Pale Blue Dot (Continuation of the logic)
Created on: September 28th, 2006
Carrying out the logic
http://palebluedot.ytmnd.com/
None ( ._.)
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texaggie79 | $4.55 | ||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $4.55 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2.57) | 196 | 16 | 555 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 3,693 |
Inbound links:
Good is subjective to the general concensus of the people. It's no cooncidence that the good portrayed in religious texts is similar to the good atheists perceive, the texts were written by mortal men with the same basic human instinctual values. The idea of good and evil is completely self-serving to humanity, and has no effect on anything else in the universe, but, seeing as we're humans, serving humanity is in our best interests. Wow your sites and logic fail.
Nobody will ever decide that in order to have the most fun, they should overcome other people's fun, because they know that if they did that, would get in big trouble, and lose the ability to have fun. So, in order to have the most fun, you sacrifice a little fun here and there so that you don't get in trouble, and have the most oppurtunities to have fun. Man, this is sooooo easy.
So, let's say that life is about having as much fun as possible. In that case, people make INTELLIGENT DECISIONS about how to have the most fun. If it would be fun to do something, but you'd go to jail or die for it, you'd have no fun, so then obviously, you won't do that thing, because it would be wiser to do OTHER things so that you can continue having fun. Oh god your logic is so owned.
And just to put the cherry on top, let me explain this to you. You're saying that the most extreme form of atheism rationalized babies being raped. WELL DUUUUUUUUUUH. The most extreme form of ANYTHING will rationalize ANYTHING. The most extreme form of Christianity or any other religion would most likely lead to pain and suffering, as well. When you take ANY doctrine and stretch it out and twist it and deform it as you have with the doctrine of atheism, you can justify and rationalize anything.
To explain: "I love milk, so I will drink milk all day long!" your bladder explodes, and you die. "I love Jesus, so I will pray to Jesus all day long!" you starve to death and you die. See? Practice ANY school of thought to the most extreme level, and bad things happen. You've just done the same thing with atheism, and think you've proved all atheists to be evil people. Wrong, idiot. You've only proven that taking a doctrine to an extreme degree leads to bad things, and that you're an idiot. Good day, sir.
Proved all atheists to be evil people? WTF You apparently have this deeply seeded hate towards anyone who believes in a creator. Where have I ever implied that atheists are evil? You are like having a debate with some voice in your head. All I have pointed out is that under the guise of atheism, there can be no argument to what is good and what is evil, because neither can exist as a constant. Someone said something about "serving humanity". What kind of religious crap is that? You worship humanity I guess
You guys are like a 3 year old with a new toy. That toy is the world to them. In their mind everything ends and begins with that thing. They haven't the ability to see the big picture. So your argument is, well since that toy is all he knows, he should respect it, love it, cherish it. Ok fine. But don't limit everyone else to that simple little toy.
Tex, there's a grave error in your logic. That error is that morality depends on a God or supernatural originate to have meaning. Yet, the facts are that morality depends on rational agents and their need to survive. Morality is that full expression of "I do not want to die." That's why in a society, morality is the foundation for every action brought about. Moreover, morality in this form is not about the collective good, but rather about individuals knowing they need rules to live by to live well.
And why does a person need rules to live well? Because without them, there is no guarantee of sucess, gain, or fruition of thought. Meaningfulness in this respect is a bio-originate of the brain through the mind. If you have any doubts to that, try and find me a moral system that uses force [aka authority] to enforce its 'rules' that works well and has the most happy adherents. I can promise you that you will not. If you have any questions, try www.objectivism101.com for your answers. Otherwise, S-T-F-U.
"Yet, the facts are that morality depends on rational agents and their need to survive.
" Then it is an agreement. I don't murder your babies, not because it's wrong, but because I don't want you to murder my babies. It all rests, however, upon self interest. The, greater good, and morality is all STILL, without a doubt, a subjective term that can differ from person to person. After I die, why should it matter to me if the human race is better off, or prolonged?
Concepts like "the greater good" and "universal morality" are the tools of collectivists and mystics who wish to control others. Like "original sin," these concepts are designed to infuse otherwise healthy individuals with an artificial sense of guilt and worthlessness. They are neither subjective nor objective, rather, they don't actually exist in any way that is conducive to man's natural state.
btw, self-interest is not at all a bad thing. In fact, it is the fundamental basis of survival, from which all other values are derived. Selflessness, on the other hand, is a false ideal and is fundamentally self-destructive. Why should it matter to you if the human race
is better off after you die? That's for you to decide whether or not it should, based on your own values of course. What DOES matter is that human progress, which benefits us all, is rooted in individuals pursuing their own self-interests.
I love how 90% of the people who commented don't understand it at all. People - Don't bring up the fact that it's significant to you, because you're insignificant. I could give two damns about what you care about, and no one else in the universe gives two damns either. You're alone, you're meaningless, get used to it.
"Buy a brain buddy. Good is a subjective concept without a creator." LMAO. You're right, we'll need to consult a 2000 year old book of fairy tales to absolutely define 'good'. Without such a book that was 'written by god' to make us feel all warm and fuzzy and important, we might as well all just kill each other. Buy a brain indeed. Oh, and Hook em' Horns! :)
Well, not that you believe in a bible, but you implied that 'good' was only definable with a 'creator'. How else would a 'creator' define these concepts without a book of some sort (just about every religion has one)? I have yet to hear any big booming voices from the sky telling me what's good and bad.
Significance is our concept not the universe's. To us that nuclear war would be greatly significant because we would all die (though I suppose no one would be around to care). Perhaps you were right about Gacy, He was successful, to himself, but not the vast majority of us, who value both a unified society and life, Gacy's path cannot be considered successful without sacrificing our own view of what it is to be happy.
You have made the assumption that the atheist is necessarily a subjective-egoist and that his concept of happiness lies merely in the immediate satisfaction of the self and only the self. This is, for most people that now live, an obvious falsity. Most people see internally that to actually be happy we must be the kind of creatures that have families and friends and support from other people, one also sees that he must live to do these things.
Perhaps for Hitler and Gacy they were paths conducive to those ends, but not for most people and, as a consequent, both of those murderers were disposed of by “most people” for conflicting with the vision of happiness held by most people. You wish to enforce your ideal, the ideal of most people, upon the metaphysical structure of the universe. What is this desire for life and family to a universe where a few degrees of temperature could extinguish the force entirely?
The significance of that ideal of yours, the one held by most people so called, lies not in the metaphysics of the universe but in the human mind and in his desire for other people. If we were to ever loose our desire to live together your statements would be all for nothing and no amount of appeal to god could return peace as we conceive of it to us.
I have never put any words in atheist mouths, as you people have put words into mine. I have never said "atheists are this or that" All I simply have done is followed simple logic, if there were no god, to its conclusive end. You guys keep hitting back with this sophistry of "oh well the majority of people think blah blah blah". The majority of galaxies, I would bet, are uninhabited, so the majority of galaxies agree that inhabitation is wrong. That's about as much sense as you are making.
"All I simply have done is followed simple logic, if there were no god, to its conclusive end." Only if you follow that logic in a weird and twisted way. We're not saying that "the majority of people think blah blah blah" ; we're saying "We don't need a God to tell us what to think, we can decide what good is for ourselves, AND we can mostly all agree on it."
Oh, you can mostly agree on it. Want a cookie? What does that have to do with the fact that no matter what you "agree" on , you are no more right than Hitler on the matter of what is good and what is bad. And all that would matter would be self interest. Hilter follows his version of good, he wins at life. You follow your version, you win. We all are just gonna end up dust in a big supernova of awesomeness anyway.
"In all honestly, the world should be glad I believe in a creator, cuz if I didn't.... wooo buddy..... lawl" So the only thing preventing you from murdering your family and friends (and puppies) is your fear of 'god'? Also, you still haven't answered how belief in a 'creator' provides you with concrete definitions of good and bad that poor atheists can never attain.
Well, belief has nothing to do with the equation here. Either there is a creator or there is not. If there is, whatever that creator is, obviously, by definition makes the rules. If there is not, no matter what you type in these little striped lines, you cannot change the fact that there cannot be any valid definition of what is "good" or "bad".
Would I do those things if I didn't believe in a god? Well in order for me not to believe, I would have to forget the knowledge I know already. I would label any compassion I had as weakness. I would take advantage of as many people as it took in order to satisfy my own selfish desires. I mean, common, what's the point of not doing that, if there is no ultimate "good"/
"Oh, you can mostly agree on it. What does that have to do with the fact that no matter what you "agree" on , you are no more right
than Hitler on the matter of what is good and what is bad." When most people agree on something, it becomes true enough for them. Then it's a solid fact as far as they are concerned. In this way, 'good' can gain specific criteria.
LMAO, well "good" in Hitlers view was good enough for him. So the @#$ what? You are getting all emotional on me. "Well it's good enough for me, so there." You still cannot be proven right. You still, without a creator, must concede that, factually, you are no more right than any other person that has ever existed.
"You still, without a creator, must concede that, factually, you are no more right than any other person that has ever existed." OK fine, but how did you, with your creator, get your rules? 2000 year old book? Voices in your head? Imaginary friend? Those all seem equally as unreliable as how "most people define good". The point is, you have no concrete rules either WITH a creator since these 'creators' have a convenient tendency to never actually reveal themselves and require 'faith'.
"I would take advantage of asmany people as it took in order to satisfy my own selfish desires. (..skip..) whats the point of not doing that, if there is no ultimate "good""
So the only reason you don't kill is a fear of hell... got you.
The reason you don't drink and drive is the law. The reason you don't punch everyone you meet is the fear of what will happen to you.
So essenbtially you have no moral core to yourself; and as a human being you need the prospect of punnishment for you not to be an ass.
Ya, I cannot say that I have the definite proof positive proof of what is right either. However, if there IS a creator, there is such a thing an objective good, and bad. Without one, it can only be subjective.
And no I don't stop from doing those things as a fear of hell, I do them because I believe they are wrong, objectively. :P
"Then it is an agreement. I don't murder your babies, not because it's wrong, but because I don't want you to murder my babies." But the good is that you value something. Value is the format to which individuals are capable to making moral judgements. In fact, what you're positting there is the Golden Mean, which is a cultural universal principle. Every culture recognizes it, every government that functions requires it. Reciprocation is not wrong, it is right, and most importantly, it is good.
Good = Life, Bad = Death. This simple dichotomy can easily be applied to every almost every aspect of life, and requires no faith in any deity. that is the logic of atheism. Some things, of course, are difficult to explain with facts and can only (for the time being) be approached with concepts (DesCartes). This is one of the main reasons mysticism was born, and later became religion. Atheists discard deity-based religion in favor of philosophy to build their concepts of the yet-unverified aspects of life.
Hitler (although a self-proclaimed conservative Christian) held the same basic philosophy as the Soviets - Collectivism. Collectivism divides people into groups based on assumptions about their differences, and bestows privilege to certain groups and punishment to others, all by force. With the Soviets it was class, with Hitler it was race. In its many forms, it makes a mockery of Humanity. It is anti-Life. Hitler was not pursuing Good, he was pursuing a false ideal with he held to be greater than Life.
What I'm getting at is that there is no one continuation of Atheist logic into the issues you discuss. Atheism simply means "without deity." From that point begins several varying philosophies (as evidenced by replies in this thread from Objectivists as well as Socialists). Some are more congruous with humanity, while others are as deeply flawed as the most oppressive religions.
So let's assume that everything you're saying about the atheist view is true. Even if it is, nobody cares. Nobody thinks in terms of the next trillion years, only the next hundred years. Nobody thinks about their relevance in the entire universe, only their relevance within a few miles. Nobody thinks farther than their lives or Earth, and we are all very significant to ourselves while on Earth, so, yes, everything we do WILL matter. Arguement defeated.
By saying in a godless society that morality is entirely subjective, you make the implication that in our world morality, even among the religious, is NOT subjective. How, then, do you explain all of these different religious denominations that give varying definitions of what is right and what is wrong? Even among Christians, or even among a sect of Christians, you will find scores of differing beliefs.
No religion can factually prove it is correct, including atheism. However, my original point remains in tact. If there is a creator, there good and bad can only be defined by that creator, no telling who has it right. But if there is not a creator, there is no static value of life, there is no concrete good or bad. The value of life becomes exactly how each of us define it.
lol, again, the concrete good and bad is based on life itself. good/bad = life/death = progress/degeneration = survival/extinction, etc. Although each human applies this dichotomy in a slightly different way, the principle is universal. Atheism is about humans evaluating their own actions based on this principle and taking responsibilty for them, rather than blaming or attributing things to "god's will."
"Good is a subjective concept without a creator" It's a subjective value WITH a creator. People kill regardless of faith. And don't cite Whetstone's YTMND on the subject; that one is skewed to present the statistics in his favor... Meh, f*ck it all. If I keep pointing out what idiots people are when it comes to religion, I'll be posting here forever. Tex, you're a complete douche, and it pains me to say I will no longer point out the holes in your logic.
Have fun with the thousands of others who share my cause. Final word... What have you gained from this? You've only displayed a great amount of hatred, and infected many others with it. I understand thet you're the kind of moron who will develop a half-*ss opinion from what his parents told him, then defend it to the death, but seriously... you're only making things worse for everyone involved.
You only confirm my suspicions. Why would people get so angry at me simply stating the only conclusion logic can reach in a universe without a creator. If you really didn't believe that, you would not even post on this thread. You would ignore this YTMND. Something about it scares you, and you guys take it out on me. I'm glad to take the brute of it, if it helps a few see the truth for what it is.
You can be an atheist and believe in the tooth fairy for all I care. I haven't posted one post stating what atheists believe. All I have stated is what the only logical conclusion anyone can make, if there is no creator. People make up bs all the time to tell themselves. I personally know some atheists that are nicer than some of the Christians I know. I'm not trying to create any hate. Only help people see things as they really are.
"I haven't posted one post stating what atheists believe." But that's not counting the first slide of your YTMND, right? And if an atheist made a slovenly, uncited, unoriginal and illogical YTMND claiming to completely debunk your system of beliefs, I'm fairly sure you would be angry. Maybe that's why you made this gobbler in the first place- you couldn't stand to see any view of the universe being pushed than your own, because ultimately, you know you're right. Just like everyone else does.
Concept? It's a CONCEPT when there is no god. If there is a creator, then there can be a definite good and bad. A concrete definition. Who has it? Who knows. But without a creator, there can NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER be anything that can be factually good or bad. Hitler could never be factually a bad person, it would always, no matter what, be an opinion based on a subjective definition.
It's also a concept WITH a creator. You can't create fact out of faith. Facts are things that have actually been proven. Concepts are things that may or may not be facts, but have yet to be proven. The idea of a creator is a concept. The idea of good and bad will always be a concept, no matter if you look at it from a religious view or an atheist view. Just deciding that x WOULD be a fact if y doesn't make it so.
He never put words into any Atheists mouth, where exactly in the YTMND did he say "Atheists believe that it makes no difference if you kill somone or love them?" Nowhere. That arguement is a waste of time.
Anarion, morality is a very big part of many religions...and I think that many, not all things that are perceived as many as immoral stem from religion.
Sarun, what I don't like is people making value judgements about the religious (or irreligious) beliefs of others. They're never going to convince anyone even halfway confident in their beliefs of anything. It's pointless and it's not what I come to YTMND to look at. I get plenty of fundamentalist propaganda elsewhere.
I'm quite happy with the results of this YTMND. Just one person finding a new truth out of it would make it worth it. It seems several have. So you can cry, you can moan. You can't change truth. With a creator, then good and bad can be absolute, etched in stone (not literally) fact. When there is actually a greater purpose, there is a distinction between the two. When there is not, we get to define our own good and bad. And there can be no argument against it.
Non-human life has everything to do with it. To an ant, it values its own life far more than yours. Who are you to say it's wrong? There is no argument left. It's over. Every single thing is subjective without a creator. You can spout off how you have morality. But it's pointless. I'm glad you value human life, even though there is no reason to. You want a cookie?
Again, you're seeing things from inside a religious box. It's the old Great Chain of Being myth. Ants and most other animals don't have the capacity to value anything, they just follow their genetic programming. Even for the few animals who do have some semblance of values, whatever crude sense of morality they may develop has absolutely no bearing on human life. They are not wrong or right, they are irrelevant. The single most important thing to any human is its own life.
The reason to value human life is progress. Every single good decision made by a human has led toward new technology, new art, new understandings, achievements of all sort. Every single bad decision has been a hindrance to that progress, an insecure regression toward the days of cave-dwelling, incest, and cannibalism. Yes, this is all from the human perspective, but that is the only one that matters to any of us. All other concepts of non-human intelligence are nothing more than human concepts.
See, you are so blind to your own beliefs that you cannot see fact for fact. Human progress means what? NOTHING, when everything is said and done. Why should I care if years after I'm dead we can travel to different solar systems? What single solitary difference in the $@#ing world should it make? Human progress means jack diddly squat.
Human progress means a great deal to me, and it means a great deal to you. It's the reason we aren't dead of smallpox or victims of tribal war. It's the reason we're able to hold a debate from thousands of miles apart. When you're dead and gone, of course it will mean nothing to you - you won't be alive to appreciate anything. The idea is that judgement of values lies within individuals, not some imagined entity that holds power over collective humanity.
Humans die, and new humans are born. Each is a sovereign judge over their own values. But the dichotomy of good/bad = life/death remains static. You are saying that our sovereign judgements are meaningless without an outside force. I am saying that there is all the meaning we need within ourselves, and whether or not a creator exists is irrelevant.
Here is where we get into the part where I can't speak for all Atheists, but only for those who share my philosophy. Hitler was wrong for two reasons: 1. He held Collectivism, a false ideal, higher than humanity. Collectivism by its nature is tyrannical and anti-human. It places humans at the mercy of the intangible Collective, whose needs are decided by the ruling party.
"Until you can give me a concrete source for your morality that makes it FACT, good day sir."
Like I've already stated: morality is a concept, whether you develop it from an atheist standpoint or a religious standpoint. Atheism says morality is BASED on the idea that life and death are opposites, and that our job is to carefully evaluate and apply. Religion says morality is BASED on the idea that there may be an outside entity who knows what it is, and that our job is to seek spiritual closeness with it.
See, all this time you spend, just to get back to the points I was making at the top of this thread. I fully understand what atheists tell themselves. I used to be one, in a sense. Fact remains, if there happens to be a being that set in motion all the events that led to the universe, and most spectacularly, life, or even created life instantly, that being gets to make the rules.
Right, and that's a big "if" that requires faith for religion to work. Atheism isn't necessarily about saying there is no creator, but about deciding that the idea of a creator is useless since the basis for morality is inherent. The ways of interpreting HOW it is inherent is where atheism ends and secular philosophy begins. Always remember: the idea and the conviction that a creator exists is entirely human. It is the ancient and ongoing power of this idea that makes it so compelling.
I strongly suggest (if you haven't already) to read Hero With a Thousand Faces or anything else by Joseph Campbell for (imo) the strongest logic-based arguments in support of religion and its meaning to humans. He spent his life exploring the history of religion and god(s) as natural, vital parts of the human psyche.
Other than that, I've pretty much explained atheism in the fullest as I know it. If you honestly want to know more about it I recommend For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand as a good introduction to atheism (as well as the moral basis for capitalism and rationalism). In the mean time, avoid talking about other peoples' beliefs before you have actually done your research.
I know exactly how athiests lie to themselves to give themselves meaning. WTF would I go read more about it? I'm fully aware of our creator. I'm just letting a few guys out there, that have thanked me, btw, know how the logic of atheism ultimately ends, if one is courageous and honest enough with themselves. Also I'm a big fan of Ayn Rand, for I am a Libertarian.
*sigh* The only thing you're letting people know is that you know even less about atheism than you know about religion. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Deciding to "be atheist" for a few days doesn't make you an expert in atheist logic. People are thanking you for giving them yet another misinformed "argument" to use in defense of ignorance. Nice talking to you.
You are still pretending like I'm trying to argue that atheists believe a certain way. I'm telling you what atheists tell themselves. I'm telling you what logic and reason can only lead to, when based on a godless universe. It's indisputable, yet you keep going back to trying to act as a publicity agent for atheism. We are arguing cold hard facts here buddy, not opinions of atheists.
The cold hard fact is that Tex wants an unchanging/definite definition of 'good' on a universal scale, religion gives him one and it's all nice and cozy. He doesn't understand that something like game theory prevents what he thinks atheists should logically conclude to if it is assumed that there is no divine reward or punishment at the end. The universe can do one thing really well, create black holes. That's a strange place to purposely put a creation.
Ok, I think I get what Tex is trying to say. Basically, if you reduce everything in the universe down to the cold, hard facts and only the cold, hard facts, then there is no morality. Morality is simply the way you spin your facts. But, Being humans, with emotions, we are not satisfied with the simple facts, and therefore extrapolate our facts to mean something more, be it a little bit more (Atheism), or a lot more (Christianity, Islam, etc.) Interesting, please correct me if I’m wrong.
Except...without proof a Creator exists and without a creator that cares enough about our stupid arguments to pop up and say "Hello! Yes! I exist!" There is in fact no "solid truth" to base morality on. Only old documents so reworked and reworded over the years they have become more the word of Man than that of God, if they were God's in the first place. But you're welcome to believe that's the truth if you like, Texaggie. What annoys people is when you try to ram it down their throats.
Homophobe, lol I love that word. Let's demonize anyone who doesn't like gays!!! YAY BECAUSE EVERYONE SHOULD LOVE GAYS!!!!
These points are just flying right over your head DRU. I'm not arguing whether or not there is a creator. I'm explaining how it would differ from one to the other. Maybe there isn't a creator. Fine, however, if that is the case. Morality can never be based on a solid source. There can never, ever, ever, ever be a concrete definition. Not even a gray area. Good & Bad are concepts only.
Right, I explained that earlier. My point is that the same goes for religious concepts. It makes no difference that you "know" there's a creator, or even how things "would" be under whatever circumstances. Morality would be solid if based on your religion just like it would be solid if based on anyone else's concept.
We aren't talking opinions here. Take every single emotion, opinion, feeling, thought, you have on the matter completely out of this argument. We are talking solid facts. If a creator created this universe, created you, so to say, that creator pretty much get's to set the standard on what is right, and what is wrong. If there is no creator, whoever has the most power gets to say what is right, and what is wrong.
It's not an opinion. It's fact. Just as the programmers of software define what is right and what is wrong to do in their software. Well accept if you created the very existence that we experience, ya you pretty much define anything. Trying to argue against that would be similar to arguing with Stephen King about one of his characters. He created them, he defines them.
Wow, did a priest molest you? Why are you so filled with absolute hatred for Christianity? We aren't talking about any certain religion. We are talking about answering the simple question "How does something come from nothing?" Neither one of us have any proof whatsoever of what the correct answer is. And I really wish you would stop from dragging this into a religious debate.
My system of beliefs? Have I ever said that only my religion can define morality? I'm talking Created world, vs life came from a few atoms that farted themselves to life, and the entire universe comes from the biggest coincidence and perfect timing of matter itself.
On one hand you have a creator, or wait, I'll be more welcoming here, perhaps many gods like in Greek Mythology. If there is anything responsible for the Universe's existence, it/them/he/she can set the rules, if nothing is, nothing is bad.
OK. You are saying that good and bad can only exist if there is a creator. You say that without a creator, there is no good and bad. THIS IS PART OF YOUR SYSTEM OF BELIEFS. There are other systems of beliefs that throw yours out the window, and posit instead a fundamental basis for morality just as if not more viable. Instead of the idea being "so-and-so gets to make up the rules" it may be something like "the rules inherently correspond a certain dynamic of physical reality" or what-have-you.
You understanding is based well within the confines of your own religious beliefs. To you there is Creationism on one side, and nothingness/uncertainty on the other. What you fail to realize is that Creationism is but one of many concepts. Here look, in your own words: "I'm fully aware of our creator." Has there ever been such a plain confession of narrow-minded intellectual limit?
"Well, I'm going to declare that Tuesday is really Thursday, and if enough people agree with me, I get to call it a fact, WEWT!!!" A long time ago, someone came up with Creationism, and you are merely one of the latest in a long line of people to agree with them. Are you beginning to see the big picture?
"If a creator created this universe, created you, so to say, that creator pretty much get's to set the standard on what
is right, and what is wrong. If there is no creator, whoever has the most power gets to say what is right, and what is wrong."
Not fact. Opinion. There is no logical connection between creation and moral arbitration. Right and wrong can and do exist without God needing to make it so. And as a programmer -- the people paying me to write the code decide what's right and wrong, not me.
My faith has nothing to do with this. That's your problem. You seem so confounded that I can possibly believe in the god that I believe in, you won't argue the facts. Leave religion out of this. This is straight facts. Tell me how you can say, for a fact, that your opinion of a human concept can make make that particular view the "correct" view. You tell me that, and I'll give you the nobel friggin prize.
He's a nihilist, it must be exhausting.
In all seriousness, "Of course atheists are no better than murderers, neither are believers".
Most murderers become VERY religious, so that statement is kind of flawed.
Everything is relative, we don't have meaning on the "universal" level right now, but what about the butterfly effect? Who's to say that one man on this earth won't lead to the discovery of something, at some point, that could have a universal effect?
Wow, you really are that thick. The "straight facts" are that you believe your own religious views to be the one and only possible basis for morality. Your idea of a creator getting to make up rules? That is your religious view. That is your morality construct. To use your own words, you in turn have "no factual basis to say that your morality is any more right than Hilters."
"Sure you don't need a creator to have morality. You are right. However, you have no factual basis to say that your morality is any more right than Hilters." One clarification, are you saying that your morality has a factual basis (based on objectivity, which has no factual basis itself) that says it's "more right" than Hitler's? Throughout all this arguing, I don't see how anyone has proven that objective-morality can be "more right" than subjective-morality. Really, when people are saying "objective...
morality" they really mean "my-own-subjective-view-of-morality-based-on-my-belief-in-a-creator morality". That's the condition of this thread. There's also continued inconsistencies between the usage of "right" and "wrong". One minute someone will be saying that there's no "right" or "wrong", but follow it up by stating that "therefore X is just as *right* as Y." We live in an amoral universe, but we have a moral imagination. Get over it on both sides! :b
The capibility of remorse is what set us apart from any other being that we know of. Most morality is stemed from social views but we have our own internal structuring I believe. As a young child, before I even knew the difference between right and wrong, I slamed my cats tail into a door because I was amazed at how fast it would run in and out of it. When I saw the cat crying in pain and it's tail bleeding, I started crying. I didn't know what I did was wrong, but I felt remorse.
Of course there is. If magic and fairies were real and there was a god that created the entire universe, that god gets to define our purpose. And, by definition, that/those god/gods dictate morality. Think if you created a robot. You created the robot to kill people, but it, out of magical sympathy, decides not to. That robot is doing wrong. Because, as the robot's creator, you define it's purpose, and therefor what is right for that robot.
I am arguing against your representation of religious beliefs as fact. Like you said, your statement only stands if your hypothesis is correct, and your hypothesis is religious conjecture. Anything could be fact under hypothetical circumstances, including a concrete morality that involves no creator.
I can't speak for whatever "universe out of a chance" idea you're referring to, but I already explained at length the idea of a concrete morality as being based in the life/death dynamic. Like anything else, it COULD be factual given the hypothetical means to quantify, record, and prove it as natural law. Even the ultra-primitive concept of the sacrificial Year King could be based in fact. It's not likely (or practical) given what we know, but it IS just as valid.
I would argue that introducing scientific terms like "factual" into religion detracts from the real value of religion, and is a ham-fisted misuse of science. Religion and science are two separate systems of knowing, each with their own territory. Occasionally religion, being the older system, benefits from science in the form of a revision in doctrine (flat-earthism). It is possible that one day religion may be totally phased out by science, which may then be phased out by something else...
...People are already beginning to notice how trust in science is manipulated and exploited by power structures in ways strikingly similar to the ways religion is manipulated and exploited. But for the time being, religion and science are most effective at promoting understanding when kept separate.
For example, take the phrase "concrete morality." It is a mistake to use the term "concrete" to mean verifiable scientific fact. Rather, it should mean something along the lines of "for all sincere intents and purposes." At least for the time being, morality isn't something that can be defined by test results.
You know what, I will concede a point to you. It is entirely possible that there could be a creator and still there be no true morality or right and wrong. If we were created by accident, or in some way in which the creator had no purpose for us, cared not about us, or didn't know about us. In that case, we would be in the same boat as with no creator at all. That being that I would have just as much legitimacy in stating that I am moral to murder every human alive, as any other human claiming to be moral.
D00D!!!@!@!!@@!! That's the entire #@#$ing point of the entire thread. We have been arguing this for days. That's EXACTLY the point. The only possible way to have a definite TRUTH of right and wrong, is if our very existence was on purpose. Otherwise, not one single argument for morality, what is right, what is wrong, nothing can be based on truth. Only opinion, and group compromise.
You are just ignoring obvious facts. Why? I haven't a clue. Fear maybe? Insecurity? Who knows. Let me lay it down for you once more. You are aware of the posters who come onto political, religious, scientific, or other nonfunny YTMND's and say that YTMND is meant for funny sites only. Is that an opinion? No, it's a provable lie. Why? Because we can look to the about page and see what the creator of YTMND has to say. The creator of this YTMND universe dictates what is right and wrong, as far as YTMNDs go.
Now you can disagree with the creator, but you cannot argue with facts. YTMND was created for a purpose, and that purpose is only known by the person that created it. You cannot walk in and say that YTMND's are meant for something else, or that it's all subjective. Not when there is a concrete source of it's origin who, alone, determines the purpose.
Regardless of how fundamental and matter-of-fact that all seems to you, it's still just a belief based in religious doctrine. We can actually go and ask the Max what he thinks, and reasonably walk away with an answer. The only way to approach and ask questions of a creator is through sublime spiritual experience, or secondhand through the church if you're lazy. Hardly factual, and concrete only in the minds of believers.
Now you are arguing something completely different. I'm not saying which version of religion is correct. There's no way to prove who's view of God is correct. What we are arguing is if there can be, in general, a "right" and "wrong" that is universally correct, without a creator or not. At least in your last reply, you are admitting that with a creator, there can be an actual "right" and "wrong". Just because we aren't sure what it is, doesn't mean it doens't exist.
"I'm not saying which version of religion is correct." I didn't say anything about that either. I'm not talking about conflicting creator-based beliefs. I'm showing how your example doesn't apply. You can't compare the idea of a creator with an actual person. Like I said, it's fine if you're talking to other believers, but atheism isn't built upon the same assumptions.
Your argument stems from the following two preconceived notions:
1. A Creator gets to define the morality of the creation.
2. Morality only exists inasmuch as the arbiter of morality can enforce it.
Both these notions are flawed.
For more information on ethical atheism (I am not an atheist), please Google search for "social contract" and read on that concept.
A social contract is just that. An agreement. It's not a solid base of morality. I can enter into contract with another person to kill that person, and as long as that person agrees that makes it moral? Without a purpose, a reason for being here, there can be no objective morality at all. We can just get together, figure out what works best for us, and agree to abide by those rules. But that is just so we can coexist. Nothing says it's immoral to decide against coexistence and exterminate all other life.
I'd like to see you continue with your logic Tex. Suppose there is a Creator, and He/She/It has formulated a universal, objective morality (why does It need to have a right/wrong to begin with? I would think it transcends that, but we'll say that It felt the need to create "morality" as we dimly seem to know it), so THEN WHAT? heh If there is an objective morality, how can we understand it from our perpetually subjective viewpoint? Show me (prove logically) how humans can perceive anything objectively...
I'm not arguing what we perceive. If there is an objective purpose for us, and therefor an objective morality, it doesn't matter what we perceive, it won't change anything. If there was someone standing behind you, that you didn't know about, you not knowing about it doesn't change the fact that they are standing behind you.
It's not a matter of significance... Those who believe in a Religion do, say, and believe things for various reasons, mostly for salvation, but in some religions, it's re-incarnation. For non-believers, if one acts "morally" as if they were religious, when they aren't, it's possible they feel that their methods are good, not necessarily for themselves, but just in general. It's like asking why people choose to upvote, and people choose to downvote, when really, none of it matters.
It's just a choice between two things with different labels. But I for one believe that while everything is pretty much insignificant, we as humans have the power to fool ourselves into believing things are significant. Therefore, I choose to make, "right" decisions rather than "wrong" ones. I do it because I want to, because I can place my own unfounded significance on it. The logic you have is only correct from a universal view. When considering the ignorance of humans, their own views are more...
relevant than the universal one. They say ignorance is bliss... I for one agree. When I was younger, I came up with a sociological theory. (whether this has been considered before by another, I do not know, but as far as I know of, I came up with this myself)-> If life were a plane, it would take the shape of a line when placed from beginning to end, however, when your life lays before you, it is a tree. A series of decisions, actions, and thoughts. When one navigates this tree, they can take many...
directions. Consider that, if you were looking at this head on, you would be standing on a line, and before you would be the branches. There is a scale running perp. to your line, and this scale represents logic/reasoning/belief. While the majority of people do not venture out to the edge of this scale, some do. On one side, lies the person who has thought too much. They have tried so hard to find an answer to unanswerable questions. This persons only conclusion is that everything must end.
In that persons mind, blowing everything up would be an appropriate solution. On the other side is the person who thought too little. This person lived without a care in the world. They are practically in a vegatative state. They think so little that their only answer is continue their ways. They won't look past the status quo, they won't consider the past that got them there, or the future that lies before them. This person is almost comatose. They make no impression on the world.
But what is worse... he who found the answer, or he who looked for none. While I do believe the best thing for us would be nothing, and I mean, completely nothing, I also am realistically greedy. What is worse for a greedy person than having nothing at all? I choose ignorance, I choose the mundane, boring, pointless existance that I have always known. I like it... I'm addicted to it. My purpose here is only what I make it, and I choose to continue on. I have made that my purpose, despite the fact that
I otherwise have none. My only desire is that upon death, I am proven wrong and am allowed an afterlife. So while many people may consider the views of religious people naive, or just plain wrong, it doesn't hurt to hope. That is why I continue, because I hope one day, something significant will occur, come into existance, or be revealed. This doesn't separate me from you, because our paths lie on the same plane. Everyone's path on the same pale blue dot. A void of everything, and of nothing.
"We can just get together, figure out what works best for us, and agree
to abide by those rules. But that is just so we can coexist. Nothing says
it's immoral to decide against coexistence and exterminate all other life." Wrong. That shows you don't understand the social contract. What it boils down to, Tex, is that you have shown you CANNOT understand the existence of morality without it being imposed - your mind simply fails to grasp right and wrong without someone more powerful than you telling you
what they are. Because some of us understand that conscience and morality are innate to the universe, not because God decreed it, but perhaps God recognized it as being intrinsic to life.
If we recognize as a first principle that self-preservation is a basic foundation of morality, the rest of objective morality flows from that principle.
I follow a few principals: 1. Follow every law governing me. 2. If a law is " wrong," work to change or abolish it. 3. If a needed law isn't in place, work to create it. 4. Be ethical. Even when the law does not require me to. Govern and regulate myself. 5. Work to preserve myself, without disadvantaging others unfairly, and without breaking my code of ethics or governing bodies laws. 6. Work to educate myself, and if appropriate, others. 7. Have fun.
Wow, you said innate. LMAO you're a joke man. You are arguing that morality is, because it just is, and nothing can refute that. What are you? 12 years old? Self preservation is a concept you hold dear, however that does not make it innately important. It's a joke to try to argue that. Because your entire argument can only consist of "well, it just is". You have no arguement. Good day.
The Social Contract is a valid agreement between human organisms who desire self preservation and liberty. It's an act out of selfishness. There is nothing innately "right" about it. To say that it is, is to require no factual evidence and simply call it an axiom out of an inability to prove it. So in a similar manner, if the population of the world believes that the Earth is square, it then becomes a square by maxim.
It is selfish unless it includes everyone, which can't happen. But more seriously. Though you are correct, do you live with that thought lingering in your mind each day? If I did so, I would be more unproductive than I already am. Don't you think it's best to just live and hope for the best? I mean, I know how insignificant I am, but I'm not killing myself because I am not valuable. If we all thought that and decided we should die, then... well that would be "bad."
I mean honestly, when it comes to the "value" of our lives, not only is there no value, but other living things would be better off without us. The funny thing about life is that everything organic is pretty much viral, and by our own definitions viruses are bad. We produce waste, pollution, we over-populate, destroy, and abuse. The list could go on. As an entity we are inherently bad for most other things, but we value ourselves above those other things correct? Using your logic, do you wish
I'm not saying how Atheists believe. Most of them are too shallow to examine the real truth of there being no creator. I'm simply stating the only conclusion one can come to if they logically examine our universe as an accident. Should they hope for the end of humanity? I hope not, because I like living. But without a creator, how could they be provably "wrong" if they did?
There isn't a "bible" for Atheism. Although it is a religion, in a sense ( believing in something completely, without proof). So hippies can believe that no god exists, yet their lifes still have meaning. People lie to themselves all the time, as is evident by many of the posts here. Am I saying I have proof of a God? No. I'm simply pointing out logical conclusions that either scenario would provide.
Tex, I know I'm not a spamming poster, but you completely ignored my question: suppose there is objective morality put there on purpose by a creator... so what? Without being too solipsistic, if a tree falls on a planet millions of light years away, how does it affect me? How can I even know there is such a tree without being omnipotent or some objective, universal being? There may be an objective morality, but what chance do we have of defining it since we can only bring our subjective perceptions?
And, in that vein, because of the inevitable subjective human condition, what's the difference between "objective" and "subjective" except that the former is an illusion (lie, falsehood) and the latter "just is"? Once again, you and some other people here are committing basic fallacies and getting nowhere: "There is nothing innately "right" about [social contract theory]." Correct! I think the problem a lot of posters here have is that they are trying to satisfy some condition for morality when if you look
...at their beliefs you will find they are really amoralists. To be clear again, so this isn't brushed aside and may actually be addressed: "But without a creator, how could they be provably "wrong" if they did?" With a creator, how can you provably know what's "right" or "wrong"? You admit that in matters of faith there's no proof. In reality, existence is a leap of faith (via inductive reasoning), and believing in God is the same as believing in none, same goes for morality v. amorality.
Because you do not possess the material to prove, at this very instant that the earth is round, does that make it untrue? We are not discussing what IS "right" and "wrong". We are discussing if there can be a "right" and "wrong". Leave the , what is "right" and "wrong" for another thread. Most people, I believe, know, internally, that there is an intrinsic, universal "right" and "wrong". And that can only exist with a creator. Because a creator defines his/her creation. Otherwise, there cannot be.
"Because you do not possess the material to prove, at this very instant that the earth is round, does that make it untrue?" It means that the earth may be round, and is generally considered round until proven otherwise (again, gg inductive reasoning). While I believe in a Creator (probably different from your conception, but a Creator still), I don't see any valid argument for a defined "right" and "wrong" (regardless of what it is) whether there is a God or not. God may have defined us, but who says he...
defined right and wrong? He may have imagined it (thus allowing me to imagine it, in the same way I can imagine invisible pink unicorns, because they 'exist' enough to be imagined in my mind which is part of the physical universe that was created), but is its existence any more tangible than that unicorn? Also, I don't see why "right" and "wrong" couldn't exist without a God. Aren't we creators who define ourselves, at least in a metaphysical sense (where morality lies...)? Note: I'm just showing how...
morality with/without God is as viable as amorality with/without God. They're in the same boat as much as you seem to want to distance yourself from it. In my spiritual beliefs, our Creator transcends right and wrong, and creation itself (if you want to mix logic with these ideas of creating/defining, then you're left with "who created/defined the creator?" or is it because the creator "just is"?). I think you harbor--not so much an animosity but--a pity for atheists, and imo that's worse than disagreement.
Well, if my pity for atheists angers you, I pity you :P Why do you care who I pity? With a creator, you may argue still that his/her "right" and "wrong" is not correct. However, how can you argue with the entity that created the very notion of existence? Yes, that creator may can design the vast intricacies of the universe and all that took place to create it, but I think I know better what is write and wrong. You would be arguing with the brain, and intellect that that creator created.
"if my pity for atheists angers you" It doesn't heh, maybe it's the short format of posts that make me sound terse(?) or that people online can act uncivil in entertaining discussions (so you kinda assume anger is their primary emotion), thanks for being fairly civil too :b Anyway, how is arguing with your creator any different than arguing with yourself? Either way, you can't win or escape it (you can't act outside yourself or you wouldn't be yourself, so you're bound to your actions). Also, I'm still...
wondering if you acknowledge that all our premises on this topic are on pretty equal footing (starting ground) regardless of what logical path they *lead* to (if the derived conclusions from illogical nonsense can be considered worth something to begin with, but I think they can be...). That's all for me tonite, surprised at your timely response, get off the Internet, go to sleep (your posts show you're online at almost any time during the day hehe). Nice chat.
Ya, I got net access at work. The only conclusion I think we have reached, is that no creator = no objective morality , however with a creator, there is the possibility of an objective morality, a purpose. For a purpose must exist for a definitive objective morality to exist. Just as if we create a robot. Its "morality" has nothing to do with ours. Its morality is solely based on if it follows its programming or not. It's purpose.
Ah yes, and now the last refuge of the scoundrel emerges - the personal attack. Now you calle me a "joke" and a prepubescent instead of refute the argument. How very Christian of you. No, sir, you'll have to do better than that. But let's say that you're right - that without a God to impose a morality upon us, that there is none. Yet we are humans, with desires, wants, needs (including an innate psychological need for socialization), and we seek to survive. By what imagined rule on your part can we
as humans not take those basic needs and find our own way, base our morality upon meeting those needs, and discover a system that serves to provide, as John Stuart Mill put it, "the greatest happiness for the greatest number"? I see from your devolution into personal attack and namecalling that you're unwilling to consider that morality can exist in a spiritual vacuum, and that it's simply beyond your current ability to comprehend (not to say that you're incapable of growth!).
To say that your belief in God constitutes the only logical conclusion one can make doesn't merely go beyond arrogance; it denies faith. Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. What you've done is turn faith into fear - fear that the basis of morality and ethics will disintegrate if you dare contemplate the nonexistence of God. And that's just sad. There is no true faith there - just fear, and corresponding hate.
You fail at proving that objective morality can exist without purpose still. Yet you keep spouting off little personal attacks yourself, trying to build your own intellectual power, in your own mind. You still fail. Yes, humans can get together and agree to follow certain standards, blah blah blah. Still, there is no INNATE "right" and "wrong". I completely fail to understand why you people keep coming in and try to change the subject. The argument is not "can humans coexist". Read a post or two.
I'm not saying objective morality can or cannot exist independently of God; I'm saying that if it can exist, it is not dependent on God to do so. One could make the argument that a deity-decreed morality is entirely subjective - it is subjective to the POV of the deity. If morality is objective, it is intrinsic to the nature of the universe. If it is not intrinsic to the nature of the universe, it is by definition subjective. That is immaterial the question of the existence of God.
The question of human morality is an interesting one because many have theorized that humans and other creatures are innately moral. See Maslow's Hierarchy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs for one such example. Humans have a psychological need for socialization, for wellbeing, and for self-actualization. Those are impossible to achieve in a moral vacuum. And those who are completely devoid of morality are psychologically ill - we call them sociopaths.
The question of whether that innate psychologically-driven morality is programmed into humans by God or simply evolved by nature is one that cannot be answered. But it cannot be denied that it exists. And whether this "pale blue dot" is all that exists or not, it is where our lives are lived out, and just because our lives are lived on this fleck of dust floating in space is no reason to consider our lives meaningless.
Personally, I'd consider a life created by some omnipotent being for the sole purpose of worshipping said being for eternity to be a worthless one.
And no, when I said you can't comprehend of a morality outside the context of God, I mean just that. You have demonstrated you can't. And you obviously are very angry about it, judging by the insults you throw around when told so. If you take that as a personal attack, that is your problem, sir. It's not a personal attack; it's the truth.
You are giving meaning where there is none. Your personal designation of worth and meaning is scientifically meaningless. Without a creator, apparently some process occurred in our evolution that drove us to adapt a conscience, with a seemingly innate morality. However, when all is said and done, it's just electrical impulses betwixt nerve endings in our brains. How does that give us innate morality or meaning? It doesn't, we are a freak occurrence....
On the other hand, if a deity created us solely for worshiping it for eternity, don't you think it would have made us dumb saps without the capability to question it?? You seem to understand the complexity of our universe, and how it works, and even more so, the enigma that is the human intellect. Why, after being able to grasp that complexity, would you simplify a creator that created it all?
Well, Tex, that's an excellent question... why simplify the Creator? Or for that mater, why simplify His creation? "However, when all is said and done, it's just electrical impulses betwixt nerve endings in our brains." Is it? If we don't believe morality comes from God, must we also believe that the human condition is nothing more than bioelectrical and biochemical activity between our ears?
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link