Answer the Following, /sci/

[Anonymous No.2134618]

Doing a curious survey, answer truthfully, and try to keep trolling to as a minimum as possible.

[Anonymous No.2134630]

Atheism

I believe Morality.
God.

[Anonymous No.2134638]

Atheism.
Don't believe in morality.
Because morality is mostly a religious thing.

[Anonymous No.2134641]

Atheism
yes
because pain and enjoyment exist in biological organisms

[Anonymous No.2134649]

atheistic agnostic

believe in morality

because jesus wants to love me in heaven

[Anonymous No.2134652]

Belief - no active belief; technically atheism, but I definitely do not self-identify as such.
Morality - Do I believe in morality? That sounds like a stupid question. I don't believe in an objective morality, but I don't believe morality can be denied.
Reason - Morality exists as an evolutionary construct built such that social animals don't inadvertently harm themselves.

[Anonymous No.2134655]

Jizzlam
no
I'm masturbating leave me alone

[Anonymous No.2134658]

apatheism
sure
>>2134641
what this guy said

[Anonymous No.2134669]

Catholic
yes
Science

[Anonymous No.2134682]

No faith based beliefs (atheism)
Utilitiarian morality
Because happiness is the one universal moral good, suffering the universal moral evil, and the existence of such serves to refute relativism.

[Anonymous No.2134688]

Agnostic
No
Because morality is basically to act against human impulses and human nature. It's mostly a construct based on sociability or civilization, where you have to restrict your own behavior for the betterment of others. Despite what some insecure numbnut might think, murdering and raping others are more human a behavior than morality or social rules are.

[Anonymous No.2134698]

Atheist

I belive un ultitarian Morality

Because suffering exists and i feel good when i prevent/stop it.

[Anonymous No.2134705]

Nihilist, moral nihilist. As for why, I don't believe knowledge is possible, so it follows that nothing can be said to be true about anything (morality included).

Now while I do believe this, it's not really practical to go denying the existence of reality all the time, so I generally just don't think of philosophy and act more on gut instinct. Tl;dr, logically: no morality, practically: whatever feels good at the time. The former justifies the latter whenever I act inconsistently.

[Anonymous No.2134710]

>>2134688
wiki reciprocal altruism and kin selection

[Anonymous No.2134713]

>>2134688
and this is why i just decided to be theist... answers like these are too retarded

[Anonymous No.2134724]

>>2134710
Those are in the sake of the organism's sociability, not biologicality.

[Anonymous No.2134730]

>>2134713
>implying agnostics aren't always wrong and retarded
>implying agnostics aren't worse than atheists

[Anonymous No.2134737]

Belief: none (atheism is not a belief)
Stance on morality: there are no absolute morals. just don't do to others, what you wouldn't want others to do to you.
Reason for stance on morality: common sense

[Anonymous No.2134741]

Atheism
Amoralism
Don't believe or care for either morality or immorality, they're both just a code of ethics or rules people will define for themselves to follow or act by.

[Anonymous No.2134742]

Theist
Yes
Intuition

[Anonymous No.2134768]

All knowledge is happenstancual relationships between two objects. Consistency is established through repetition of a task through a relatively small amount of time when a function can collapse due to the function of time.

Imagine slowing down the operations of your computer 1 billion times and then running a bunch of tests almost instantly together and stating how it works as a whole. That's science for you.

[Anonymous No.2134775]

Agnostic Atheist
Yep
Emotions associated with moral conduct (compassion, empathy, blah, blah, blah) evolved from our ancestors, look it up yourself. Morality is not divine by any means.

[Anonymous No.2134778]

theist
yes
because im not underage

[Anonymous No.2134781]

atheist
no real morality
it changes from person to person and is based on the environment

[Anonymous No.2134783]

how can u not believe in morallity, its a key part of decision making

[Anonymous No.2134788]

Catholic
Believe in morality
God, life.

[Anonymous No.2134792]

No supernatural beliefs
I am naturally moral like everyone else
Morality is an innate human characteristic

[Anonymous No.2134798]

>>2134792
>Morality is an innate human characteristic
just human?

[Anonymous No.2134799]

Atheist

Morals and cultural norms come from society. Most western cultures are against sex with prepubescent children, however in sand nigger culture and some nigger tribes in Africa, it's perfectly acceptable to marry and or fuck little kids.

[Anonymous No.2134800]

>>2134783
Because "morality is a key part of decision making" is an untrue fallacy. Morality virutally doesn't have any real existence in decision making that aren't social or are connection with the other people or the society around the person.

[OP No.2134802]

>>2134792
Ok.....glad someone answered correctly

Thanks, /sci/
\thread

[Anonymous No.2134807]

>>2134798
>just human?

I think it's been found that apes and dolphins and dogs have human-like empathy. Not sure though. I'm certainly not claiming that humans are qualitatively different, just that humans are vastly more social and moral than any other species.

[Anonymous No.2134812]

The truth is that you're presenting us with a false dichotomy, OP.

[L !Zlv2wJGo8g No.2134814]

Christian
Yes
If the purpose of life is to emulate God as much as you can, and in turn become One with Him, then naturally negative/self-serving/materialistic indulgences is the antithesis to the orderly purposes of a benevolent being seeking unity with man.

[Anonymous No.2134815]

>>2134800
>social or are connection with the other people or the society around the person.

That's what morality IS, dumbo. That and the natural phenomenon of empathy, which our brains are hardwired for.

[Anonymous No.2134817]

Morality itself is natural for humans and other animals capable of forming certain groups or societies to live in. However what those morals are is completely dependent on said society, group, civilization, etc.

[Anonymous No.2134824]

>>2134815
>That's what morality IS
Hence why "morality is a key part of decision making" is false.

[Anonymous No.2134826]

ITT: Christians pretend that their morality has anything at all to do with their religion

You guys should read some evolutionary psychology. Morality was there first, before religion arrived on the scene.

[Anonymous No.2134832]

>>2134826
Those aren't morals though, just human and social behaviors.

[Anonymous No.2134840]

>>2134832
>Those aren't morals though, just human and social behaviors.

Hate to break it to you, but that's all there ever has been.

Maybe you're a Christian? Okay, so you say that your morality is to do with coming closer to God. But..... WHY ought you to come closer to God?

Because you respect him as your better, maybe. You trust that he knows what he's doing. You feel grateful to him. These are extensions of human social behaviour.

[L !Zlv2wJGo8g No.2134844]

>>2134826
If you're talking about non-human animals I'll agree if you call "morals" the order established by groups of animals to survive.

That definitely predates religion. But like >>2134832 pointed out, it's different for self-aware beings who are capable of following those guidelines or not following them whether those habits can be considered "morals." In that case, it's arguable which came first; a religious cult or morality.

[Anonymous No.2134859]

>>2134844
Yes, like all religion threads, the definition of words is a slippery bastard and distracts us from what we're actually talking about.

If we go with "formalised set of rules to live by", then I would say that morality and religion are roughly the same thing, and probably emerged at the same time. Religions sometimes involve supernatural belief, but not always. (see: Taoism, Shinto.)

In that sense, the vast majority of atheists are religious. They, more than most, have probably given a lot of thought to what rules they want to live by. A lot of them have Buddhist sensibilities as well.

[Anonymous No.2134865]

>>2134840
The reason to become closer to God is that God is the source of all things good. That is also why morality is related to God, as it pertains to choosing the good over the evil.

[Anonymous No.2134874]

>>2134865
That's circular. You need to define good. If you define it as something like "happiness", then congratulations, you're actually a hedonist with bad information.

[Anonymous No.2134875]

sage for non-/sci/ and obvious shitstorm thread

[Anonymous No.2134879]

Morals are math for words.

Animals think A then B in some fashion. Just like you do. Its for what event they want to happen.

If it wasn't true, I wouldn't be able to make a pigeon pray to me. http://psychclassics.asu.edu/Skinner/Pigeon/

In that same light -- stop going to church. Could you imagine if birds paid their owners bread so that they could spin around in circles?

You humans are no smarter even with your gifts.

[Anonymous No.2134880]

>>2134865
>God is the source of all things good
...and evil as well. so why bother getting close to someone who's as likely to fuck you over as he's to reward you?

[Anonymous No.2134916]

>>2134880
He is obviously more good than evil. You also can't have good, or understand what good is, or appreciate what he gave you to begin with without it.

So shut your fucking mouth

[Anonymous No.2134928]

>>2134916
>He is obviously more good than evil

That's not at all obvious. He is, at the very least, extremely eccentric. He lets Satan do his thing even though he could instantly stop him. He lets hell exist even when he could instantly get rid of it. He doesn't present evidence of his existence even though he could.

....maybe he's just trolling?

[Anonymous No.2134930]

>>2134916
no such thing as good or evil. but let me ask you a question.
if your dad told you to love him and if you dont he would torture you would you call him a good dad?

[Anonymous No.2134948]

>>2134930
what if your dad watched you masturbate and then set you on fire?

[Anonymous No.2134959]

>>2134880
No. What we perceive as "evil" is nothing but one side of free will. A consequence derived from the misuse of it for self gain.

As the very Creator of free will, God would obviously be benevolent and loving towards His creations. Thus the purpose of the denominations of religion are to come closer to God by bringing a balance to these forces.

[Anonymous No.2134966]

>>2134959
>denominations

So you think that more than one religion might get into heaven? Which ones?

[Anonymous No.2134971]

>>2134959
>God would obviously be benevolent and loving towards His creations.

not obvious. how do you know he's benevolent?

[Anonymous No.2134982]

>>2134971
>God would obviously be benevolent and loving towards His creations.

This is clearly false. The VERY FIRST THING he did after creating Adam and Eve was to lie to them about what the fruit did.

Then the snake told them the truth, and Adam and Eve lost innocence. Instead of changing them back, and going "oh silly me, why did I put that tree there?", he punished both of them and the snake.

[Anonymous No.2134996]

>>2134959
>free will

[Anonymous No.2135021]

>>2134928
If he is all that exists, how do you compare or show him?
How do you measure or analyze what everything is made of where there is ACTUALLY <nothing/space> to compare him to?

You have NO knowledge without two objects and space between them -- no space meaning they are one object.

Do you want him to appear magically with a booming voice in the sky and destroy all the evil with his magic? People will only run in fear. People are scared of the damn lightning and you can't be selfish as to what you expect.

You don't even know what you are looking for. All of your technology has done is confused you to the point to where even if he did show up -- you could just claim its special effects or its something that's not him. Theres NOTHING he could do, short of terminating your free will, to prove himself to you, and if he did that -- satan would win.

No matter how bad it gets it should be good to have freewill -- no matter how bad your ignorance, your very ability to appreciate life for yourself and your claim to protection against lies and your stepping stone to humility, or his knowledge of what you choose to do can take that away. The only thing that can take that away is your incessant ego and claim to intelligence when there is none to be had.

You don't want intelligence. It kills your soul. When you have everything -- you are nothing.

[Anonymous No.2135025]

>>2134982
actually he just told them to stay away from it or they would die, which is true. disobeying God is sin and sin brings death (Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.)
The snake told them that they would be like God if they ate the fruit, which was only partially true. After sinning they then realized the difference between sinful and non-sinful acts.

But yeah, it's still just mythology.

[Anonymous No.2135036]

>>2135021
that's only the argument for the possible existence of A god. it implies nothing about the gods of world religions.

[Anonymous No.2135062]

>>2134880
God isn't the source of evil. Evil comes from distancing oneself from God.

[Anonymous No.2135072]

>>2135025
>actually he just told them to stay away from it or they would die, which is true

Maybe you should try reading the Bible, bro. He told them that they would die THE SAME DAY THEY ATE IT. Which is a lie no matter how you read it.

[Anonymous No.2135075]

>>2135025
>just mythology.
>implying profound truth can't be expressed through mythology.

[Anonymous No.2135079]

>>2135062
>BP isn't the source of pollution in the gulf. Pollution comes from disobeying BP's orders

[Anonymous No.2135081]

>>2135075
>implying atheists don't understand that profound truths can be found in fiction
>implying that religifags think that their stories are fiction

[Anonymous No.2135082]

Spiritual, not religious (i believe there is more to existance than can be scientifically explained. Whether or not this means there is a god, ghosts, or spirits is up for debate. No solid evidence to disprove, no solid evidence to prove. Not really important, because I believe in..............)

Morality.

I dont care if you believe in god or science. The end of it is, if there is a god, he only expects you to be a good human being. If there is no god, you should still be a good human being regardless as it is beneficial to the human race as a whole and to you personally.

How do you tell good from evil?

Evil is whenever you harm someone else in someway. It can be miniscule and unimportant, or extreme and life changing.

Good is bringing benefit to someone. Same rules as evil applies.

Sometimes, doing good for one individual or goal brings evil to another. It is up to the individual to sort out the checks and balances themselves.

I myself prefer a "pure good" path. If there is a decision that requires some form of evil, I either do not choose it, or create a new method that does not include or minimizes the evil to the point of irrelevance.

[Anonymous No.2135087]

>>2135082
>I myself prefer a "pure good" path. If there is a decision that requires some form of evil, I either do not choose it, or create a new method that does not include or minimizes the evil to the point of irrelevance.

So...... what you're saying is that you play a lot of western RPGs.

[Anonymous No.2135091]

>>2135072
chill dawg, i was just trollin but what translation are you talking about?

Genesis 2:15-17 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

I don't see a timetable on that?

[Anonymous No.2135096]

>>2135082
I reckon this is a pretty good summary of the morality of most rationalists. Apart from the confused "god" stuff.

It certainly seems to describe me. It's sort of like 75% utilitarianism, 25% virtue ethics.

[Anonymous No.2135105]

>>2135091
Huh! There must be some bit in the Hebrew that can either mean "on the same day" or a more general thing.

Or the cynic in me thinks they spotted the problem and mistranslated it.

Anyway, here's another translation:
>but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

[Anonymous No.2135109]

>>2135082
I envy your simple world-view...

[Anonymous No.2135110]

>>2135081
>implying that mythology means fiction

[Anonymous No.2135120]

>>2135110
>implying that your previous post makes sense if you didn't mean fiction

[Anonymous No.2135129]

>>2135096
>>2135087

You dont need religion nor science to be a good person. You only need to be good.

And yes, I guess you could say I take life choices the same way I look at choices in a WRPG, but I admit things can get a little grey.

But at the end, fundamentals in choices still exist. When you break down choices, you are benefiting or harming someone while also benefiting/harming/noeffect another someone.

Then loyalty and other shiznit complicates stuff from there. But basics are basics. Morality is real. Different systems (Religions) change stuff by adding onto these basics and muddling up what should be a rather simple system.

If you are aware of how your choices effect yourself and others, and you make those choices with that foresight, then you are using some form of morality. It may be bare bones stripped down, or heavily altered by religion, or your own personal set of codes and rules, but its still morality, and it is still built up from and based on that core system of being aware of and modifying your choices based on how they effect yourself and others.

[Anonymous No.2135130]

>>2135105
I think both what the serpent and what God said are both true. Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil means the death of your innocence, but it opens the door to "living forever" and "being like God" in that it gives you the freedom to choose the good for yourself and make that good a part of you forever.

[Anonymous No.2135148]

Atheist
Yes
Because there are societies.

[Anonymous No.2135150]

>I think both what the serpent and what God said are both true.

Well, that depends, we just had a translation issue.
http://bible.cc/genesis/2-17.htm

Most translations say that God said it would happen on the same day. In that case, God was lying.

[Anonymous No.2135151]

God sent people to he'll for wanting knowledge. So he's an evil bastard

[Anonymous No.2135152]

>>2135129
I also want to throw in that I have no confusion about god.

I do believe in God and Jesus. So you could say I am christian in a sense. But I am open minded when it comes to interpretations of them, and other religions (who is to say all religions cant have some truth in them? The bible says they cant, but the bible was written by men, and has been changed and retranslated, not always faithfully.")

In the end, the only thing that matters is being a good person. Everything else is fluff.

[Anonymous No.2135165]

>>2135152
>but the bible was written by men, and has been changed and retranslated

so you just pick and choose which parts to believe according to what makes you feel good?

you disgust me.

Revelation 3:16 Since you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of my mouth.

[Anonymous No.2135178]

Deist,
believe in the concept of
execution leaves much to be desired.

[Anonymous No.2135183]

>>2135152
>In the end, the only thing that matters is being a good person. Everything else is fluff.

No. I don't think so. You both need to be a good person, and also you need to have good information.

If you are not informed, then your ethics are useless. That's why I think rationalism is important to be truly moral.

You presumably believe that a guy called Jesus rose from the dead. Now imagine there are two buttons, and you have to press one of them. If Jesus rose from the dead, the left one kills a person. If Jesus didn't, or didn't exist, the right one kills a person.

You see, your beliefs determine your course of action. And if you're not rational, you might make an inadvisable choice.

[Anonymous No.2135186]

Buddhism
Yes
it's the only religion left that actually touches the base ideas of good intent and compassion without all the fear-mongering fairy tales/dogma.

[Anonymous No.2135191]

Catholicism
Yes
Catechism, you can look it up or any other questions you have.

[Anonymous No.2135205]

atheism
no absolute morality, only subjective (though some of it is instinct)
some of what is morally repulsive to one person might not be to the next

[Anonymous No.2135209]

Sometimes I think it would be nice to have a magical judge forgive me for any wrongdoings once a week so I could reap the material advantages of being immoral the other six days.

Unfortunately my judge is not magical and never forgives my misdeeds. Worse yet I have to look the asshole in the eye every morning in my bathroom mirror.

[Anonymous No.2135218]

Atheist

Yes

Millions of years of evolution

[Anonymous No.2135243]

Athiest

Morals are a human construction and by definition differ by culture. Absolute morals do not exist. Anyone who thinks otherwise is plain wrong, end of story.

[Anonymous No.2135272]

nihilistfag

of course not

my point of view is tldr basically

-dinosaurs didn't have morals
-meaning is a human concept

and don't give me this star trek bs, cause...
-morals that might seem to be common sense now, might be ridiculous in the next few hundred years. e.g 500 years ago I would have thought of abortion as killing a child.

[Anonymous No.2135293]

Atheism
Yes
because I can use it to justify my ends

[Anonymous No.2135299]

Erisian

Lemon curry?

[Anonymous No.2135300]

>>2135272
-the fact that dinosaurs don't have morals don't preclude humans from having morals, just let morality be a feature of either humanity in general, or human society. Its still morality and it still exists even if its not something dinosaurs could have.

-Again meaning is a human concept, but that doesn't make it unreal, in case no one told you WE ARE HUMANS.

[Anonymous No.2135310]

Of course absolute morals exist, I'm right about moral facts, everyone who disagrees with me is evil. You can just go ahead and assert a morality, if you believe there is no objective truth, than just assert your truth. You have to seize your own meaning and value from life.

[Anonymous No.2135349]

>>2135021 Here

>>2135036
A God is an omnipotent controller of a function. A realm is the container of many objects and functions. An object is the sum of many functions. Functions wrapped in functions. A God, can therefore, be small and large at the same time.

Whether you believe there are 'multiple' Gods acting to control certain functions, each force that is divisible by your mind, there are yet other functions that determine how they work. Like how atoms allow our common day interaction but are mandated by quantum physics -- like that.

Objects inhere the properties of their tangent functions. The nucleus is an object whose properties inhere their subatomic ones. IT DOESN'T END HERE. There is a type of relative logarithmic symmetrical duality on both sides of a boundary. The properties of an object are also because of what it interacts with otherwise it would have nothing to bounce off of. It has no function without duality other than theoretic conjecture.

In short, multiple gods is just one god in a different avatar. Are you 'a bunch of atoms', an image of those atoms, a human? All things are atoms even if they are different types and 'separated'. If the God of Gods is space and atom itself, one positive him and one negative him, all other Gods are him as well.

Does a hierarchy of Godhood exist? Perhaps like each individual brain sector works in your brain -- not of much use without everyone working together.

The mistake here is that people put personalities on God's faces when there is no such thing as a personality. A personality is just what YOU think leads to an action. Your interactions with other people should tell you how accurate a 'personality' is as a concept.

[Anonymous No.2135375]

Atheist

Meh.

There's obviously no objective morality, to quote discworld: Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet you act, like there was some sort of rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.
However, morality as "arbitrary personal or societal values" I can dig, but the arbitrary part makes me meh.

[Anonymous No.2135376]

>>2135300
christfag detected

[Anonymous No.2135379]

>>2135376
PUDDIPUDDI detected

[Anonymous No.2135394]

-Again meaning is a human concept, but that doesn't make it unreal, in case no one told you WE ARE HUMANS.

Right so by that logic anything humans come up with is real.

Also, empathy is something far less people have than you would like to believe.

[Anonymous No.2135429]

>Also, empathy is something far less people have than you would like to believe.

You are incredibly, astoundingly wrong.
We are by far the most empathic species to ever exist. Our brains are actually hardwired to feel what we imagine other people are feeling.

[Anonymous No.2135443]

Atheist

Yes, morality is... there.

The argument that you cannot quantify and isolate justice or goodness is ridiculous. Would you claim, by the same token, that happiness and good music and any of millions of things which cannot be exactly measured don't exist ?
No, you wouldn't.

Is morality subjective ? Yes.
But there is a humongous area of almost universal agreement between all humans on what is good and what is bad.
Though, of course there are also areas on which we differ.

[Anonymous No.2135448]

Atheist

Law of the Jungle

Shits random anyway. Doesn't mean I run around raping and killing on impulse, but everyone's an enemy unless they're an ally, and personal security is not sometime you can just hope works out, financially, physically, or otherwise.

[Anonymous No.2135452]

Atheism

I do not believe Morality.
Morality is subjective.

Yet I still act morally in everything I do.

[Anonymous No.2135461]

>>2134618
Belief: (weak) Atheist. There likely is no theist god, and there is no evidence or need for a deist god.

Stance on morality. Do I believe in morality? I don't know what that means. It's like do I believe in happiness. Let me put it like this, good and evil are defined in terms of if you hurt another person (or sentient creature). In that sense, some acts are good and some acts are evil. Moreover, those people who perform a great deal of evil acts are generally called evil. Moreover, those people who lack a reason besides self interest to perform an evil act are generally called evil (and sociopaths).

[Anonymous No.2135481]

>>2135429

DERP. We only care about things we get emotionally attached to. Do you think Paris Hilton would sacrifice her little doggy for a bunch of niggas in Africa to survive?

[Anonymous No.2135484]

>>2135481
she would if a gun was to head...see the point?

[Anonymous No.2135490]

>>2135481
Don't be an idiot. Humans are the only animals capable of even making a choice like that. Some folks do things that aren't selfish.

[Anonymous No.2135497]

>>2135490
I would like to see some evidence on this please. I know some pet Gorillas themselves keep pets of different species. It's probably just a matter of degree, not of kind.

[Anonymous No.2135503]

Atheist
Yes
I Kant. Actually, utilitarianism. I've just wanted to make that pun for years.

[Anonymous No.2135506]

>>2135490

I suspect people saved by wild dolphins would be inclined to disagree with you on that.

[Anonymous No.2135513]

>>2135497
A gorilla doesn't adopt a pet just to give it a home. They do it for selfish reasons, maybe they like the fur, or are just interested in the small creature. We as a human can take a step back, and take a path the benefits another more than themselves.

[Anonymous No.2135516]

ITT:

Geeks who were never good at sports/women that decided to take an intellectual pursuit by studying a science specialisation, to further continue the human race despite the fact they think society is fucked up but like to keep this belief that we will 'evolve' into something better, hence their position on 'morals exist derp derp'

[Anonymous No.2135517]

>>2135506
>>2135513
and why do we do that?

[Anonymous No.2135518]

>>2135513
Evidence please that the Gorilla does it for selfish reasons.

Evidence please that the human doesn't do it for selfish reasons, such as doing the right thing will make them feel better.

When you get to this level of pedantry, it's hard to argue. What exactly constitutes a selfless act? It's impossible to tell. By simply making a choice, one could argue that the choice brings pleasure on some form, meaning that all choices bring pleasure, and all choices are selfish.

It's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I can't win if you argue like that.

[Anonymous No.2135519]

>>2135506
And everyone killed my wild dolphins would agree.

Listen I feel like I'm being misunderstood here. Kindness is not the same as selfless. You get people gifts for christmas because it makes YOU feel good, or because you want to support that relationship. It's rare but possible for humans to do things that only helps another person.

[Anonymous No.2135522]

>>2135513
To continue from: >>2135518
There's a name for the kind of argument which says the Gorilla does it for selfish reasons but the human does it for selfless reasons. It's called unfalsifiability. An unfalsifiable argument is impossible to rebut. It's definitely not a scientific argument, and it's most likely a shitty argument in any venue.

[Anonymous No.2135526]

>>2135519
Please devise me an experiment which differentiates between a selfless nice act and a selfish nice act, preferably such that I could perform it on a gorilla and a human. If you cannot do that, then your position is unfalsifiable, and thus it's bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2135534]

>>2135518
Then let me take a step back here. This is my position:

Animals are instinct only, resulting in them only taking actions they perceive as benefiting themselves.

Humans, however, can display acts of selflessness, and take actions that will only benefits another.

Selflessness is not the same as kindness.

I can't produce links to animal behavior abstracts, so it's all just conjecture, if that's not good enough for casual discussion, then good day.

[Anonymous No.2135539]

>>2135534
Please provide me an experiment which differentiates between the two.

[Anonymous No.2135541]

>>2135522
Though ultimately unfalsifiable, it can still be supported or refused more and more closely with observation.

We can't just assume all positions supported by weak arguments are false.

[Anonymous No.2135542]

>>2135539
Err, please provide me a description of an experiment which could differentiate between "instinct" and "human selflessness" or "human kindness". I don't need one which has been performed, but I do want a description of a way to falsify your idea.

[Anonymous No.2135545]

>>2135541
If an idea is not falsifiable, then it's not a scientific idea.

Moreover, unfalsifiability is generally a sign of a really weak argument.

Obviously I cannot conclude that you are wrong from this. I've merely concluded that your argument is bullshit. From other observations, such as my own knowledge of great behavior, I believe that what separates humans and animals is merely a degree of thinking power, not a qualitatively different kind.

[Anonymous No.2135546]

>>2135545
>great ape behavior
fixed

[Anonymous No.2135548]

>>2135539
I'm looking for the source. But I recall an experiment were two chimps had to work together to get food, and they both did it once, but when one of the stopped sharing, the other stopped helping. Give me a few minutes to find it.

As for selfless human behavior, what comes to mind are examples of strangers risking there own lives to save another person.

[Anonymous No.2135555]

>>2135539
Found it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mv8rfJmCPk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL8OaCW1X5c

It's really fascinating.

[Anonymous No.2135556]

>>2135548
Ok. You could probably run that same food sharing experiment on two humans, and you'd get the same result most of the time. I'm asking for a way to differentiate between supposed "true altruism" and "mere instinctual kindness".

Ok, so sacrificing one's own life for a stranger is "true altruism"? Dawkins was here - altruism can be explained through reciprocal altruism which can be explained by evolution by natural selection which I think we would then conclude isn't "true altruism" but merely a misfiring of evolutionary instinct.

Again, it's basically impossible to differentiate between a "true" altruistic act vs an instinctual altruistic act. Basically the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Such a distinction isn't falsifiable, thus not scientific, and thus I stopped caring a long time ago. I post only to correct your sorry ass on the science board.

[Anonymous No.2135560]

athiest

yes

morality is both practical and biological. it is partially culturally relative and evolves with society, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a real measurable phenomenon.

like anything else biological, it is extremely imprecise, statistical, and just "does its best" at predicting the future. in other words, maybe you save a dude's life, next 5 years he Fritzle's some physicist and his family.

it sucks, you did your best, and _on average_, saving someone's life is still good. good, meaning that it's better for all of us if you don't murder.

notice that "eat cheese" isn't the most rational move in the prisoner's dilemma when the prisoners play repeatedly forever (genes through generations), get to talk in between rounds, and are allowed to form teams.

[Anonymous No.2135565]

A practicing jew.
I do accept the greek moral exioms(alltough it's weak)
I dont know.

[Anonymous No.2135569]

>>2135556
Dawkins carousel of logically reasoning here is flawed. It's finding a problem to a solution, instead of finding the solution to a problem. Although I don't know the specific vocabulary for that type of thing. And devolving to insults, poor form.

[Anonymous No.2135579]

>>2135555
Cool stuff. They seem like human children. Too impulsive.

I raise you a youtube-related video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjLRgosNf_Q&feature=related

[Anonymous No.2135582]

>>2135556
>I care only about things I know how to falsify.
>I think that makes me somehow "scientific".

[Anonymous No.2135584]

>>2135582
That is correct.

I do care about other things besides falsifiability, like morality, but on "yes / no" questions of existence in the natural world and such, all that matters are questions of falsifiability.

[Anonymous No.2135585]

>>2135579
O wow, looks possible I've been thinking under false pretenses. Maybe altruism isn't exclusively human. I'll do my own research and re-evaluate. Thank you gentle sir.

[Anonymous No.2135595]

>>2135585
Even then, it would be quite wrong to conclude that only humans are capable of altruism. Almost all human altruism you see is reciprocal altruism. Finding something that resembles true altruism in humans is hard because it's so rare. Humans are able to think further ahead, so far ahead that it's hard to distinguish between the two, whereas the chimps probably cannot.

That or the chimps are just too impulsive. Are human children "not moral" because no human child has ever sacrificed itself for a stranger?

I really think you're doing a bit of begging the question, or jumping to conclusions.

[Anonymous No.2135607]

>>2135582
>
>I care only about things I know how to falsify.

Well of course! Why would you care about anything else? By definition, if you can't falsify it then you don't have any reason for thinking it's true. So why would you believe it?

[Anonymous No.2135608]

Belief in a morality that is somehow 'a priori' and absolute, and stems from sources not found in the natural world ( like being a survival strategy for group living ) is inherently un-atheistic.

There is no objective good because there is no outside frame of reference. Only the natural world exists.

That doesn't mean there isn't any morality. Being nice is a good idea because it engenders positive reactions from your fellow human beings. Nor does it detract from the virtue of acting morally ( Hurr durr UR just being selfish because morality is just a strategy for getting good reactions ) - because the most objective stab at 'good' that we could possibly make in this ( admittedly ) subjective world - wouldn't that be " An action that benefits yourself as well as those around you " ?

[Anonymous No.2135612]

I think this is a good time to explain something about the bible as it will come up in this thread.
I plea all you christians to leave our fucking book alone, it's not yours, it's never been yours. as lewis black said "it's not your fault, it's not your book". the torah was never intened nor it will ever be understood by anyone other then the people for whom the book was given. as you christfags don't understand it,please stop quoting from it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

[Anonymous No.2135618]

>>2135608
Yo dude. No. Just no.

A theist god is a god that interferes in human affairs. Atheism is the belief that a theist god does not exist. There is strong evidence against popular supposed theist gods, so generally someone is an atheist because of the evidence.

This has absolutely nothing to do with morality. Science and evidence can say what things are true when the truth is a question of existence in the physical world, not the abstract world. One can talk about gravity being true, but one cannot talk about the number 2 being true, nor talk about 2 + 2 = 4 is true in the same sense. Is the number 2 true? I don't even know what that means.

Gravity is true because of abundant evidence for, no evidence against, and it's falsifiable. (Science)

2 + 2 = 4 is true because of definition, axiom, and deductive proof. (Math)

Being happy is desirable is true for me. This is neither science nor math. There are things which I deeply care about which are neither science nor math. Your claim that we should only care about the scientific is hilariously naive and ill-informed.

[Anonymous No.2135623]

>>2135608
>Belief in a morality that is somehow 'a priori' and absolute, and stems from sources not found in the natural world ( like being a survival strategy for group living ) is inherently un-atheistic.

This is a false statement. Theism is not required for belief in anything other than theism.

For example one could hold the belief that morality is a basic property of sapience. This may be irrational without evidence, but it is no way theistic.

[Anonymous No.2135633]

Belief: Gnostic atheism
Morality: Yes, it does exist.
Reason: Because it has been observed in humans.

[Anonymous No.2135638]

>>2135633
>Gnostic atheism

Holy shit. You're the first one I've ever met.
I thought you were just a myth promoted by theists to make atheists look arrogant.

[Anonymous No.2135640]

>>2135638
Someone want to give me the rundown on what the hell that means again?

[Anonymous No.2135642]

>>2135640
It means he claims to have knowledge that there are no gods.

[Anonymous No.2135645]

>>2135638
Actually it's the opposite of arrogance.

I asked myself the question: "How could you distinguish a god from a very good impersonator who has every possible perfection except one?"

I replied with: "Dunno. Shouldn't I be a god myself?"

Hence, I realised that I'm unable to ever verify the existence of god. And since I'm not one, god cannot exist.

Yes, it's humility that makes people gnostic atheists.

[Anonymous No.2135646]

>>2135642
K. What's agnostic atheist then? Is there such a thing?

[Anonymous No.2135651]

>>2135646
That's what every atheist in the world apart from this guy is. We believe that gods don't exist as the default, but will change our minds upon evidence presented to us. So we "believe" but don't "know".

[Anonymous No.2135654]

>>2135651
I disagree then. I consider myself an atheist ala Dawkins. Having knowledge does not mean absolute certainty. Dawkins and I have knowledge that a theist god is highly improbable. We have knowledge that a theist god does not exist. However, as this knowledge is based on scientific evidence, we are unable to claim certainty.

[Anonymous No.2135659]

Agnostic atheist (look up the definitions of these words. They are not mutually exclusive, and neither of them is a belief)
I don't believe in absolute morality. I do believe in subjective morality
Things that were acceptable a thousand years ago (slavery, dueling to the death, beating your wife, etc.) are considered immoral today. Likewise many modern things (our clothes, premarital sex) would have been considered immoral a thousand years ago. If morality changes over time to conform to society it is not objective. Subjective morality is simply a name for what is considered normal or common in a society.

[Anonymous No.2135662]

>>2135654
Yeah the definitions are tricky. I am certainly gnostic atheist towards the gods of every religion I've ever heard of, they usually are easy to find contradictions with.

But some kinda "first cause"? It's too vague for me to claim I "know there is no such thing". But yeah, these words are fuzzy. I think Dawkins calls himself an agnostic atheist.

It also depends whether you think "knowing" and "believing" are two different categories, or just different strengths of the same category.

[Anonymous No.2135666]

>>2135618
>generally someone is an atheist because of the evidence.
Evidence that you take to disprove the existence of a God. But this evidence has been collected in the natural world, or derived through logic and abstract thought-exercizes.
As such, you are an atheist because you believe that laws of logic, cause-and-effect and other properties of The Natural World takes precedence over imagined properties of a (possibly) imaginary being.

Your example of 2+2=4 is an example of something which we take to be objectively true because there is a huge, overwhelming consensus on the meaning of these concepts.

My argument was not that everything is either science or math. My argument was that 'not believing in gods' is philosophically equivalent to 'not believing in the supernatural' ( as in effects without causes ), which is why any morality must have causes found in the natural world.

[Anonymous No.2135674]

>>2135662
Yeah. There is no consensus on the terms, so I try to avoid them. In practice, basically no one claims certainty that no god exists, nor that no theist god exists.

In practice, most atheists believe that all popular theist gods do not exist because there is scientific evidence against them.

Moreover, the evidence is against any other possible theist god unless its interference in human affairs is minimal, which under any reason scientific discourse is scientific evidence against the theist god's existence. It's some mix of inductive reasoning, rational minimalism, and/or Occam's Razor. It's the same thing which we use to dismiss invisible pink unicorns and tooth fairies.

[Anonymous No.2135676]

>>2135666
You believe in NOMA, or Non-Overlapping Magesteria. Dawkins was here - NOMA is bullshit. A theist god by definition interferes in human affairs, so it's not purely supernatural. Part of it is natural, and thus it is testable and subject to science. The science has come back. Noah's flood didn't happen, the Earth isn't 6000 years old, and large swathes of the bible is bullshit, along with all other popular religious books. Thus we have scientific evidence against those particular incarnations of the "theist god" idea.

Otherwise, we have very minimal evidence that no theist god commonly interferes in the world today, so throw in some basic rational minimalism, Occam's Razor, or whatever, and we can rationally conclude that there is no theist god.

[Anonymous No.2135677]

>>2135645
Oh, and as a bonus:

Gnostic atheism cannot reject the idea that our universe was designed by an intelligent agent, as long as the agent is not of divine nature.

Agnostic atheism is a bunch of pussies who think it's plausible that Jehovah created, not only a universe, but the whole cosmos.

[Anonymous No.2135680]

>>2135677
>Agnostic atheism is a bunch of pussies who think it's plausible that Jehovah created, not only a universe, but the whole cosmos.

Whoa there son. Agnostic atheists will all tell you they know Jehovah doesn't exist. He has more contradictions than a Phoenix Wright game.

It's just that the word "god" can be construed in such a vague way that we don't feel comfortable saying "we know there are no gods", since who knows what we would be signing up for?

[Anonymous No.2135707]

>>2135676
I find it hard to believe that you followed the little '>>'-links back to the origination of this discussion, before posting about a completely different topic.

I am not into NOMA. I was making the argument that by subscribing to atheism we also subscribe to the belief that the natural world and its testable truths are superior to the imagined world and its imagined truths. ( IE, that proof derived from the natural world is indeed sufficient to deny the existence of a God existing outside of it ) - and by the same token we should reject other things that seem to offend our sense of logic and proof.
It is no more crazy to believe that a man with a long white beard came out of nothing and created the world, than it is to believe that concepts of morality came out of nothing and should be applied to the world. They are human-made concepts, derived from the human experience ( Or possibly animal-experience, too ) and are subjective.

[Anonymous No.2135711]

>>2135707
No no no. You don't get it. A theist god does not exist outside the natural world. A theist god must exist partially in the material world as such a thing interferes in the material world. That is non-NOMA. Testing the physical world is enough to dismiss a theist god precisely because NOMA is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2135738]

>>2135711

So, applying the same logic to morality, it is fully in the abstract world, and has no bearing or effect on the natural world, and thus we cannot define good or bad by logic because they have nothing to do with it.

Or else, it is partially in the natural world, has an effect on it, and can therefore be subjected to its tests and arguments.

Which means that you just proved that morality is either : Non-existent or exactly the way I described it in my original post.

Congrats. Glad we could agree

[aether !no4hqhHQVg No.2135743]

Theism: Imagination
I believe in morality and I worship 'we' (selfless).
Reason: Jesus.

[Anonymous No.2135753]

>>2135738
You must have missed a memo somewhere. I disagreed when you originally said that "only the natural world exists" or some such.

My point about NOMA is simple. Some people claim that atheists make claims about the supernatural world without any evidence, and thus they're making a claim of faith or some such. That is incorrect. A theist makes the claim that a theist god exists. A theist god is, by definition, a god which interferes in human affairs. That interference exists in the natural world, and thus is subject to science, and that is what atheists use to argue against a theist god's existence.

I don't see how this relates at all to "morality" and "the abstract world". I don't know what an abstract world means.

You're attempting to use the English form of my argument - taking the English and replacing some words with closely related words - as opposed to the actual logic of the argument. English has nuance. Words have multiple meanings and meanings depending on context. You can't just replace words willy nilly and expect it to work. You can't use the same argument about the natural world and replace that with "the abstract world" and expect it to be at all the same. Hell, I don't even know what "the abstract world" is.

[Anonymous No.2135764]

>>2135753
So, you would consider yourself absolutely agnostic regarding claims that you have neither proof for or against ?

Russels teapot ?

[Anonymous No.2135777]

>>2135764
I believe in (formal deductive) logic.

Moreover, it seems that for any particular claim about the natural world, supernatural world, or similar scientific-like question, there are an infinite number of statements which are inconsistent. For example, I can claim that a pink unicorn made the universe. This is inconsistent with the claim that a red unicorn made the universe, that a purple unicorn made the universe, and so on.

Thus, without any further evidence, it seems that a randomly chosen statement (of the proper kind) has a very very low probability of being true.

Thus, I find it difficult to dispute the existence of some supernatural world or supernatural god thingy, I find it quite easy to dispute any particular god.

PS: This is different from theist gods. At least for theist gods I have evidence in the natural world that there is no known theistic interference, so apply a little Occam's Razor and we can claim that a theist god does not exist.

[Anonymous No.2135779]

>It also depends whether you think "knowing" and "believing" are two different categories, or just different strengths of the same category.

Basic definition of knowledge is a "justified and true belief".

That which one "knows" is a subset of what one "believes".

[Anonymous No.2135798]

>>2135777
What is a "theistic god". Isn't that redundant?

[Anonymous No.2135808]

>>2135764
Also, I do have evidence about Russel's Celestial Teapot. The formation of such a teapot through non-intelligent aka non-design causes seems damn near impossible from what we know from science, specifically modern astrophysics. Thus, the teapot can only exist if some intelligent designer put it there. As mentioned already, I argue against theist gods or other gods based on lack of evidence, Occam's Razor, and this idea of an infinite number of inconsistent theist gods. This leaves me only wholely natural explanations for the origin of the teapot. Humans sure didn't do it. That leaves aliens. As aliens likely came about from Darwinian evolution, I can make some simple claims about their psychology. It seems abundantly clear that they wouldn't travel all this way to just leave a teapot. Thus no wholely natural designer. Thus no designer. Thus no possible cause or source - which a teapot requires. (Note that the universe may or may not require a source. Note that atomic particles do not require a cause or source - see spontaneous particle anti-particle pair creation.) Thus no teapot.

[Anonymous No.2135809]

>>2135798
No. There are deist gods too. A deist god is a clockmaker god, one that started the universe but never interfered thereafter. A theist god is one which cares about human affairs and interferes regularly.

[Anonymous No.2135905]

>>2135680
OBJECTION!

[Anonymous No.2135926]

Belief: Agnosticism. The old meaning of agnosticism, rage all you want about it. It's possible there is some sort of "guiding purpose" for the universe, but the idea of a personal god busy in keeping scores of how you behave is laughable. Buddhism and the oldest forms of hindu philosophy are interesting.
Morality- it's subjective, I still try to be a decent person, it makes life more enjoyable. Also, I'm big on empathy.
I even felt so guilty in robbing people while I played Baldur's gate that I eventually stopped.

[Anonymous No.2135957]

>>2135808

Clearly you assume this teapot is a normal teapot, but it was built by aliens with technology far exceeding ours. The teapot, being extremely advance technology, may have some purpose other than just floating there, so your assumptions are incorrect, and therefore your conclusion is incorrect. Teapot exists.