SR4 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 the thing that got me from that video is the bit where he says 'it's because of what they believe about reality' 0:18 what is reality? its a big fucking wierd multidimensional universe out there and for him to ridicule anyone because he knows 'more' about reality is just a lol for me.... he's just like the rest of us he doesn't know shit dude, you are taking this the wrong way. He's not saying he knows the nature of existence. He's saying that to claim a man in the sky which cannot be proven gave you knowledge of the creation of all things is not only one of the most arrogant things a human being can ever claim, its also one of the most dangerous and ridiculous. He probably doesn't know "more" about reality, but he is willing to accept what reality is, versus accepting something that has no proof in its stead. Humans have basic and yet incredible faculties and tools of the intellect with which to unlock the inner secrets of the universe. To use them in all manners regarding one's life but completely eschew them and even treat them with disdain in favor of a belief which has no realistic grounding, is insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RandySicko Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I do not believe that any entity can be a 'first mover' because a black hole and everything that makes up a black hole (space, time, light) had to be created by something...even if it was secondhandly created by creation, which was set into motion by something. I understand that "nothing-ness" is a word created by humans... but the nothingness I mentioned is used only to contrast conciousness. The fact that nothingness was still something is what actually fuels my belief in our purpose. Number 4 is where i throw up my hands and resign to the fact that there are some things that cannot be explained or comprehended no matter how large our interpretive phenomenology vocabulary grows. Who/what created the creator is actually the one that fascinates me the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I do not believe that any entity can be a 'first mover' because a black hole and everything that makes up a black hole (space, time, light) had to be created by something...even if it was secondhandly created by creation, which was set into motion by something. I understand that "nothing-ness" is a word created by humans... but the nothingness I mentioned is used only to contrast conciousness. The fact that nothingness was still something is what actually fuels my belief in our purpose. Number 4 is where i throw up my hands and resign to the fact that there are some things that cannot be explained or comprehended no matter how large our interpretive phenomenology vocabulary grows. Who/what created the creator is actually the one that fascinates me the most. The only claim we can prove using demonstrable evidence is that something can come from something. However, it is not a given fact that Everything that is has to come from something. It could be just as possible that the universe is infinite, with no finite beginning or ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmanyo Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 This statement is incorrect in a number of ways. The biggest one being that in order for morals to be moral, they must derive from a deity. Hammurabi's Code existed long before the Old Testament. Also, many of the organized religions have very openly stated hypocrisy in their moral values. Yeah, I agree. I was saying that I was annoyed at Atheists that believed in an objective morality; ones that considered that their moral systems were more inherently correct than others'. Atheism isn't "evangelical". Its a default position against a theist claim. You claim there is a God, I demand evidence to prove it, otherwise I need not believe in it. According to basic human logic and perception, it stands that it is illogical to believe in something that you have no demonstrable evidence for. If I claimed that I heard God in my head and started shooting people, why is my claim less substantial than any other claim to conversion with the divine? It naturally follows that I need not believe anything that was created by its followers was divinely inspired. Well I definitely agree with this, or else I wouldn't be annoyed at atheists that thought it was important to evangelize the truth of atheism. Atheism doesn't have the answers, its simply stating that there isn't enough evidence (arguably ANY evidence) to uphold a deity, and therefore the imposed morality/rules derived from it. Why is a lack of objective morals such a horrible thing? Can you prove to me that belief in a deity's moral systems IS objective? If not, why should I believe your suggestion that objective morals even exist? I wasn't saying that the lack of objective morals is horrible. I was saying that believing otherwise as an atheist is inconsistent. So yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you said there. It's solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Would you mind elaborating a little further? Im not sure how you came to that conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest volg4 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 i think before you can argue over the existance or non existance of a thing you must first come to an agreement on a definition of the thing itself.... first define god, then say why you do or do not believe in that particular definition, then someone else can state their definition and argue their case for or against that some people see god as a man on a cloud, others see it as ultimate truth, the living universe... whatever otherwise it's like blind men arguing over the colour of a rose Ignostic. Yeah I usually go by these rules, but the problem with this point of view is that it essentially leaves illogical views unchallenged. I also am more extreme than most ignostics in the sense that, why must the word "God" be used to explain all of these other nebulous ideas of creation, the self and the universe? Why not just say I believe in the universe? I believe in an ultimate truth? What if the ultimate truth is a paradox? (there is no ultimate truth), etc. etc. etc. I used to do the same thing myself until I realized that using the word God to define my belief systems is no different from using a made up word like Lk'nyar. i dont think the name matters that much really, apart from the obvious negative connotations from the word 'god', i think its more in the definition of what that word means to you, someone says i think Lk'nyar is a guy that sits on a cloud and throws snakes at people, while someone else says i think Lk'nyar is a spirit of the sea which washes clothes for you if you throw them in, they're both talking about the same guy so it becomes confusing in any serious conversations about Lk'nyar, everyone is starting from differing definitions of the same entity so you get folks going 'man that Lk'nyar is a cunt, i got bitten by three snakes today' while some else goes 'you're an asshole, just look at how fresh and clean my tshirts are!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Trust me, reading Being and Time with just bore you and give you a headache at the same time. It's like Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit -- one of those books that are better read about than read. A Christian friend of mine in the philosophy department with me posted this blog post to his FB one day, and it hasn't left my mind since. It's a bit snarky, but I think he has a point. Being privately spiritual but not religious just doesn't interest me. There is nothing challenging about having deep thoughts all by oneself. What is interesting is doing this work in community, where other people might call you on stuff, or heaven forbid, disagree with you. Where life with God gets rich and provocative is when you dig deeply into a tradition that you did not invent all for yourself. Thank you for sharing, spiritual but not religious sunset person. You are now comfortably in the norm for self-centered American culture, right smack in the bland majority of people who find ancient religions dull but find themselves uniquely fascinating. i remember pbn used to say stuff like this and i think it is correct. the 'spiritual but not religious' stuff is problematic in the same way that teenagers justifying their usage of drugs by citing drug use in ancient shamanistic cultures is. both views seem to overlook the possibility that traditions surrounding spirituality (or drug use, respectively) are important sources of discipline, context and value. of course, the spirituality might still be the end goal of the religious tradition in some sense, but the idea that the tradition is like a functionless appendage that can be safely thrown away feels like it sprouted from the same root as vibrating exercise machines, atkins diets, and other promises of effortless self-improvement. also i like the opening of the blog and know the feeling. like a story that one of my friends once told me, where he was asked "what are some of your sayings?" after telling someone on a plane that he was a philosophy prof. lol Also, I've learned more about Heidegger's thought from reading Aristotle's Metaphysics and Heidegger's lectures on those, than from reading the Nicomachean Ethics -- although NE helps give some (vague) suggestion about what Heidegger means by 'the for-the-sake-of-which' (das Umwillen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 awesome!! my favorite Heidegger was Question Concerning Technology, Being and Time was just waaay too fucking dense....Its like Sartre if he wrote like a German. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmanyo Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Would you mind elaborating a little further? Im not sure how you came to that conclusion. I'm arguing against an objective morality from an atheist perspective. Hammurabi's Code was subjective. You yourself said that atheism is not an evangelistic position but merely a skeptical belief; I was saying that I think that atheists who evangelize like they think that they have some important message to share that is objectively morally good are inconsistent. Also, I agree that there are no objective rights or wrongs from a consistent atheist perspective. I do not take issue with this, and think that it is the most respectable position an atheist can take. I mean I disagree, of course, that there is almost no evidence for God, but that's an entirely different issue. Maybe I misunderstood your points, but we seem to be in agreement here about the consistency of beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Would you mind elaborating a little further? Im not sure how you came to that conclusion. I'm arguing against an objective morality from an atheist perspective. Hammurabi's Code was subjective. You yourself said that atheism is not an evangelistic position but merely a skeptical belief; I was saying that I think that atheists who evangelize like they think that they have some important message to share that is objectively morally good are inconsistent. Also, I agree that there are no objective rights or wrongs from a consistent atheist perspective. I do not take issue with this, and think that it is the most respectable position an atheist can take. I mean I disagree, of course, that there is almost no evidence for God, but that's an entirely different issue. Maybe I misunderstood your points, but we seem to be in agreement here about the consistency of beliefs. Some clarification is necessary: Again, a common misconception is that atheism is a system of belief. It is not belief, it is lack of belief. Lack of belief does not equal belief. I don't think anyone would claim that atheism is objectively good. I would be very surprised to hear that in any discussion. Nothing can be proven to be objectively good. However, lack of belief in a deity suggests that the person lacking belief uses human faculties to expose the lack of evidence for a claim of theism. Would I trust that person to do more good than one who does not use these same faculties? Undoubtedly. I would find far more trust in a person who had logically concluded that the killing of children is wrong than a person who does not kill children because a God said it was bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theSun Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 try to get past richard dawkins bullshit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 awesome!! my favorite Heidegger was Question Concerning Technology, Being and Time was just waaay too fucking dense....Its like Sartre if he wrote like a German. Well, Sartre's like Heidegger if he wrote like a Frenchman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 try to get past richard dawkins bullshit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo Counterargument No.2 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest volg4 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 the thing that got me from that video is the bit where he says 'it's because of what they believe about reality' 0:18 what is reality? its a big fucking wierd multidimensional universe out there and for him to ridicule anyone because he knows 'more' about reality is just a lol for me.... he's just like the rest of us he doesn't know shit dude, you are taking this the wrong way. He's not saying he knows the nature of existence. He's saying that to claim a man in the sky which cannot be proven gave you knowledge of the creation of all things is not only one of the most arrogant things a human being can ever claim, its also one of the most dangerous and ridiculous. He probably doesn't know "more" about reality, but he is willing to accept what reality is, versus accepting something that has no proof in its stead. Humans have basic and yet incredible faculties and tools of the intellect with which to unlock the inner secrets of the universe. To use them in all manners regarding one's life but completely eschew them and even treat them with disdain in favor of a belief which has no realistic grounding, is insane. i think he is willing to accept his version of reality, i don't think everyone exists in the same reality, it's all subjective i do agree that there are complete religious nut jobs out there but i also think he's coming from the 'religion is stupid therefore god does not exist' direction which makes him a nutjob on the 'other' side ;) its like i said earlier, life and consciousness exist, the only discussion is up to what level? galactic? inter-dimensional? universal? how could we ever prove, let alone comunicate with an intelligence the size of a galaxy? does that mean it's impossible for it to exist or that no one could ever somehow have this entity comminicate with them; and if it did, who would believe... thats lots of what ifs and unknowables but the universe is full of them, and its expanding and getting smarter every second.... maybe oneday someone will get a proveable fax from the big g man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmanyo Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Again, a common misconception is that atheism is a system of belief. It is not belief, it is lack of belief. Lack of belief does not equal belief. I see your point here; not having a belief in a God is not a belief. However, you do have a system of beliefs whether or not they contain an intelligent origin for the universe. I'll use the term "worldview" when I can. "Belief" is starting to sound really weird in my head now. I don't think anyone would claim that atheism is objectively good. I would be very surprised to hear that in any discussion. Nothing can be proven to be objectively good. I've basically heard it ("we need to teach people the truth!"). It's annoying. However, lack of belief in a deity suggests that the person lacking belief uses human faculties to expose the lack of evidence for a claim of theism. Would I trust that person to do more good than one who does not use these same faculties? Undoubtedly. I would find far more trust in a person who had logically concluded that the killing of children is wrong than a person who does not kill children because a God said it was bad. Why would you trust a person who lacks belief to do more good? What do you even mean by "good"? Also, how can you logically conclude that the killing of children is wrong? Couldn't I just as easily conclude that the killing of children is not wrong, and in a situation in which it is beneficial to me to kill children I should do it? After all, since the world runs on evolution there could be instances where it helps your genetic line to kill others. Sorry, this post is half-assed, but I have to go to bed now. Keeping someone else up. This is an interesting discussion; I'll continue later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grue Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 i'm convinced that religion is not required for there to be an objective morality. i think plato decisively (imo, at least) refuted the opposing position in the euthyphro. the existence of god(s) is irrelevant to the question of whether there are objective moral standards because if there is such a thing as objective morality it cannot be based on divine commands of any kind. god(s) can, at best, track the moral truth, they cannot create the moral truth. that, of course, is not reason to think that atheism is true or that there is an objective morality, but they are separate issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Well, it should be changed to "We should teach people that based on discernible evidence theism is probably not true, and should therefore develop our own sense of purpose independent from an imaginary being." Ok, how do I logically conclude that killing children is wrong? Several ways: -I have children or have been in a family with babies and young children, and in the process of doing so I share empathy towards their existence via shared experiences, the feeling of joy, pride, etc. Therefore it is likely that I will share empathy with other children by acknowledging their family is going through a similar experience. -Children and procreation are the means to continue human existence. Therefore, if killing children was ok, our society could potentially end. -I would not want my life to be taken by force without at least being able to defend myself. Therefore I would not wish for anyone else to be harmed under the same circumstances. Furthermore, because a child cannot defend itself adequately against an adult, they are viewed as helpless against this force, thus my empathy towards their existence is further strengthened. -Along similar lines, if someone is allowed to kill a member of society with no penalty, what is to stop them from doing the same to me or my family? Im sure there are several more arguments for why killing children is deemed "wrong" far more often than "right." Notice I did not refer to any celestial sense of morality to explain why I take this position. Instead I base these conclusions off of personal and shared experiences, and through learned societal behavior. Sure, you can conclude that killing children is not wrong, but if you engage in that behavior, you will be punished or killed attempting to do so, because the rest of society deems that to be morally wrong. And not to be rude, but your inclusion of evolutionary theory as somehow akin to social Darwinism (an idea that has been roundly rejected by most, if not all modern evolutionary theorists btw) makes little sense. According to that assumption, how do I know me and my kin are genetically superior to another? The process of evolution takes place over a very elongated period of time, hundreds if not thousands of generations. Should I kill myself if I find its the other way around? Should I let them kill me? In addition to that the original argument is nonsensical. There is no concrete evidence in which we can assume one type of human is genetically superior to another to the point where the "inferior" one must be killed because it is a blight on evolution. How many atheists do you know support Hitler, or any of the racial eugenicists? My guess is they don't. i'm convinced that religion is not required for there to be an objective morality. i think plato decisively (imo, at least) refuted the opposing position in the euthyphro. the existence of god(s) is irrelevant to the question of whether there are objective moral standards because if there is such a thing as objective morality it cannot be based on divine commands of any kind. god(s) can, at best, track the moral truth, they cannot create the moral truth. that, of course, is not reason to think that atheism is true or that there is an objective morality, but they are separate issues. fuckin a, well put! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I don't think anyone would claim that atheism is objectively good Uh that's the main argument of all these modern atheist crusaders, and the argument is quite simple: having beliefs that aren't based on reason is often harmful, for many reasons, ranging from having people trust their health to bullshit or needing governments appealing to religious beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I don't think anyone would claim that atheism is objectively good Uh that's the main argument of all these modern atheist crusaders, and the argument is quite simple: having beliefs that aren't based on reason is often harmful, for many reasons, ranging from having people trust their health to bullshit or needing governments appealing to religious beliefs. That isn't an objective truth. It is however the stronger of the two sides based on discernible, rational evidence. Its a matter of common sense: Do you believe in things without evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 iif there is such a thing as objective morality it cannot be based on divine commands of any kind. god(s) can, at best, track the moral truth, they cannot create the moral truth. I want to understand this better. What if God's will is the infinite version of a Kantian, human/finite 'good will,' so that God's very nature determines what is good and God 'gives Himself the law' for his willing precisely by thinking (or willing, or maybe more obscurely, being) that law. And what is good for human beings is contained in or implied by what is good for God. Wouldn't that relieve the worry about the 'tracking/creating' distinction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Ahhh I just came up with another good point to gmanyo's "killing children" thing. The Bible condones slavery, murdering of rival tribes and kidnapping their women, among many other things. Why then, does most of the world, including Christians now condemn the institution of slavery? According to your premise, it can only be known from God, which means a couple of things pretty damning to Christian beliefs: 1) God changed his mind on the morality of enslaving populations, hence disproving his perfect nature. 2) Humanity collectively discerned that slavery is morally abhorrent regardless of whether one has faith or not. This in of itself suggests that humanity are capable of creating a collective sense of "good" via non celestial means (empathy, shared experience). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I don't think anyone would claim that atheism is objectively good Uh that's the main argument of all these modern atheist crusaders, and the argument is quite simple: having beliefs that aren't based on reason is often harmful, for many reasons, ranging from having people trust their health to bullshit or needing governments appealing to religious beliefs. That isn't an objective truth. It is however the stronger of the two sides based on discernible, rational evidence. Its a matter of common sense: Do you believe in things without evidence? whatever it is that you are asking i find tedious and a waste of time to consider and/or ponder about since it clearly leads to a dead end, however I was merely responding to you saying that no one claims that atheism is objectively good. vocal atheists often do claim that and, as I said, in a very simple straightforward manner (beliefs not based on reason and evidence lead to harm). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I don't think anyone would claim that atheism is objectively good Uh that's the main argument of all these modern atheist crusaders, and the argument is quite simple: having beliefs that aren't based on reason is often harmful, for many reasons, ranging from having people trust their health to bullshit or needing governments appealing to religious beliefs. That isn't an objective truth. It is however the stronger of the two sides based on discernible, rational evidence. Its a matter of common sense: Do you believe in things without evidence? whatever it is that you are asking i find tedious and a waste of time to consider and/or ponder about since it clearly leads to a dead end, however I was merely responding to you saying that no one claims that atheism is objectively good. vocal atheists often do claim that and, as I said, in a very simple straightforward manner (beliefs not based on reason and evidence lead to harm). Then I would have to say the atheists you know are a rarity and they are probably kneejerk reactionaries that are just angry at their parents dragging them to Sunday School. Besides, a claim of objective good towards a defined "lack of belief" is completely idiotic. How does lack of anything equate to a positing of something? If you know atheists that really say this (ive been in debates against atheists in the past as well as for them, and Ive never once heard that claim), they are idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 you've been living under a rock then, never hear of dawkins? that his whole fucking point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 point me to any passage or interview in which Richard Dawkins states that Atheism is objectively good. if he's that adamant about it the evidence should be everywhere. just find one example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.