Atheism and morality

[1048576]

This is how wars start.

A: 'I'm unconditionally right *points to circumstantial, after-the-fact, unscientific "evidence."'
B: 'No, I'm unconditionally right *points to circumstantial, after-the-fact, unscientific "evidence."'
A: 'You have insulted my honor. We must kung-fu fight'
B: 'Hi-yaaah'

But seriously, learn what evidence is.

Either your moral code includes forcing your deity down everyone's throat, (I think I'll pass) or atheists can hold the same moral code as you.

 

[GwJ]

While it's important to know that most don't get their morality from the bible, most would SAY they do.

 

[Deleted member]

This is how wars start.

A: 'I'm unconditionally right *points to circumstantial, after-the-fact, unscientific "evidence."'
B: 'No, I'm unconditionally right *points to circumstantial, after-the-fact, unscientific "evidence."'
A: 'You have insulted my honor. We must kung-fu fight'
B: 'Hi-yaaah'

But seriously, learn what evidence is.

Either your moral code includes forcing your deity down everyone's throat, (I think I'll pass) or atheists can hold the same moral code as you.

That's not how wars start.

Also, pretty much 90%+ religious people don't force their deity down anybody's throat (no double entendre intended). Plus, very few people actually do hold the "same moral code". In fact I'm pretty sure no two people have the same moral code.

 

[professor mgw]

wow.......alot of misinterpretation of the bible i see. Like the guy saidabove, this is jsut a god debate and is off topic. Also @puu: your getting your info from a google search....huge flaw right there. People who post up articles and that are linked 2 google can say anything lol. I am one of JW's and we completely base our lives off of the bible. JW's is a branch of christianity. If anyone has any questions regarding this faith feel free 2 ask

 

[Deleted member]

Well if you do a google search and the first 5 things that come up say the same thing, chances are it's accurate.

I am actually curious about what JWs believe, never really heard much about/from them. Do you take the word of the bible literally or do you interpret it?

 

[professor mgw]

ah i see, where do you live? (asking since u said u dont see much)

It would depend, we dont take the WHOLE bible literally and vise versa. For example the book of revelation, hardly anything written by john in that book literal. Most of the thing in that book of the bible is symbolic, representing something, an event, a satan etc. but that would be a real deep convo lol. Ill post up stuff on our beliefs in a moment

 

[professor mgw]

(1) Bible: Jehovah Witnesses belive that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God, and instead of adhering to a creed based on human tradition, they hold to the bible as the standard for all their beliefs.

(2) GOD: They worship jehovah (god) as the only true god and freely speak to others about him and his loving purposes toward mankind. Anyone who publicy witnesses about jehovah is usually identified as belonging to the one group- "jehovah witnesses"

 

[Deleted member]

Removed per user request

 

[Pragmatic]

It's a broad, and frankly, incorrect statement that atheists don't believe in morality just because of a religious decision.

Arguing otherwise is just a waste of time.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

*Ignore this*

 

[Dre89]

Guys stop talking about the Bible. Pretty much every atheist here is evidently way too uneducated in Biblical scholarship to be talking about it.

The only atheist here who's educated enough such matters is Sucumbio.

Gwjumpman, you act as if Catholicism has no historical and philosophical tradition to distinguish it from other religions.

You act as if the Bible is the only thing in Catholicism, and that Catholics just stumbled across the Bible and made up their own interpretation of it.

Also, if I'm not allowed to claim that I'm objectively right on anything, then the scientific method is flawed. It's just your subjective opinion that it's right, and telling me it's better than religion is arrogant on your behalf.

 

[1048576]

And here comes Dre using nihilism to destroy any hope of a discussion. Okay, fine. Nothing is guaranteed to be true.

/allthreads?

 

[Pragmatic]

The internet.

Serious business.

 

[Dre89]

Numbers I'm just pointing out the precedent the logic some people have used here sets.

You can't make an argument, then complain when someone makes an analogy to show the absurd consequences of being consistent with your logic.

In fact, you yourself tried to do that to me in the adoption thread.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Why are people still using the Bible as a factual source?

I might as well use the storybook Duck on a Bike to analyze the potential leisure activities of common farm animals.

 

[ballin4life]

Guys stop talking about the Bible. Pretty much every atheist here is evidently way too uneducated in Biblical scholarship to be talking about it.

I'm not sure why nonbelievers would be expected to read the Bible (if that's what you are implying). It seems that that logic would require everyone to read every religious text from every religion around the world.

Also, if I'm not allowed to claim that I'm objectively right on anything, then the scientific method is flawed. It's just your subjective opinion that it's right, and telling me it's better than religion is arrogant on your behalf.

It seems that you're shifting the meaning of right here. I don't think that any moral code is objectively morally right. I think that there are things that are objectively true, in the sense of statements about the universe (although I don't think it's possible to PROVE most of those things).

Apologies if I am misunderstanding.

 

[Deleted member]

Dre - What did I get wrong about the bible?

By the way, i remembered that I have seen this exact question a while back. It was asked by a presumably muslim audience member to Richard Dawkins.

Some people earlier were saying he's stupid and looked down on by respected philosophers. I don't know about that but what he says here is quite good.

It's not too long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxdgCxK4VUA

 

[Sieguest]

I'm not sure why nonbelievers would be expected to read the Bible (if that's what you are implying). It seems that that logic would require everyone to read every religious text from every religion around the world.

Nonbelievers who study literature may become acquainted with the Bible. As a piece of literature, the Bible is alluded to numerous times. The Bible also makes use of many literary devices we see today.

But that seems to be the only case in which a nonbeliever may be expected to have read (or at least have adequate knowledge of) the Bible.

 

[GwJ]

Dre - are you telling me Catholics DONT turn to the bible for their morals?

 

[Sieguest]

Dre - are you telling me Catholics DONT turn to the bible for their morals?

There are those who get their morals from their preacher. While the preacher may have gotten his/her morals from their Bible, that doesn't necessarily mean that the person gets their morals from the Bible. The preacher could be teaching something totally irrelevant from the Bible and that person still hold it as moral truth.

"Cuz the preacher said mang."

On another note, I don't think that Dre. is saying that Catholics don't get their morals from the Bible. From the way I interpreted his post, he is saying that the Catholic faith has a more solid grounding in historical authenticity and in philosophical thinking.

 

[ballin4life]

Nonbelievers who study literature may become acquainted with the Bible. As a piece of literature, the Bible is alluded to numerous times. The Bible also makes use of many literary devices we see today.

But that seems to be the only case in which a nonbeliever may be expected to have read (or at least have adequate knowledge of) the Bible.

Yeah I don't deny that people read the Bible as literature, or for interests sake, or whatever.

I just don't think it should be expected of everyone.

 

[1048576]

Numbers I'm just pointing out the precedent the logic some people have used here sets.

You can't make an argument, then complain when someone makes an analogy to show the absurd consequences of being consistent with your logic.

In fact, you yourself tried to do that to me in the adoption thread.

If we don't assume causality and locality, then nothing makes sense and you should be hella paranoid that the floor beneath you will become acid.

Perhaps you're pretty sure it won't based on previous experiments. Congrats Mr. Scientifc Method.

You can't reach any conclusions about anything without these two assumptions. Effects have causes. If the supernatural interacts with the natural, it must obey natural laws.

If your premises are such that "Pigs fly" becomes a valid statement, then perhaps you should find a new set of premises.

 

[Dre89]

Ballin- You're only expected to have knowledge of theology if you're going to criticise it, which alot of the atheists have.

 

[jaswa]

(1) Bible: Jehovah Witnesses belive that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God, and instead of adhering to a creed based on human tradition, they hold to the bible as the standard for all their beliefs.

(2) GOD: They worship jehovah (god) as the only true god and freely speak to others about him and his loving purposes toward mankind. Anyone who publicy witnesses about jehovah is usually identified as belonging to the one group- "jehovah witnesses"

How do you believe one receives salvation?
Is salvation unique to Jehovah's Witnesses?
What roles do Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit play?

You can't reach any conclusions about anything without these two assumptions. Effects have causes.

Was the Big Bang an effect?

 

[1048576]

I don't know what the experts think. It seems intuitive to me that the first cause is not an effect, and everything else follows from that cause, and certainly you can hold a conversation with a first cause whereby not everything breaks down.

Either way hopefully you aren't actually challenging my premise that causality holds. Y'know, floor, acid, yadda yadda.

 

[GwJ]

In regards to the big bang and the cause and effect thing, it creates a paradox if you ask if the big bang was an effect. Since everything has a cause and effect if you go by that theory, then there's no beginning at all. Everything just 'appeared' in the middle of a cause and effect line.

In my opinion, the big bang is the first and only cause that is not an effect in itself; the beginning.

 

[vVv Rapture]

In my opinion, the big bang is the first and only cause that is not an effect in itself; the beginning.

Agree and disagree.

On a macro level, yeah, it's the beginning. As far as we know, nothing came before the Big Bang, so because it is the first thing ever, it has to be a cause that is also not an effect.

On a smaller level, however, the Big Bang could technically still be an effect if you take the entirety of the event.

From wikipedia:

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially. After inflation stopped, the Universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles. Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe.

With all of that said, let's take the events before the 10 seconds into the expansion, in which the Universe is just a what it is with a high energy density, huge temperature and pressure and what not. It is likely that something causes these high densities, for example, and something could have caused what caused those densities and so on and so forth.

It's like taking a number and halving it over and over again. The number will keep getting infinitely smaller, but will never become zero.

I was just making a point on the cause and effect thing, not that God was the cause of whatever originally caused everything else to culminate into the Big Bang.

 

[Dre89]

The problem with just saying "oh the big bang exists" is that scientists have calcuated that the probability of it happening without the universe re-collapsing back into itself by total chance is literally one in trillions.

Secondly, the potency which formulated this matter and energy is not accounted for.

That's not to say the BB didn't happen. But to just assume it happen without a diety requires several metaphysical assumptions, which many people here are yet to justify.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't know anything about the big bang but if you wait for enough time then eventually a one in a trillion shot will hit.

What do you mean by "formulated this matter and energy"? As far as we know matter can't be created or destroyed.

If you mean "Why was it arranged that way prior to the big bang?" then I'm sure someone has put out theories about this.

 

[Dre89]

There is still no account of the potency which allowed something like that to occur.

Secondly, it's a one in a trillion shot that the big bang would occur, it's then also a one in a trillion shot every single second the universe is sustained.

The issue is metaphysical, not scientific.

 

[ballin4life]

Why is it a one in a trillion shot that every single second the universe is sustained?

That proposition seems rather unlikely given that the universe does seem to be sustaining itself.

 

[Dre89]

That's poor logic.

I could just say that the FSM sustains the universe, and given that the universe is sustained, I must be right.

Your premise assumed it's possible the universe can be sustained independent of an external agent, then said that's the case, simply because it is sustained.

The reason why it's still a one in a trillion shot is because it's totally random, there's nothing stopping the laws of nature being destroyed at any moment.

 

[ballin4life]

That's not poor logic, it's an application of probability.

Given that it is a "one in a trillion shot every single second the universe is sustained" then things we observe would have a very low probability of happening.

Therefore I dismiss the premise that it is a "one in a trillion shot every single second the universe is sustained."

I'm asking you to explain that statement and telling you why I believe that statement is implausible.

I didn't say anything about the universe being sustained independently of an external agent.

Essentially, I do not understand your leap from "it's a one in a trillion shot for the big bang to happen" to "every second is a one in a trillion shot". It seems like circumstances are fairly clear where the big bang would be a one in a trillion shot, but it's also obvious that not every second is a one in a trillion shot as well.

 

[Dre89]

Given that it's a one in a trillion probability every second that the universe sustains itself, the fact it does sustain itself suggests that it doesn't sustain itself by chance, and that there is a designer.

And the reason why the probability is every second is because the potency which distributed and sustains the laws is also supposedly random, so those laws would be constantly changing.

There isn't going to be any consistency or pattern in that which is governed by randomness, and the source of laws is random.

 

[ballin4life]

Yes but I don't accept the proposition that it's a one in a trillion chance the universe sustains itself.

I don't see why the laws of the universe would necessarily be constantly changing. They might just be eternally constant.

It's like, just because I roll the dice once to determine the initial conditions doesn't mean that I roll the dice every second to change them.

It's even possible that no dice were rolled at all, and the big bang simply followed the established laws of the universe that we observe today. Even if it had a small probability of occurring each instant, as I said if you wait long enough a small probability event will eventually happen.

Basically, I don't see why the source of the laws has to be random. They could have been fixed even before the big bang.

Also, even if some entity holds these laws constant, it is still possible that this entity is not intelligent and not a designer.

 

[Ballistics]

All of your cosmology ideas are very weak, you should check out Carl Sagan's: Cosmos

 

[ballin4life]

Are you talking to me? Or someone else? Or me and someone else?

And you should probably actually, you know, EXPLAIN why someone's ideas are "very weak" rather than just saying it.

 

[Ballistics]

All of your ideas are very weak, but thats probably also why most of you believe in god, but this isnt a cosmology thread its an atheism thread

O wait ballin you didnt say anything crazy you are excused

 

[Violence]

Dre.... I'd just like to confirm what you're trying to say here.

Are you making the argument that:

1. Our universe has a one in trillion chance of sustaining itself every second.
2. Our universe is sustained every second.

Therefore, God sustains it?



I'd just like to make sure, but was the first this the first conclusion you came to?

It wasn't the following?

1. Our universe has a one in trillion chance of sustaining itself every second.
2. Our universe is sustained every second.

Therefore, one of my premises is false?



I don't think we can make very much ground in this discussion if the first thing we're using to explain things is the supernatural. Instead, using a bit of reasoned logic, let's try to approach this without getting into the fundamental difference in our beliefs. The less we involve the Bible and religion into this argument, the more I feel we can discuss on even ground.


And since this thread is about Atheism and Morality, I think it is a very good thread to keep the subject of our own personal religious beliefs out of.


Let's talk about some of the things we have observed.


1. Morals differ greatly over time.

We no longer believe in slavery, child labor, human sacrifice, racial segregation, sexism, and our beliefs in gender roles differs quite a bit from those in the past.

2. Morals differ greatly even in the same time period, in different cultures.

Gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, etc. There are still many things people don't agree on.


Therefore I would postulate that your first statement, "Without God there is no reason to believe in absolute morality," should be changed to, "there is no reason to believe in absolute morality."

Morals are different depending on where you live, when you live, and what kind of culture you were brought up in. Religion is certainly a factor in morality, but humankind has never exhibited an absolute, objective morality(at least, to my knowledge), because morality has always changed.

 

[DanteFox]

sigh. once again absolute morality as a concept means that there is an absolute right and wrong, no matter what anyone believes. I'm saying there's no reason for atheists (since the majority of atheists nowadays subscribe to the philosophy of naturalism) to believe in absolute morality, yet if I were to punch them in the face and take their lunch, they would say something like, "you shouldn't have done that," "that was wrong," etc.