impossibility. The "Origin of the Species" and all subsequent fantasies should also be catalogued next to Greek mythologies.


One wonders if you dress in Motley, carry a Marotte and have bells on the end of your shoes.

D: All of the above.

These multiple choice questions are really easy if you're even slightly more knowledgeable than the examiner.


Wherein Oldavid demonstrates his fundamental lack of reading comprehension.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

29 Jun 2015, 3:33 pm

^^^

'That one' skims THE Intellect..;)

I hate to tell you I love to tale you.. friend..

But 'THE Fool' is the highest human
archetype in
control
of life
and hand
in hand
with
GOD..

the joke's on you..

And any SACRED
Fool can see
that with
eyes of ease..:)

And no.. you will never
learn this in school..
as GOD doe NOT
GO TO
SCHOOL..;)

God is more like
Charli XCX.. as sHe
moves to the beat
of hEr Uni-VERSE
centerED
and balancED
as IS.. for N0W..;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

30 Jun 2015, 2:18 am

adifferentname wrote:
Lintar wrote:
NO ONE ever made the claim that atheists either can't have moral standards, or that they cannot behave ethically. That's not the point. What they cannot do is explain why morals should matter at all in the first place if all we are IS matter.


Atheists have no problem explaining the subjective value of morals. You may not like the answers, but that alone cannot render them null.

AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
One of the oldest arguments raised against the existence of God, which has troubled minds across much of human history, is why does the world have so much suffering and wickedness in it? Now, obviously it has a great deal of good and wonder as well, but this question does not get any easier. Glib answers might seem persuasive in theory, but feel hollow in the face of many real instances of suffering and evil, as well as at times shockingly insensitive.


The question is redundant. One does not start with "God" and set out to disprove "him". God is the hypothetical argument, not the lack thereof.

Quote:
Yet the very fact that such questions are asked, and that people do seek meaning and to live lives of compassion and courage, seems to me at least evidence for the existence of God, not withstanding that the troubling questions raised remain incompletely addressed. If all were the result of chance, why should we expect otherwise?


The existence of a question does not prove the existence of your preconceived answer. Such questions constitute evidence of man's thirst for knowledge, of our desire to understand the how and why of everything we encounter. "God" is the name we give to our hubris, a lie we tell ourselves and each other to maintain our illusion of superiority. We are no more valued by the cosmos than any other creature that resides on Earth.


But you also appear to have a preconceived answer. You appear to assume that your position does not need justification, and that others are on the defensive. That may be how it appears to you, but I do not see why that renders any question redundant. I also was not claiming that the existence of a question proved anything. It is just evidence. And, to be frank, you seem to have blithely assumed that your position is the default one, and any varying view that you do not wish to accept is the hypothesis. How is that different to the thinking you attack in others?

The Universe is a fact as is human consciousness (obviously both can, and have, been questioned, but if their apparent existence is rejected at the outset then any basis for either science or at least certain forms of religion would be thrown out). If for the time being we can assume that this world that we live in and our awareness of it and of ourselves are at least in some sense real, then there needs to be a hypothesis as to how this state of affairs arose. Now, clearly science has answered many questions on this front. But it has no more disproven the existence of God than theists have in a conventional empirical sense proven God. To an extent philosophical arguments such as this may be of limited worth, as to some extent humans tend to make up their mind on both sides for reasons quite distinct from philosophical reason and argument. Still, it is always worth thinking things through and defending one's viewpoint.

I am confused as to why you take the stance of rejecting questions and answers that you may find inconvenient.

Also, I merely alluded to the historical fact that the question of suffering has both plagued theists and formed part of a philosophical argument for atheism, not sure why that should have irked you so. The question is hardly redundant in any case; we still have to respond to the reality of suffering. And how we respond would surely be the important, and if you were right, only question of consequence in that connection.

Might I ask what your personal ethical philosophy is? Please understand that I am not committing the fallacy of assuming wrongly that dismissing the existence of God out of hand automatically results in a lesser degree of righteousness, that is empirically false. I rather wish to understand what basis you make moral decisions upon as a role; sorry if this appears to be a change of subject, it is not.


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."