>claim atheistic view brings no right or wrong >atheists flip their shit and say I'm a retard Why is it that so many atheists try to make up some justification for morals? >implying I'm not an atheist

File: 29 KB, 297x350, ikhu8yfu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:53:38 2011 No.2877923 [Reply] [Original]

>claim atheistic view brings no right or wrong
>atheists flip their shit and say I'm a retard
Why is it that so many atheists try to make up some justification for morals?

>implying I'm not an atheist

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:55:38 2011 No.2877930 why is it that some faggots make religion threads

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:56:38 2011 No.2877937 >>2877930 Did I mention anything about religion?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:57:38 2011 No.2877942 Just because it's uncomfortable to accept that morals may not exist, doesn't mean we cant have them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:58:38 2011 No.2877950 >>2877923 Most atheists are humanists, a worldview which has a very clear set of morals.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:58:38 2011 No.2877952 /sci/ - Religion & Atheism Discussion hey op, fuck off! :)

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 20:59:38 2011 No.2877954 >>2877942 > morals may not exist >may Why do you say may? If everything made was an accident and there was no purpose for anything, there is none.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:01:38 2011 No.2877959 >>2877954 Purpose is what you make of it

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:02:38 2011 No.2877963 >>2877959 So who is to tell me what is right or wrong? Whoever has power?

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:02:38 2011 No.2877965

>>2877954
>>2877942

Why does the rejection of the idea that morals come from a supernatural power mean that morals "don't exist?" I don't follow your logic.

Morals certainly exist, as a product of human consciousness and reasoning. Why does that make them meaningless?

>>	Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt Tue Apr 12 21:02:38 2011 No.2877967 Atheist here. Morality is a man made concept. That doesn't mean morality does not "really" exist, is useless, or unimportant. Another man made concept is the scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:05:38 2011 No.2877980 >>2877963 Because you don't live in a vacuum. You share this planet with other thinking and breathing humans that share similar aspirations of their own. It's in our collective interests to form a concessions on what people can and cannot do.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:08:38 2011 No.2877996 >>2877965 >>2877980 Still, if there is no precendent I don't see why people even try to justify morals. It gets everything into shitty debates about what is right or wrong and it changes based on the time and civilization.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:13:38 2011 No.2878026 Atheist moral nihilist reporting in. All other types of atheists are useless faggots. That is all.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:15:38 2011 No.2878033
File: 45 KB, 320x445, 107326-Metroid_Prime_(U)-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2877996

Then i guess you didn't understand my statement, and i have no idea why you would need a precedent. morals ARE relative between person to person and especially culture to culture. But that doesn't mean you are not accountable to the people you interact with every day. If you're not accountable for your actions, you are locked up in a institution like a prison or an insane asylum. What you speak of is an ultimate system of morals that applies to every person, animal, plant, tree, and atom(it doesn't exist). What we DO see is many different conflicting and enriching philosphies some developed intandum and across different cultures. It was common to have laws against killing 3,000 year ago between ancient people of Syria and those of the native american tribes of america. Even though those two groups of people where separated by at least 20,000 years. All these similar laws confirm the need to have a set of commonly held moral beliefs that benefit the society as a whole. Because if they didn't have them, THEY WOULDN'T EXIST.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:15:38 2011 No.2878035

>>2877967
>That doesn't mean morality does not "really" exist, is useless, or unimportant
>is useless, or unimportant

it's important to the survival of our species morality is written in each and everyone of us if this wasn't the case we as species would be death

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:16:38 2011 No.2878039

>>2877980
>>2877967

the pursuit of knowledge and the preservation of civilization do not always converge. human experimentation is now possible on all levels, and the question of consciousness can only be solved scientifically by crossing all ethical borders. in addition, existence DOES NOT cater to human life, or any life. the sooner we have complete understanding of existence the better we'd be prepared from our eventual annihilation. what better way to start than finally understanding ourselves, the primary observers that we are aware of? and to learn the human, we must destroy him.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:17:38 2011 No.2878046 >>2877996 >I don't see why people even try to justify morals Yeah, I can't possibly conceive of how it could be argued that rules against rape, murder and theft would be universally beneficial to all members of a community. Really?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:18:38 2011 No.2878049 >>2878035 So why don't we kill off the retarded, disabled, genetically useless, and start experimenting with humans and becoming genetically superior to our ancestors?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:18:38 2011 No.2878052 >>2878026 how can you be a nilhist and also have morals? simple answer: you can't, logically, so you are illogical.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:22:38 2011 No.2878074 >>2877923 Why should you not justify morals? >implying that justification of morals must be a religous things

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:27:38 2011 No.2878108 If you're religious and believe in morals you are the weak minded cancer thats killing the human race.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:28:38 2011 No.2878115 humans are not valuable consciousness is not even necessarily valuable the only thing is value is intelligence, collective and individual.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:30:38 2011 No.2878126 >>2877923 read "Theory of Moral Sentiments" by Adam Smith

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:30:38 2011 No.2878129

>>2878035

morality may be part of human nature, but this does not suggest we treat all humans universally the same. moral laws apply to members of your group, but do not outside it. why would there ever be wars or genocide if everyone felt they couldn't kill anybody? of course, it boils down to kin selection, but civilization does its best to widen the boundaries of group. but there will always be outsiders that the individual has no obligation to treat morally or even feel altruistic towards. humanity is not an all inclusive tent; the individual cares noting about the welfare of his entire species, but will sacrifice himself for his fragment of the population. so, yes, morality is ingrained in us, but it is still primitive and self centered.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:31:38 2011 No.2878130 >>2878126 >implying anything by an economist is worth reading

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:31:38 2011 No.2878132 monkeysphere /thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:31:38 2011 No.2878133 File: 318 KB, 475x500, implications.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2878130 >implicitly implying implicatory implications

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:32:38 2011 No.2878139 >>2878126 I don't need someone's "view on morals." I just want one legitimate reason why any atheist thinks there are morals.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:33:38 2011 No.2878150 >>2878049 good question...

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:34:38 2011 No.2878153 >implying that acknowledging our morals are meaningless will allow us to transcend them

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:34:38 2011 No.2878156

Atheism is not a faith. It is a lack of faith. Not having faith is not faith. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Atheism is not the Big Bang theory and it is not the theory of Evolution. Science is not a religion, it is a method for discovering new knowledge. Atheism is only a religion in the same way that not believing is Santa Clause is also a religion. The burden of proof lies on people claiming that a god exists. There is no purpose for our existence, only causes. Morlity is independent of religion. Actions done under the belief that punishment awaits are impure. "Good" and "bad" are only human perceptions.
Religion is the epitome of ignorance, it is a deadly ignorance. It is an abomination and insult to reason. It is a political tool used to control large populations. It is a security blanket for those that fear death. It is a cheap answer to questions that science cannot at this time explain. It is the result of a lack of information. Religion is holding mankind from it's potential. It still exists because of tradition and an emotional reponse to reject reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:34:38 2011 No.2878159 >>2878139 are you fucking retarded? he doesn't talk about his views on morals you idiot he talks about how morals are part of human nature. He basically explains tries to explain were morals come from and why they exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:35:38 2011 No.2878162 >>2878159 >how morals are part of human nature That's his view.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:36:38 2011 No.2878168 >>2878162 Ok so you're asking for every atheists view on were morals come from? you're an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:38:38 2011 No.2878175 >>2878162 he basically explains why he thinks morals exist and he doesn't use god as an excuse.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:38:38 2011 No.2878180 >>2878052 There's this exciting new website, wikisomething I think, where you type in phrases (like, say, 'moral nihilist') into this little box and it tells you what they mean!

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:39:38 2011 No.2878184 >>2878153 >implying this isn't the only reasonable reply in this thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:39:38 2011 No.2878186 >>2878168 No. I'm curious to why any atheist would believe in morals. All that moralfags do is state things that benefit them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:41:38 2011 No.2878199 >>2878033 Unrelated: Why don't we all just discuss how wonderful Metroid Prime is? That's a far better discussion than this dead-end shit storm.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:43:38 2011 No.2878213 >>2878186 some humans including atheist believe in/have morals. Sometimes we live up to them and sometimes we don't. Thats life now go do your homework kid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:46:38 2011 No.2878242 >>2878139 Atheists have offered several different views on why morals are important in this thread. You're just ignoring them. >>2877980 >>2878033 >>2878046

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:48:38 2011 No.2878253 >>2878242 I haven't seen one good reason.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:49:38 2011 No.2878257

>>2878186

I've never understood where people get this idea that morals need some sort of spirituality to function. Why is it so hard to accept that morals are the product of many years of social species figuring out how to best co-operate and ensure their society's survival/success?

If anything pisses me off about religious beliefs, it's simply the fact that they rob nature of its well-deserved credit. Give it where it's due for once.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:53:38 2011 No.2878280 >>2878257 >Why is it so hard to accept that morals are the product of many years of social species figuring out how to best co-operate and ensure their society's survival/success? see this >>2878049

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:53:38 2011 No.2878283
File: 135 KB, 500x380, 2370652958_bb92a42a5a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2878186

When bothered I would define myself as an atheist.

>No. I'm curious to why any atheist would believe in morals.

I'm actually having trouble understanding what you're saying; as the way you phrase your statements makes it sound like you're implying 'morals' are some kind of distinct entities; wherein people choose to believe in them and thus act moral.

I'm just going to assume I'm reading into your sentence too much and answer how I think the question/statement should be answered:

Morality is an evolutionary product, beneficial in certain forms of life, in assisting in that species continued survival.

Need I elaborate further?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:54:38 2011 No.2878293 >>2878253 Morals that espouse respect for others and civil relationships maintain a healthy and productive society and are mutually beneficial to all of its members. If that's not justifiable to you then you're being pretty unreasonable.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:54:38 2011 No.2878295

My stance on universal morality is the same as it is on God; even if it exists, I do not know of it, and thus take the natural position of not believing. There is morality to me, however, in society. Social morals of a community exist, as they were established by the people (ideally to further benefit mutual benefit, such as not killing one another), but that does not mean they are universal or supreme in power. Thus, I am fine with moral relativism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 21:57:38 2011 No.2878309 >>2878293 >Morals that espouse respect for others and civil relationships maintain a healthy and productive society and are mutually beneficial to all of its members. So basically your superiors tell you whats right and wrong? Seems logical.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:02:38 2011 No.2878328 >>2878309 >So basically your superiors tell you whats right and wrong? What? Where did I get anywhere near saying that in my post?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:04:38 2011 No.2878340 >>2878328 Honestly, I'm as baffled as you. I've reread his post several times and I'm still at a loss. Attempting to antagonize perhaps?

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:06:38 2011 No.2878351

>respect
>love
>honesty

These are three most important morals in my atheist opinion. None of these morals need a god for justification. Any athiest can have these morals for any reason but one of the most basic reasons for having these morals is survival.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:06:38 2011 No.2878353

>>2878328
Morals in a godless universe are only there for people to control what benefits them.

Some people say having sex with child who is 12 is wrong, but it's hasn't been a taboo until the past few hundred years and animals have sex with things if it's sexually mature or not.

Killing someone because your government told you to is alright, but killing someone because they're a nuisance to society isn't.

"Morals" will always change and be controlled by the ones with power.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:07:38 2011 No.2878359

>"Contractarianism" names both a political theory of the legitimacy of political authority and a moral theory about the origin or legitimate content of moral norms. The political theory of authority claims that legitimate authority of government must derive from the consent of the governed, where the form and content of this consent derives from the idea of contract or mutual agreement. The moral theory of contractarianism claims that moral norms derive their normative force from the idea of contract or mutual agreement. Contractarians are thus skeptical of the possibility of grounding morality or political authority in either divine will or some perfectionist ideal of the nature of humanity. Social contract theorists from the history of political thought include Hobbes, Locke, Kant, and Rousseau.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:08:09 2011 No.2878362 [DELETED]

it's hard to believe, but all that shit was written by man. morals, fantastic stories, the works.

It's true some parts of the bible have history like david being a king, but further research shows the city states of the canites collapsed from drought and economic collapse. A group of caanites( or however it was spelled) decided to make a story about blowing on something to bring down a wall, and on went the bible. They expanded because their belief in this idea of one god was nifty, and our substantia nigras that process what is motivating love believing in the intangible to bring light to their shitty situations. And hey, they followed kinda ok morals, aside from disembowling pregnant women, so good for them. You need to start looking deeper into this reality while you're here so you cause a difference with your life. There's enough blind believers being subjugated to fuel oppressors that spin lies. we really need to end that primordial shit

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:08:38 2011 No.2878366 >>2878353 Implying they're social constructs; which they are.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:09:38 2011 No.2878377 >>2878362 we know they fell from the inside due to the absence of destruction weapons or arrows on the field at discovered sites in the 1000 bc era.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:13:38 2011 No.2878398 File: 4 KB, 199x176, trollface.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2878377 Maybe those laying siege were just really tidy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:15:38 2011 No.2878411 >>2878398 I wonder how wet the kid who made that pic gets when he sees it used everywhere

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:16:38 2011 No.2878419 >>2878411 (shrugs) Depends on their personality I suppose.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:16:38 2011 No.2878421 >>2878411 I bet he was such a pro.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:16:38 2011 No.2878422 >>2878353 Just because morals are arbitrary social constructs doesn't mean they're absent of value. Anything else?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:17:38 2011 No.2878428 All you moralfags are weak minded sheep.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:18:38 2011 No.2878435 so, really the christ troll is gone after I made that thoughtful effort to save his soul with knowledge. Sigh... fucker.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:20:38 2011 No.2878443 File: 14 KB, 237x213, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2878428 >Mad because he doesn't get any.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:22:38 2011 No.2878449 >>2878435 Well...can't say I (or you I suspect) expected much. A useful exercise for the minds; think of it that way. ^_^

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:25:38 2011 No.2878461

>>2878443
hey man, you got history to address from that pulpit of yours. You know the story of christ doesn't come up until after 80 AD, with the writings of josephus having a photoshopped mention of him that really break his writing. There was a magical fellow who performed miracles! after speaking of money money, trade trade. They are inter related. It's been going on for years and is still ogoing on... the opressors feeding magic to the subjugated so they keep working for them. Everyone's got stories, bra

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:26:38 2011 No.2878469 >>2878133 >implying implications implied implicitly implicate implicitness

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:29:38 2011 No.2878482 >>2878469 Maybe he can't see the scary thoughts

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:29:38 2011 No.2878485 >>2878461 Why did you link, to a response, to an attempt at trolling?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:34:38 2011 No.2878507 >>2878485 link = to whom it may concern

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:39:38 2011 No.2878530 >>2878507 Well, I'm to whom it concerns, but the post doesn't make sense in relation to my own.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:39:38 2011 No.2878534 This bores me well, I know you read it and couldn't respond because it broke your shell. feel the knowledge consume you into a life of servitude for the true lord, pantheism! mwa ha ha ha and satanism, jk

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 22:41:38 2011 No.2878544 >>2878534 Atheism FTW. ^_^

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 23:15:38 2011 No.2878679

>>2878461

That and riddle me this as well: During Jesus's supposed resurection tour, hundreds are claimed to have witnessed it. So my question is why, out of so many people seeing a world-changing event, did so few bother to write about it? You'd think that if something THAT big happened and so many people saw it, the documentation would be overwhelming and reach far beyond the Bible that later "published" it. Why did only a few bother to note it, and why does it only show up later in the Bible? Wouldn't everyone who knew how to write would have fuckin' done it THAT night? And if they were the many illiterates, you'd think they'd find people who could, right? Or draw their experience on something? Why is there only one book that mentions it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 12 23:20:38 2011 No.2878705 >>2878544 >>2878544 loook at that the tabs still here pantheism, not atheism you idjut. How can you say everything doesn't exist. You're part of everything, so you don't exist god=everything in case you hadn't noticed.

Anonymous Tue Apr 12 23:24:38 2011 No.2878723

>>2878679
Dude. That's not a valid issue with Christianity, the people then were illiterate and most of what they did write was lost or destroyed with time. The only reason the bible is still around is because copies were made and spread throughout the Roman Empire, it's not like we still have access to the original bible and accounts of every bit of superstition in some backwards province weren't going to survive.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:17:38 2011 No.2879003

ITT: Atheists claim morals in a Godless universe make sense in the context of the collective safety/happiness/advancement/etc of society/humanity but fail to explain why any given individual should remotely give a shit about the advancement of society/humanity instead of just themselves (in the instance that they stand to benefit from selfishness rather than contributing to the collective which is obviously going to be a minority of people).

The point about not killing the disabled/genetically inferior/etc and not doing extensive human experimentation is also extremely valid if you claim to be an atheist with sound morals evolved from humanism.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:33:38 2011 No.2879098

>>2877923
It isn't just a moral foundation they lack... They lack any foundation whatsoever for epistemology or truth.

>>2879003
This is known as the is-ought problem. They have no foundation for any type of ought statement. Even if they develop some form of moral system they can't derive a reason why anyone ought to follow it.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:35:38 2011 No.2879115

>>2879003
>but fail to explain why any given individual should remotely give a shit about the advancement of society/humanity instead of just themselves (in the instance that they stand to benefit from selfishness rather than contributing to the collective which is obviously going to be a minority of people).
You cannot survive by yourself, everyone is reliant on others.

>The point about not killing the disabled/genetically inferior/etc
Very difficult to show what would be beneficial to doing that, we don't know what genes are gonna be "best" in the future. And having good genes aren't the only way to contribute to society (Stephen Hawking for example)

>and not doing extensive human experimentation is also extremely valid if you claim to be an atheist with sound morals evolved from humanism.
Voluntary experiments? - No problem, we already do plenty of them.
Forcing people to do them? You wouldn't wanna live in a society where anyone - even yourself - could be subject to being experimented on.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:36:38 2011 No.2879120

>>2879098
>>2879098

Thanks, I'd always contemplated it without knowing the name. As a result of it, if someone could irrevocably prove the non-existence of God I would go on the biggest crusade of raping, pillaging and plundering the world has ever seen. I would not feel bad about it at all. Shit would be cash.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:38:38 2011 No.2879127 >>2879098 God doesn't help with a foundation either.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:43:38 2011 No.2879152

>>2879115

>want

who the fuck cares what I want? if it's good for society, according to you people, you should force me to be experimented on.

>Stephen Hawking

yeh he's great. but how much have all the other retards with his condition contributed and how much have they cost? not worth it. the savings would have been worth losing Hawking.

>reliant on others

not an argument for morals. i would live in society and outwardly project that i am living the way people think we morally should. but not understanding why i shouldn't rape and murder to my advantage where i can get away with it?? not understanding why i should consider those things morally wrong if i can get away with it and it is advantageous.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:44:38 2011 No.2879161

>>2879120
You're a pretty heinous mother-fucker, aren't you?

It's hilarious how there are people out there who state that if there was no god, they would do terrible things like steal and murder. Isn't it disturbing how people like this actually exist?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:49:38 2011 No.2879182 >>2879120 I hope you never lose your religion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:52:38 2011 No.2879204 >>2879161 why? terrible because it's wrong? why is it wrong? did you even fucking read this thread?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:52:38 2011 No.2879205 >>2879120 So, the only thing preventing you from doing those things is the fear of an omnipotent being damning you to eternal hellfire and the reward of paradise? And people wonder why theists fuck up so much.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:54:38 2011 No.2879217

>>2879127
There is a epistemic, moral, and logical foundation known as presuppositionalism. The presuppositional mindset admits that humans cannot know anything by themselves as humans cannot justify the basis of epistemic truth. Having faith in a metaphysical ultimate, God, allows us gain a starting point or foundation for truth through faith.

An unsolved problem in philosophy know as the Munchhausen Trilemma states: the proof of any theory rests either on circular reasoning, infinite regress, or unproven axioms. Another is Hume's problem of induction. The only way to prove the reliability of induction would be omniscience, since one must "see" everywhere and at all points in time to justify an inductive truth. Faith in this metaphysical ultimate is thereby required in order to begin rational thought, justify logic, induction, moral truth (through special revelation), the ability to know anything (also through revelation).

Some good debaters using this argument are Greg Bahnsen and Paul Manata.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:54:38 2011 No.2879219 >>2879205 not fear. i'm not going to get into what makes me wholeheartedly believe in the Christian God. but fear doesn't even factor into it.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:55:38 2011 No.2879220

>>2879152
>who the fuck cares what I want?
>if it's good for society, according to you people, you should force me to be experimented on.
"The society" isn't some abstract concept, it IS the people, if YOU are suffering, the society is.

>yeh he's great. but how much have all the other retards with his condition contributed and how much have they cost? not worth it. the savings would have been worth losing Hawking.
Let's define" contribution" before we go any further.

>not an argument for morals. i would live in society and outwardly project that i am living the way people think we morally should. but not understanding why i shouldn't rape and murder to my advantage where i can get away with it?? not understanding why i should consider those things morally wrong if i can get away with it and it is advantageous.
A completely selfish person would come to the logical conclusion that allowing murder and rape is not good because it can happen to them as well, so it would not be an advantage.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:57:38 2011 No.2879231 >>2879219 So, stupidity? Ignorance? Laziness?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:57:38 2011 No.2879232 >>2879217 The theory that an "ultimate truth" exists falls on the same argument. So again, you either accept first principles or axioms as is, or you don't. God doesn't help you at all, it's just a different axiom.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:58:38 2011 No.2879237

reciprocal altruism, all organisms show it

are morals are extended even further (despite all the genocide and war) because woman conceal their ovulation, therefore it reduces infanticide (increasing uncertainty) and also reduces physical mate competition (why fight for a woman who may not be ovulating for another month or two, seems like an awful waste of energy)

therefore we court, which has a domino affect on societal morals

since "morals" occur in nature, no reason to invoke a god that created "morals" just for humans

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 00:58:38 2011 No.2879238

>>2879205
Not that poster but the difference is that with a materialist/naturalist mindset you can perform such actions without contradicting your initial beliefs. Not that objective morals exist to begin with in order to even make the criticism you did, but never mind that..

From a Christian theist mindset, performing such actions are impossible without contradicting your beliefs. Criticism for such behavior is actually possible given the moral objective moral foundation that can be used to show their fault.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:06:38 2011 No.2879279 >>2878705 If in your bizarre world: "god=everything" then why call everything god?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 01:07:38 2011 No.2879287

>>2879237
To add to this potential shitthread, let me remind you all that it makes no logical sense to say that objective morality implies god.

Sorry for not knowing the original source of this argument offhand.

Suppose god had a choice in deciding what was moral. He could have decided that rape was moral. Liking that "objective" standard now?

Alternatively, suppose that god had no choice in deciding what was moral. Why need god then? Cut out the middle man.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:10:38 2011 No.2879297

>>2879232
It is not an axom at all. It is a form of circular logic that encompasses a complete system needed to justify knowledge, truth, morals, logic, and rationality. It is circular because nothing else exists outside of this system which could be brought further into it.

Not having absolute truth is a contradiction, and impossibility, except in the philosophical concept of nothing, which there is something, ie you.

There is no absolute truth is an absolute statement. Self-contradiction. Moving on, it implies pure chaos without truth. Chaos however still must have absolute truth. Whence came chaos, and for how long? If the chaos is finite there is absolute truth in its origin. If chaos is infinite, then that is an absolute truth. Existence of truth is inescapable.

The transcendental argument is the proof of correctness of the presuppositional world view. It is proved by impossibility of the contrary.

Axoms are not sufficient to carry epistemology. The principle of sufficient reason show this.

Moral Skeptic Wed Apr 13 01:12:38 2011 No.2879311

>>2877923
>>claim atheistic view brings no right or wrong
That's not true. The moral skeptic, or subjectivist, or relativist, or whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-it view "brings" no right or wrong. Atheism says nothing about meta-ethics. Plenty of atheists are moral realists (though I am not).

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:14:38 2011 No.2879322 >>2878159 That's descriptive, not prescriptive, then.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:15:38 2011 No.2879329 >>2879287 The Euthyphro dilemma. "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:17:38 2011 No.2879336

>>2879311
Without God, solve the is-ought problem. Atheists cannot prove why anyone ought to follow any moral system. Atheists who hold to objective truth are basing its foundation on a contradiction. Instead of acknowledging the non-existent foundation they just move on having deceived themselves.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:20:38 2011 No.2879347 >>2879336 The is-ought problem is not atheist specific. See >>2879329

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:22:38 2011 No.2879356 >>2879297 It still relies on inductive or deductive reasoning, so again, it doesn't help at all. Defining God to be "outside" of some system or not in need of justification is just semantic masturbation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:23:38 2011 No.2879360 >>2879329 God does not arbitrarily decide what is good, nor is God subject to some external good thereby proving God is not needed to prove good. Goodness is the very nature of God. He is not subjected to it nor does he subject it. God IS good.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 01:23:38 2011 No.2879361

>>2879336
>Atheists cannot prove why anyone ought to follow any moral system.
Correct. Nor can anyone else though.

>Atheists who hold to objective truth are basing its foundation on a contradiction.
Contradiction? No. Fiat? Yes.

As I've come to realize over the last week or so, when someone makes a claim, you have to be in a framework where you allow something to be true. You need a shared axiomatic framework. The usual shared frameworks include:
1- science, aka evidence,
2- math, and other things true by fiat,
3- and morality, which is an axiomatic extension of science. Science cannot morality questions, but it's invaluable in answering questions of efficacy, which is required to make moral decisions.

So, what does the word objective mean? Objective means that there is some measure which is shared by the people. That's all. As math and science are shared axiomatic frameworks with little to no disagreement, it's possible to easily agree upon a shared measure, and thus we can talk about "objective" truth.

As for morality, there's a lot more disagreement over the axioms that we should use, and thus there is no objective measure.

What other measure can there be besides evidence (science) and true by fiat (math)?

So, science is completely defendable. Why use evidence to learn about observable phenomena? I have no good reply to that.

Similarly, why are the "oughts" which I hold "valid"? I'm in the same position where I have no good defense of these beliefs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:26:38 2011 No.2879371 >>2879360 >Goodness is the very nature of God. He is not subjected to it nor does he subject it. God IS good. Cool circular reasoning bro.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 01:28:38 2011 No.2879374

>>2879360
>"god is good"
Is this a scientific claim? Can you provide a falsifiable prediction?

Is this a claim that's simply true by fiat, such as a math axiom? It sounds very much like a scientific claim.

Is this a moral axiom that's simply true by fiat? This doesn't sound like a moral claim at all. It sound very much like a scientific claim.

As it sounds like a scientific claim, I'm waiting for a falsifiable prediction.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:28:38 2011 No.2879377 >>2879360 >Goodness is the very nature of God. He is not subjected to it nor does he subject it. God IS good. Not my God bitch. He allows rape, therefore I can do it.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 01:29:38 2011 No.2879384 >>2879361 >So, science is completely undefendable. Why use evidence to learn about observable phenomena? I have no good reply to that. fixed, my bad.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:31:38 2011 No.2879388

>>2879356
No it relies on the omniscience of God needed to justify deduction and induction. The starting point of this God who can make himself known through special revelation, i.e. the bible is faith. From this point the reliability of deductive and inductive (as inference) is found in that special revelation.

God is not outside the system. He is the necessary foundation of this system.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:32:38 2011 No.2879391 >>2879360 And yet God/Gods allow such suffering in the lives of those that worship them. Would a "good" being allow such things to happen? Please. That's one of the basic arguments in these types of debates. Do your fucking homework, sunshine!

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:33:38 2011 No.2879399

Humans evolved to have morals (religions just steal the credit, and in fact, fuck up our moral systems) A simplified explanation goes like this.

We all PERSONALLY benefit if we treat each other good. For example

I dont want to be murdered, Or have all my shit stolen from me. Its safe to say YOU dont want to be murdered or have your shit stolen,and I know a ton of other people who dont want to be murdered or have their shit stolen.

So then heres an idea, lets all agree to not do these things to each other, thus we all PERSONALLY benefit from this agreement(law), but if someone decided to start murdering people and stealing their shit, well then that person needs to be removed from our society(jail) or else our agreement(law) is worthless.

Humanity evolved to be social creatures, not lone wolfs.

The problem is, the whole system gets fucked up when you get religion or nationalism in the picture, those tend to make it ok to steal non-members shit or murder non-members because their not really part of your "society" and are inferior because of this fact. Some religions/groups go so far as to say those outside their own group are subhuman, thus its ok to do whatever you want to them.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 01:34:38 2011 No.2879401

>>2879388
Remind me of the justification of personal revelation?

Ah hell nevermind. It's evident that you feel that god is not required to be bound by logic, and is automatically exempt from all usual claims, so there is no purpose in continuing this conversation.

You are using a form of fallacy called special pleading. Colloquially, it's called an asspull.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:36:38 2011 No.2879408 >>2879388 >No it relies on the omniscience of God needed to justify deduction and induction That is a deductive claim.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:36:38 2011 No.2879411 >>2879399 That post is completely descriptivist. Is != ought.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:37:38 2011 No.2879413
File: 224 KB, 1101x615, wealth distribution.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Atheist here.

I have moral urges due to the fact that I am a human being. Empathy, sympathy, mirror-neurons, compassion and identification with a group (in this case all humanity) are inherent in the human condition. We didn't create ethical urges through conscious thought, they are the products of evolution that underlie our minds.

Now assuming that the usual bunch of theists, solipsists, nihilists and randroids can accept that, we'll move on.

The formal systems of ethics we create - rules, principles, all of that that we consciously affirm - are based on the moral urges that we inherently possess. Yet they are not the same. We create the formal ethics to satisfy our own feelings, to get past situations where ambiguity exists, to make good choices.

We must therefore take the human condition as the set of premises for any ethical system. There is no way to derive an ought from an is. The 'ought' already exists. It can't be derived from pure reason, but it must be acknowledged because we are not creatures of pure reason.

Now, (and people will probably disagree with me on this) I think that every positive moral goal can be summed up in one word: happiness. This can include pleasure, fulfillment, cameraderie etc.

The purpose of any ethical system should be to maximise happiness and minimize the feelings which are the opposite: sadness, guilt, emptiness.

Things will continue to happen, so moral judgements will have to take into account potential impacts in the forseeable future.

We have a long way to go, but its a good start.

Pic related, a barrier to realising happiness.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 01:38:38 2011 No.2879418

>>2879413
>The formal systems of ethics we create - rules, principles, all of that that we consciously affirm - are based on the moral urges that we inherently possess. Yet they are not the same. We create the formal ethics to satisfy our own feelings, to get past situations where ambiguity exists, to make good choices.
~brofist~

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:39:38 2011 No.2879419 >>2879413 >There is no way to derive an ought from an is. The 'ought' already exists. >The 'ought' already exists. wut

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:40:38 2011 No.2879424 >>2879399 >>normative ethics What if they make a law forbidding people of the wrong skin colour to reproduce?

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 01:41:38 2011 No.2879426 >>2879424 Then we should take actions to correct it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:42:38 2011 No.2879429 >>2879426 But the minorities are a danger to society, violating our agreements //not actually a /new/fag, just playing devil's advocate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:43:38 2011 No.2879430 >>2879424 How did you get normative ethics from that? How does it benefit us if we ban interracial marraige/reproducing/etc? Thats exactly why I said things like religions and nationalism fuck things up, make other people seem sub human.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 01:44:38 2011 No.2879432 >>2879429 >But the minorities are a danger to society, violating our agreements wut

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:45:38 2011 No.2879435

>>2879361
>Correct. Nor can anyone else though.
A presuppositional mindset has this justified through special revelation without contradiction.
Math is needed in defining science, and morals are needed to do science. Funny how in my philosophy of science I wrote a paper on the insufficient foundation for science by both the Cynic and the empiricist accounts of science. I agree such things are needed, however the only justification for these does not fall into the category of Atheism.

>>2879371
Cool fallacy of fallacious assigning of a fallacy to something that fallacy cannot be assigned to. There was no circular argument made. I made a single statement not a proof of anything. I showed the error in the argument itself that was being made, a straw-man. God is good by nature. The argument assumes God and good are independent which I correct.

Falsified? Please realize for anything to be true it by definition cannot be falsified. By contra-positive we see, If something can be falsified, it cannot be true. What you are asking if for me to make a false statement to which you can then refute. Truth cannot be falsified, sorry about that. Please justify your foundation of science before asking me to apply it to anything, thanks. Oh, and I have an actual foundation to it, while you do not.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:46:38 2011 No.2879438

>>2879399
>So then heres an idea, lets all agree to not do these things to each other, thus we all PERSONALLY benefit from this agreement

Non sequitur. If I can get away with doing something to somebody else that benefits me but violates the golden rule, how does refraining from doing so personally benefit me?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:46:38 2011 No.2879439 >>2879430 Probably a misunderstanding. I assumed that majority interest would be the basis for laws rather than the interests of everyone.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 01:47:38 2011 No.2879441

>>2879435
Because you seem legit, or at least non-troll, I'm interested. I admit that my position is true by fiat, without any particular justification if you go down far enough. How is it that I have contradictions though? Where's the contradiction? I'm confused.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:47:38 2011 No.2879443 >>2879429 In what sense though? Is this independently provable? Are facts being represented correctly when reaching this conclusion? Will the majority be punished for the actions of a minority?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:47:38 2011 No.2879445

Atheism can have no value system that isn't arbitrary.

Which is why I, as an atheist, also find various secular human-centred ethical views that seem to arise "naturally" or are "intrinsic to humanity/human beings" rather silly.

An atheistic values system would have a moral code that is given with no justification and more importantly no pretense at justification other than "it got us this far".

All value systems are arbitrary.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 01:50:38 2011 No.2879450

>>2879445
>All value systems are arbitrary.
I'm glad you included this, otherwise I would have to bitch. To continue this point, why do what god says? What's the justification there? At some point, every moral action you do is because you chose to.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:50:38 2011 No.2879451

>>2879438
You never know for absolute certainty if you'll be caught or not. Even if you are certain, there's always a chance you'll be caught. Would the outcome of such an action be worth the risk of possible punishment and alienation by the rest of the group?

In the vast majority of cases, the answer is no.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:50:38 2011 No.2879452 >>2879435 >God is good by nature. Cool definition bro, you haven't proved anything though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:52:38 2011 No.2879459 >>2879445 Go on, how is it arbitrary to strive for happiness? If you feel emotion at all no doubt you will want some more than others.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:52:38 2011 No.2879464 >>2879451 I see what you're saying, but what you're describing is a selfish, pragmatic legal system, not ethics or morality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:53:38 2011 No.2879465 >>2879450 Unless God exists, which would make it highly likely that predestination exists, and thus it was never actually your choice to begin with. But that's a whole different kettle o' fish.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 01:53:38 2011 No.2879468 >>2879465 Indeedy.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:54:38 2011 No.2879471

>>2879452

I love it when theists get desperate enough to start redefining things on the spot.

This also means presumably that dictatorships, human sacrifice (as long as its yourself), genocide, rape, polygamy and setting up institutions to support systemic oppression of the lower classes is good.

By definition.

I hope they enjoy their cognitive dissonance.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:55:38 2011 No.2879474

>>2879438
>how does refraining from doing so personally benefit me?
It doesn't, but what is your point?
No moral system guarantees that everyone will behave morally.
Hell, Christianity actually allows you to do whatever you want as long as you accept Jesus as your savior he'll take on your sins and you are good to go.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:55:38 2011 No.2879477 >>2879438 Because that would degrade the well being of the society you live in, which would negativity effect you, how negativity, depends on the action(s).

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:56:38 2011 No.2879480

>>2879450
Exactly.

Why obey God? Where do God's values come from? Even if God did exist everything he chose to be good or bad would be just as arbitrary. And frankly, his divine coercion wouldn't make his values any more objective.

Frankly, if I may go on a tangent here, I never saw the idea of a moral God as being any better than Godlesness. In fact I see it as a thousand times worse. Not only are values arbitrary, you are also coerced with the threat of an eternal life in hell which you did not ask for, all the while needing to worship the supposedly perfect tyrant that created you with no justification, and needs to punish hapless, made-to-damnation sinners in order to demonstrate his supposed benevolence and love.

A God who would simply say "I made you to suffer for my amusement" would be a God a million times more good and just.

But I digress, God is a silly idea anyway.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:57:38 2011 No.2879485 >>2879474 The guy I was replying to wrote, "We all PERSONALLY benefit if we treat each other good." My point is that we don't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:57:38 2011 No.2879488 >>2879477 How would it "degrade the well being of the society you live in" if no one else knew about it but me?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:57:38 2011 No.2879489

>>2879474

I'm saddened by the way christianity turned out, because the stuff about forgiveness and the Golden Rule is pretty good. Then comes supernatural bullshit, threatening people with eternal torture and demanding obedience, credulity and a suppression of bad thoughts.

Reminds me of the way communism turned out after Lenin took power.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 01:59:38 2011 No.2879499 >>2879489 Meh, I don't want to go off on that tangent, but communism was retarded ever since Marx first wrote it. A classless, governmentless, society? Yea, right.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 01:59:38 2011 No.2879500 >>2879488 Your victim would.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:00:38 2011 No.2879510 >>2879488 Example, you steal a ton of shit from your local store, You have a way of doing it to get away scot free every time. Guess what, They cant afford to stay in business anymore. store shuts down, dozens of people laid off, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:01:38 2011 No.2879514 >>2879499 Idealism at its best. Nice thought though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:01:38 2011 No.2879516 >>2879500 >implying I'd let my victim live

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:01:38 2011 No.2879517 >>2879499 Are you high? Even anarchism has a government.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:02:38 2011 No.2879526

>>2879441
The contradiction is probably that people stop asking for suffiecnt reason once they get to their presupposition. The presupposition or axom is hung on nothing, yet is used to "prove" or build from. If the axom itself is unproved then what is derived from it is equally unmeaning.

The other contradiction is the general denile that these presuppositions are somehow grounded by rationality instead of faith as if rationality can justify itself.

Another problem is that no one axom can account for all deduction, induction, knowledge, and morals etc. A series of unsupported axoms are needed. Having multiple unsupported axoms is fallacious since that signifies their complete separation from each other, whilst in this world they all interact together in one reality. There is only one reality that all works together as a system not separate non-interacting parts.

Sorry if this isn't perfectly coherent as I have never made an argument to this effect before. Just trying to piece together my thoughts =]

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:03:38 2011 No.2879536 >>2879516 People would notice the victim missing and investigate. Actions have consequences. There's no such thing as the perfect crime.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 02:04:38 2011 No.2879539

>>2879517
I've read it, and IIRC it has a passage stating that eventually the need for government will diminish and eventually the need for government will be entirely gone.

It's been many years, so I apologize if I'm misremembering. My other complaint is that you need some incentive to work, which is largely removed under (pure) communism, which is also why that shit's retarded.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:05:38 2011 No.2879544 >>2879516 Then the victim's friends or relatives would know. Someone will notice a person missing. But even if they don't, how is this hypothetical murder (or whatever) a benefit to you?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 02:05:38 2011 No.2879545

>>2879526
>The contradiction is probably that people stop asking for suffiecnt reason once they get to their presupposition. The presupposition or axom is hung on nothing, yet is used to "prove" or build from. If the axom itself is unproved then what is derived from it is equally unmeaning.

Waiting for the contradiction...

>The other contradiction is the general denile that these presuppositions are somehow grounded by rationality instead of faith as if rationality can justify itself.
Perhaps in others. I have already fully admitted that I cannot defend anything which I hold apart from my axioms, and those axioms are entirely undefendable through a logical argument.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:09:38 2011 No.2879560

Moral behaviour leads to successful, long-living societies. Immoral behaviour leads to societal collapse. By moral here I mean commonly accepted "bad" things like stealing or murder.

Thus societies that grind morality into the minds of its members through forceful methods like religion end up being more stable. Religion with it brings with it all the wonders of the ant mound. Loyalty, content with one's station in life, conformity, self-policing. This is why I think our brains evolved to fall for religion. Of course, "core" morality, when backed by religion can get a lot of arbitrary "riders" like not eating meat on a Friday. These are akin to mental parasites.

Through such mental imprinting morality becomes virtually objective, and the human mind is thus wired to operate with a hard-and-fast moral code, with little room for ambiguity or second-guessing. In more modern times, with ample time for reflection and wider-spread education many people have come to break free from rigid bounds of religion and an ironclad moral code. However, since the human mind does have a propensity for a solid, pseudo-objective set of rules, even atheists adhere to moral statutes like humanism or utilitarianism.

Even more "perverse" moralities such as hedonism may be hosted by the same machinery.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:11:38 2011 No.2879567

>>2879539

That's one of the differences between anarchism and socialism - you're describing anarchism.

Most socialists/anarchists just leave incentives to work as an open question if they're not being dogmatic.

I think that work can be made into a meaningful occupation, though, in the same way hobbies are now. Have a shorter working week, more intellectually involved jobs etc. Unpleasant jobs could be replaced by machines or given special status.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:11:38 2011 No.2879573

>>2879544
>But even if they don't, how is this hypothetical murder (or whatever) a benefit to you?

Maybe I had it out for the person and I wanted revenge.

Maybe I was competing with them for the same job opportunity.

Maybe killing another person gives me emotional gratification.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 02:12:38 2011 No.2879576

>>2879567
>Unpleasant jobs could be replaced by machines or given special status.
There's some wonderful studies that show /all jobs/ is unpleasant. Soon as you change something into being paid to do it, it just changes the human psyche into not liking it. It's weird.

I think "robots can do it" is a pipedream.

So, going back to my major complaint, it's entirely unworkable.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:12:38 2011 No.2879578

>>2879545
I guess all I would really have to say to that effect then would be the allowance of multiple axoms. How can a view of reality be made using multiple starting points. Where do they come together. Or are there multiple realities independent. A single starting point needs to be established which then accounts for the others, which by my reasoning does not exist apart from the metaphysically ultimate being of God.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 02:16:38 2011 No.2879597

>>2879578
>I guess all I would really have to say to that effect then would be the allowance of multiple axoms. How can a view of reality be made using multiple starting points. Where do they come together. Or are there multiple realities independent.
What? If the axioms are independent and consistent, then why can't they describe a singular world? That's like demanding all of math should follow from one axiom. It doesn't work that way.

>A single starting point needs to be established which then accounts for the others, which by my reasoning does not exist apart from the metaphysically ultimate being of God.
A single highly convoluted axiom named god.

What if I took all of my axioms and just stringed them together into one sentence with a bunch of "ands". Same difference.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:17:38 2011 No.2879598

>>2879576

From what you've said it doesn't sound unworkable, just not perfect. Regardless of whether we can make a utopia, we can definitely make conditions better.

While we're on the subject, why no raging about workers' control of the means of production?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:17:38 2011 No.2879599

we don't need religion to shape our morals

that whole argument is absurd and only proposed by the misguided and undereducated

godfags, feel free to bathe in the amniotic fluid of your own drivel, lest you actually do research or constructive thought on the matter

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 02:17:38 2011 No.2879607 >>2879598 I think removing all incentive to work is entirely unworkable. What about workers' owning the means of production? Why should I be raging one way or the other?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:18:38 2011 No.2879611

>>2879578
Well just consider mathematics. You often need more than a single axiom in order to establish just a single system. I think that taking any distinct axioms to be incompatible may be too strong a claim.

For example I can make two distinct axioms and a third axiom that addresses the situations where the first two conflict.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:20:38 2011 No.2879620 >>2879611 To add to that, I could theoretically lay out an axiom schema that addresses every single possible distinct situation. Thus an infinite number of axioms is also technically possible, though infeasible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:21:38 2011 No.2879624 >>2879607 >What about workers' owning the means of production? >Why should I be raging one way or the other? Because that's the central idea of socialism? Idk if you wanted to talk about utopian pipedreams I thought you'd attack that.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 02:22:38 2011 No.2879628 >>2879624 I don't want to attack "utopian pipedreams", quote unquote. I want to attack actual unworkable pipedreams, like any system which forgoes incentivizing people to work.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:24:38 2011 No.2879634

Christianity is the perfect example of how morality is relative. What God orders people to do in the Old Testament is in many cases completely different from the New Testament. Further still, most present-day Christians disagree with many morals the Bible advocates, though they aren't aware of it themselves.

God is not a reliable source for moral guidance, period. Morality has always been and will continue to be determined by ourselves. The best we can do is make it in such a way that brings the greatest benefit to us. Even that is subjective, and so we will continue to squabble for all time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:24:38 2011 No.2879635 >>2879628 >>entirely reasonable response that doesn't spark a flame war Damn, I miss /new/. Good to have talked, sir.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 02:25:38 2011 No.2879636 >>2879635 Good day too.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:25:38 2011 No.2879637

>>2879573
>Maybe I had it out for the person and I wanted revenge.
Why is revenge beneficial?

>Maybe I was competing with them for the same job opportunity.
No guarantee you'll get the job.

>Maybe killing another person gives me emotional gratification.
Hard to quantify emotions, but pulling off a prefect murder isn't effortless, it requires a lot of planning and resources, doubt it would be a net benefit.

But even if I grant you ALL of those points, you are forgetting potential benefits that his person can give you if he/she were alive. This person could become your friend (giving you better emotional satisfaction than murdering them), they could introduce you or refer you to a job, and so on.

It's not clear at all what "beneficial" means, or how to quantity it.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:28:38 2011 No.2879643

>>2877963
>Whoever has power?
Evolution.

Evolution gave us good and evil. If we were evil, we'd kill ourselves off. But if we are good, then we can continue to survive and procreate.

Therefore, good and evil are real. and evolution, the process which made us, supports good.

deal with it, nerd.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:29:38 2011 No.2879646 >>2879573 None of those things are worth the potential consequences, unless you have a mental illness.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:37:38 2011 No.2879662

>>2879597
Okay an example. Epistemology cannot be proved with axoms. There is no way to define an absolute knowledge, and then show that what you "know" is of this knowledge. How do you know that you know the truth. If what you "know" is grounded in uncertainty, as are axoms sitting on nothing. Then you know nothing at all.

If axoms are your starting point there can be nothing prior to them without those axoms being a false starting point. Can an axom account for creation ex-nihilo? Since using those axoms for science we see an absolute beginning of the universe. Those axoms must acount for that beginning, or they contradict themselves as being the starting point.

I have finally seen my argument take shape. Basically the axoms strung together must account for the present. The axoms needed to account for the present are exactly the same as the attributes of God. This includes the personality or mind of God, as a deterministic system can never start itself.

That brings me back to the transcendental argument for God's existence by impossibility of the contrary. You may list axoms, but those axoms must account for the reality we see. The only way to do that is to have axoms matching the characteristics of God, else this reality cannot be fully accounted for, if only a few are part of those characteristics or axoms are taken as a starting point.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 02:40:38 2011 No.2879676

>>2879662
>Then you know nothing at all.
If you want to twist the words that way, fine. I don't care enough to refute English rhetoric.

>Can an axom account for creation ex-nihilo?
Yes. Mine don't, but I don't let that bother me. Some things I simply will not know.

>Those axoms must acount for that beginning, or they contradict themselves as being the starting point.
No. This is a common mistake by the religious. They think that incomplete somehow is equivalent to wrong. That's very anti-science. Science is incomplete currently, and may forever be incomplete. I see no problem with this, and I especially see no contradiction with this.

And I don't care enough to discuss your ill defined god hypothesis.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:44:38 2011 No.2879684

>>2879662
Where did God come from? If he can just come into being ex nihilo, so can the universe. If he existed forever then why could the universe not also have existed forever?

Whatever you need in order to explain God you can just apply directly to the universe and cut out the middle man. In addition, the universe is unlikely to be a deterministic system.

God adds no explanatory power, but just pushes all the relevant questions outside the universe.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:45:38 2011 No.2879685

>>2879634
Your just assuming that. By the definition of God, he would know all your thoughts and arguments and thus still allow what He did. What you are saying is you know better then God and the rationality of past events and how they interact with the future etc. is better known by you. Until you know what God knows, i.e. everything, how can you judge God's motives. According to the bible all things work together for the glorification of God, not for His own sake as if He needed anything, but for our own sake.

To some it up: How do you know God's actions are arbitrary and not consistent with His objective throughout, from the beginning of creation till the end?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:47:38 2011 No.2879692

>>2879685
How is his thought objective? Arbitrariness does not imply inconsistence. Arbitrariness is not randomness. I can have a perfect plan spanning the entirety of time and follow it to a tee, but my reasoning for that plan will still be arbitrary.

Any "objective" system you ground explanations in must itself be explained. So you either add another system or just say "it just is". You either have an infinite regress or arbitrariness. There is no alternative.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:50:38 2011 No.2879700 >>2879685 Also isn't it a bit silly, after all your grand logical arguments, to refer to a tattered tome of vain platitudes written by uneducated savages?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:56:38 2011 No.2879707 >>2879662 >This includes the personality or mind of God, as a deterministic system can never start itself. 1. A deterministic system can never start itself 2. God is deterministic 3. God could never begin to exist 4. Therefor God doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:57:38 2011 No.2879711 File: 972 KB, 1440x900, 1283801392797.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2879685 Sounds like circular logic to me. "god is right because he just is".

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:58:38 2011 No.2879712 When you ask an Atheist if Hitler was Good or evil, they can't even give you a straight one word answer. Atheists don't know shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 02:59:38 2011 No.2879714 >>2879712 He was evil. I'm an atheist. U mad?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:00:38 2011 No.2879719 >>2879692 >>2879700 why don't you answer the question?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:00:38 2011 No.2879720

Because religion is NOT the only thing that can bring moral stability. Not by a fucking long-shot. Atheistic views do not inherently bring morals, just as theism does not inherently bring morals. PEOPLE bring their own subjective moral set, regardless of theological belief.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:02:38 2011 No.2879724 There is no objective justification for morality. None. Atheists that claim otherwise are hypocritical faggot scumbags. End of debate.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:02:38 2011 No.2879726

>>2879712
That is because there is no such thing as objective evil. If you ask if I believe what Hitler did was wrong, ABSOLUTELY. thinking what he did was wrong and thinking what he did was evil are two different things. Wrong is my subjective view of evil.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:03:38 2011 No.2879728 File: 6 KB, 240x273, stirner.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Might makes right.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:05:38 2011 No.2879737 Atheists don't have morals. Atheists have feelings.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:06:38 2011 No.2879742 >>2879737 this.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:06:38 2011 No.2879745
File: 22 KB, 242x242, dawkins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Creationism: A preposterous mind-shrinking falsehood.

Religion: Teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

God: A petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Science: is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:07:38 2011 No.2879746

>>2879684
>Where did God come from?
When Moses asked for a name for God so that he could tell his people who it was that sent him, God told him YHWH, in english this means, I am, that I am.

God was not created from ex-nihilo, but always was.

>the universe is unlikely to be a deterministic system.
So the universe boils down into chaos? Since its parts can no longer be explained logically at some point, and exist apart from logic?

Why the universe cannot be past eternal:
1) The axoms/presuppositions you use I assume somehow account for science. Using science we see our universe had a beginning. Therefore your starting-point for forming your world-view is wrong by contradiction, or the universe had a beginning.

2) Because of entropy we know the universe will experience heat-death. There will be no more free-energy in which to move. If past events are infinite, this would have happened an infinite time ago in the past, and therefore been impossible for us to be in the present which includes movement.

3) If the universe is past eternal, there are an infinite number of past events (cause and effect). The present would therefore also have to have happened an infinite number of time already in the past. How can the universe be circular in cause and effect, yet infinite in scope (allowable universes)? The number of possible universes is also infinite. How do we draw a circle of cause and effect that connects an infinite number of universes back into itself to which it could repeat the process. The infinite scope would never reach the end to which we could then loop it back to the first universe.

The only option would then be this as the only possible universe, forever recurring in a cycle. How does this happen? We see the universe accelerating in its expansion. If that is the case then the teleological argument for God becomes valid, since fine-tuning cannot be explained through a multi-verse hypothesis.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed Apr 13 03:09:38 2011 No.2879753 >>2879746 So much bullshit, so little time to refute. Sadly, I'm going to bed. Night all.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:18:38 2011 No.2879782

>hurrdurr how can u tell right from wrong if u dont have a god to tell u what is rite n wrong???

People were always the source of morals in the first place. They essentially voted on what morals they liked the best and elected a god character as the poster boy for these morals.

It's no different that me coming up with a set of morals and seeing if the majority agrees with my morals.

People are the source of morals, not some imaginary character.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:21:38 2011 No.2879793 >>2879746 Hey christard, if god has always existed, why did he let the holocaust happen? Lulz? How about tsunamis? Plagues? Hunger? If there is a god, he's responsible for the worst case of criminal neglect in history.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:22:38 2011 No.2879796

>>2879700
True knowledge is not possible without omniscience. Knowing that you know that you know.. to infinity. In order for a finite mind to posses absolute knowledge we must get this knowledge from an omniscient being. Faith is required in order to gain this knowledge due to the finite nature of man. It is faith that allows us to Know (certain knowledge) anything. Taking that the being of God would make himself knowable to us (special revelation), and there by allowing us to know anything. We turn to the bible, said to be God word as special revelation. With these presuppositions in mind, we see a coherent message in the bible that begins with the very first humans (adam and eve). There was never a time when some sort of link to God was missing in which nothing could be know, taken the presuppositions.

We see the requirements for prophets and a coherent message till revelation.

Contrasting with the Koran, the obvious objection. Allah does not meat these requirements. It does not start with the first human beings, but randomly ~600ad. It contradicts the earlier revelation, the bible. It does not flow from start of man to finish, but appearing suddenly. In Surah 3:54 Allah is the called the greatest deceiver. That contradicts the grounds of faith which are needed in the argument. If Allah is the greatest deceiver wouldn't he lie from the beginning, i.e. greatest? Contrast to the bible where God cannot lie, which does not contradict our initial faith, but maintains it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:23:38 2011 No.2879802 File: 42 KB, 370x444, 1302203727845.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2879793 >>2879753 Status: Told. Saving that post for future reference. Thanks anon

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:24:38 2011 No.2879803 File: 120 KB, 1280x960, walled world.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2879796 Humans haven't always existed either, god-for-brains.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:28:38 2011 No.2879813

>>2879746
>Since its parts can no longer be explained logically at some point, and exist apart from logic?
Sounds like your God.
None of your cosmological, transcendental or teleological arguments are convincing for that very reason. You simple define God to be outside or not subject of every system, which doesn't help to explain anything.

>1) The axoms/presuppositions you use I assume somehow account for science. Using science we see our universe had a beginning. Therefore your starting-point for forming your world-view is wrong by contradiction, or the universe had a beginning.

We don't know how the universe began (or what the word began even means when talking about the universe), or current understanding is consistent with the universe being smaller and more energy dense at a previous point in time, beyond that, we simply don't know.

>2) Because of entropy we know the universe will experience heat-death. There will be no more free-energy in which to move. If past events are infinite, this would have happened an infinite time ago in the past, and therefore been impossible for us to be in the present which includes movement.

Unless you take into account various quantum events which can tunnel the universe into different energy states.

>3) If the universe is past eternal, there are an infinite number of past events (cause and effect). The present would therefore also have to have happened an infinite number of time already in the past. How can the universe be circular in cause and effect, yet infinite in scope (allowable universes)? The number of possible universes is also infinite. How do we draw a circle of cause and effect that connects an infinite number of universes back into itself to which it could repeat the process. The infinite scope would never reach the end to which we could then loop it back to the first universe.
We don't need a circle, the universe popped into existence from nothing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:30:38 2011 No.2879815 Adding my two pence: Doesn't God seem like a parental figure for adults? "If you don't do X, you'll be punished. But if you do Y, you'll be rewarded!" Are people so dependent on a parental figure that they never grow up?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:33:38 2011 No.2879821 >>2879796 >True knowledge is not possible without omniscience. That statement can't be true then.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:34:38 2011 No.2879826

>>2879746
Fine-tuning can be explain by the anthropic principle. If it wasn't fine-tuned you wouldn't be here to preach your bullshit.

I fail to see what you mean by my axioms are accounting for science. Science is nothing magical, and science does not require the universe to have a beginning.

You cite heat death, infinite repetition and the inability for unique cause and effect to extend infinitely in time and infinite expansion. These three are mutually incompatible, so pick one.

Infinite cause and effect is possible with a universe that also extends infinitely in space.

If the universe is indeed infinite in scope even if finite in space, there would have been no need to repeat the past, since each moment could be uniquely assigned to a unique state. You're also ignoring the quantum nature of the universe, which dictates that even a repeated state does not guarantee an identical future.

Indeed I see no reason that a closed loop of causal repetition can't form in an infinite number of theoretical possible universes. If you consider the universe's evolution in time as a random walk along the real number line, you can come back to the same number despite there being an infinite amount of numbers. Even a deterministic process can be cyclical in an infinite domain. However the second law of thermodynamics makes this option unlikely.

Heat death allows for an infinite cyclic universe, big crunches/big bangs, so it too is indeed possible. However you argue that the observed expansion of the universe precludes heat death, but the notion of a universe ripped apart to the point that time cannot be measured would in itself call into questions naive notions of "forever" and "infinity".

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:36:38 2011 No.2879832 File: 18 KB, 460x300, tommy_lee_jones.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2879826 >anthropic principle

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:36:38 2011 No.2879833

>>2879793
see
>>2879685

You must assume objective morality in order to make your statement. You cannot take part of Christianity and expect an answer, you must take the whole of Christianity and find where the contradiction lies.

You are using your world view to try and show another world view to be false. This is fallacious. You must do an internal critic and find where the contradiction lies in my world view in order to defeat it.

Assume reptiles cannot talk. You turn to Genesis to where a reptile talks to eve to deceive her. You do not show a contradiction, but merely beg the question does can a reptile talk. If God exists and He is all powerful it is logical that a reptile could be empowered to speech. trying to say this is a contradiction assumes God does not exist and merely begs the question in the first place.

That is why you must do a internal critic of my worldview in order to show a contradiction, and not just using your won.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:39:38 2011 No.2879835 >>2879833 Why does evil exist?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:39:38 2011 No.2879836

>>2879826
On top of all that, you have no basis for your original claim that things cannot originate ex nihilo. You cannot even demonstrate that a state of nothing is possible at all. I see no problem with time being finite in extent but infinite in scope. Just like your life spans a finite amount of time yet is fundamentally all there ever is.

On top of that, supposing the validity of your argument, what makes you suppose a Judeo-Christian god is the correct one, as opposed to say Allah?

It seems to me your arguments were fine-tuned to an immutable conclusion. You will always be able to perform fancier and fancier mental gymnastics to justify the existence of a God.

Had you not been introduced to the idea, never set eyes on the Bible, would you have derived God through independent thought? I sincerely doubt it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:40:38 2011 No.2879837 >>2879835 That assumes that a) evil exists and b) absolute purpose exists. I reject both assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:43:38 2011 No.2879840 >>2879837 I assumed you were a Christian, but ok, nevermind then.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:49:38 2011 No.2879847

>>2879833
By your methodology, an infinite number of self-consistent world views can exist, since any world view that does not contradict itself (we may even assume does not contradict observation.) is according to you valid.

By this measure Christianity is just one of an infinite number of self-consistent views, and is nothing special. Even if it's "true" in some vacuous sense, its truth means nothing. It makes predictions (Heaven, Hell, etc) but they are unfalsifiable where this argument applies. I could just as easily make a self-consistent religion where when we die everyone gets fisted by Barney the Dinosaur for the rest of eternity. What logical reason is there to subscribe to Christianity rather than Barneyism other than plain fear, authoritarianism and tradition?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:50:38 2011 No.2879849

>>2879821
>That statement can't be true then.
By starting with presuppositionalism, what I have been arguing all along, by faith. I am not starting with this statement...

Faith in a metaphysical ultimate which can convey knowledge to fine creatures by special revelation, along with all the attribute of God is my starting point. From there I begin with the special revelation of the bible with shows this revelation from God from the beginning of humanity till its end. At no point does this chain break.

We find this in the bible. The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge. And God is my cornerstone , foundation, solid ground.

>>2879813
>We don't need a circle, the universe popped into existence from nothing.
Quantum energy is not nothing. Redefining nothing to mean something other then non-being means we are talking about apples and oranges...

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:52:38 2011 No.2879854 >We find this in the bible. The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge. And God is my cornerstone , foundation, solid ground. You win. Congratulations.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 03:57:38 2011 No.2879865

>>2879849
>Faith in a metaphysical ultimate which can convey knowledge to fine creatures by special revelation, along with all the attribute of God is my starting point.
And that starting point is as arbitrary as any other.

>Quantum energy is not nothing. Redefining nothing to mean something other then non-being means we are talking about apples and oranges...
"The Nothing" cannot exist because something does in fact exist.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:03:38 2011 No.2879877

>>2879835
Because it was allowed to exist by God to serve His purpose of self glorification of His son, not for his benefit, but the benefit of the creature (us).
>>2879837 is not me. I am a Christian. And like the guy said, you are assuming those things to make the argument, but you must first prove those things, by borrowing from my world-view.

I can get into my description of what it is to be who you are to explain further. If God is omniscient there exists an infinite number of finite beings that are known by God. His omniscience requires this. God's knowing of beings that do evil does not make himself evil. What it means to be you is every thought, circumstance, choice, etc. connected with past and future events in this universe. The past had to happen for you to exist as does your future actions since they define you. The beings that are evil are all of humanity. They are such because that is all they could ever be. Evil exists cause you(and I, and everyone else) exists. God allowed us to exist, creating form, but not creating who we are. Why he allowed this was answered in the first sentence.

>>2879847
Name 1, other then mine. I do not maintain an infinite number of world views can exist, but only one that is my own. The only one that I know of besides my own, is philosophical nothingness, but there is something and thereby it is false, i.e contradictory.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:11:38 2011 No.2879887

>>2879833

>>HURR you're not a christian so you don't understand

As a matter of fact i'm a former credulous god-botherer myself. I know you've got nothing. I outlined the ethical system of utilitarianism above. You have outlined redefinitions, evasions and apologetics for crimes against humanity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:12:38 2011 No.2879889 >>2879849 >Quantum energy is not nothing Apparently the total energy in the universe is equal to 0, so it might actually be nothing.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:15:38 2011 No.2879896

>>2879865
No, I maintain it is the only starting point in which we can account with what we now see. Given any alternative starting point it can be shown the present does not follow.

An unproved problem in philosophy is the Münchhausen or Agrippa's Trilemma. It purports that it is impossible to prove any certain truth even in fields such as logic and mathematics. According to this argument, the proof of any theory rests either on circular reasoning, infinite regress, or unproven axioms.

My worldview starts with faith and precedes from there with an account of rationality, logic, morals, etc. Other starting points will not get you to where we are, so we have a proof by impossibility of the contrary.

Before you ask for proof that it is impossible you must first find a possible world-view in which the question can even be asked, and from there I would show why that world view is wrong.

>>2879865
>"The Nothing" cannot exist because something does in fact exist.
Indeed
You must attribute all the properties of God to this, "quantum nothingness" which is not nothing. What governs the principles of quantum mechanics though? It is not pure chaos, as we would not be able to do science with it if it was, nor would something non-chaotic happen in which to generate the uniformity we experience in nature.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:19:38 2011 No.2879901 >>2879889 Energy that averages to 0 is not necessarily philosophical nothing (what rocks dream about).There being positive and negative energy in different places is not "nothing". Only no energy in all places would be nothing.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:23:38 2011 No.2879912

>>2879896
>You must attribute all the properties of God to this, "quantum nothingness" which is not nothing. What governs the principles of quantum mechanics though? It is not pure chaos, as we would not be able to do science with it if it was, nor would something non-chaotic happen in which to generate the uniformity we experience in nature.
Not all the properties of God, you only need omnipresence and eternal and necessary existence, that's why I don't find God's existence very convincing - it requires more assumptions.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:24:38 2011 No.2879914

>>2879887
I have not read any of the posts for moral systems or governments that have been posted. I maintain that until you prove how we get from is to ought about morality then your system is meaningless. You define morality as x, but give no reason why we need (ought) to follow x. You can type till the cows come home but without solving how we deductively go from an is statement to an ought statement, no one is bound by any moral system you create. If no one is bound by it, it is no objective, in the scene that it can be use to judge others, since others have not been shown why they ought to use that system as well.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:24:38 2011 No.2879915
File: 63 KB, 300x230, 1293679135455.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2879896
>My worldview starts with faith and precedes from there with an account of rationality, logic, morals, etc. Other starting points will not get you to where we are, so we have a proof by impossibility of the contrary.

lol, your starting point is as arbitrary as any other. There is no reason why other starting would not get us to where we are.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:25:38 2011 No.2879918 >>2879901 >Energy that averages to 0 is not necessarily philosophical nothing. Were we talking about philosophical nothing? No we weren't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:27:38 2011 No.2879920 >>2879912 Wrong. Without free-will how would this 'god' DO anything. If this god's only attributes are that it is everywhere and exists, it is impossible to get to the present. More is needed for this god to DO anything.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:30:38 2011 No.2879923

>>2879920
Maybe I wasn't clear, I'm not talking about "a god", just a quantum field/natural laws/whatever you wanna call it.

>Wrong. Without free-will how would this 'god' DO anything.
It's very nature is to follow the natural laws, it can't do anything else, there is no notion of it "doing something".

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:30:38 2011 No.2879925 >>2879915 NO, not arbitrary at all. I maintain that it is exclusively the only worldview that can properly account for the present. I am just repeating myself from here, read my other posts if you care.

>>	sage sage Wed Apr 13 04:31:38 2011 No.2879927 File: 98 KB, 380x247, Delayclose.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] sage

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:35:38 2011 No.2879938

>>2879923
And what are these 'natural laws' that it follows, in which a rational world can exist with sentiment beings. That can account for truth, logic, morals etc.? What governs there action? I suggest that the 'natural laws' that it follows are the very attributes of God.

For instance, why would positive and negative energy spontaneously come into and out of existence upon colliding with each other? Something drives this.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:42:38 2011 No.2879955

>>2879923
To be able to do science to the point we can even talk about things requires honest inquiry (morals), induction (uniformity), Reliability of our seances, logic, rationality, etc. If all there is is quantum nothingness, which acts (chaotically?) then the epistemic grounds fall out from under us leaving us with no justification even for your claim.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:42:38 2011 No.2879956

>>2879938
>And what are these 'natural laws' that it follows, in which a rational world can exist with sentiment beings. That can account for truth, logic, morals etc.?
>What governs there action? I suggest that the 'natural laws' that it follows are the very attributes of God.
The natural laws ARE the ultimate explanation that governs everything.

>For instance, why would positive and negative energy spontaneously come into and out of existence upon colliding with each other?
It's a silly question, there is no why, they do it because they follow the natural laws.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:44:38 2011 No.2879958 >>2879955 Morals, uniformity, logic and reason all arise naturally from these laws.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:44:38 2011 No.2879959 >>2879925 >I maintain that it is exclusively the only worldview that can properly account for the present. lol, based on what? Provide a reason. How does this line of argument even support creationism?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:49:38 2011 No.2879968

>>2879959
Transcendental argument for God's existence. Ask your question again but this time establish an epistemological foundation to where you can even ask the question. I assume your question has a meaning behind it. Without a foundation I can answer the question by saying: three, five, potato. Since you can't account for rationality, I trust this is sufficient to answer any of your questions.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:49:38 2011 No.2879969

>>2879938
>For instance, why would positive and negative energy spontaneously come into and out of existence upon colliding with each other?

We don't know yet, but we are working on it. Meanwhile you've already concluded there must be a god controlling everything, based on no evidence whatsoever.

>Something drives this

Sure. But theres nothing to suggest a god is driving it. You just use that explanation cause it sits well with you.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:56:38 2011 No.2879976

>>2879958
I'm glad to see you are a theist now. Or arn't you? Go ahead and prove "Morals, uniformity, logic and reason" (which you used to come to this conclusion?) Using only your conclusion.

This is why I start at a metaphysical ultimate, instead of a "quantum nothingness". Proving without using them is impossible. You can't prove them from a state of not using them. You need to start at nothing and prove everything... in terms of nothing, good luck.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:56:38 2011 No.2879977

>>2879968
>Transcendental argument for God's existence. Ask your question again but this time establish an epistemological foundation to where you can even ask the question. I assume your question has a meaning behind it. Without a foundation I can answer the question by saying: three, five, potato. Since you can't account for rationality, I trust this is sufficient to answer any of your questions.

You keep falling back on this argument that "nothing really means anything because it's all relative".

By the same logic I could claim anything is true simply because my starting point for knowledge is different to yours. I'm sorry but that is an absolute garbage method of constructing an argument, and is no grounds to be inventing imaginary god(s) who control everything.

I could just as easily say unicorns exist because my starting point for knowledge is unicorns. Yet you wouldn't believe me. Why is that?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 04:58:38 2011 No.2879978 >>2879968 Rationality is just some entity maximizing its expected performance, so that is no problem from natural laws. "You need to get closer to 20, you are currently at 0, do you take +10 or +5?" Simple mathematical evaluation.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 05:04:38 2011 No.2879983

>>2879977
Go ahead. Explain morals, logic, induction only in terms of unicorns.

Oh and please define unicorns. The only form of unicorn that can explain these things is God, renamed as unicorn, possessing none of the attributes of a unicorn and all the attributes of God.

Unicorns are physical creatures, similar to a horse-with a horn. They eat what a horse would eat. Are detectable by scientific means, have a limited life-spam, no power to create, no capacity of sentience... etc. Now explain everything from here.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 05:04:38 2011 No.2879985

>>2879976
>You can't prove them from a state of not using them. You need to start at nothing and prove everything... in terms of nothing, good luck.
Yes, that's why a God doesn't help at all.
Any epistemological framework has to rely on assumptions, there's no getting around that., your transcendental argument seems to rest on coherentism, but what makes that any more true than foundationalism or infinitism?

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 05:11:38 2011 No.2879997
File: 8 KB, 251x206, 1232560042315.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2879983
>Go ahead. Explain morals, logic, induction only in terms of unicorns

Sure, 6000 years ago there was a great overlord unicorn who created everything we know and thats why he is great and is why we should worship him :3

>Oh and please define unicorns. The only form of unicorn that can explain these things is God, renamed as unicorn, possessing none of the attributes of a unicorn and all the attributes of God.

Oh i see, so anything other than god is basically just another form of god. CIRCULAR LOGIC HOW DOES IT WORK.

>Unicorns are physical creatures, similar to a horse-with a horn. They eat what a horse would eat. Are detectable by scientific means, have a limited life-spam, no power to create, no capacity of sentience... etc. Now explain everything from here.

um, I dont have to explain anything because the unicorn is supernatural, he isn't bound by any laws of the universe lol.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 05:12:38 2011 No.2879998

>>2879985
Assuming infinticism. Start at any point. Prove that the chain of events is infinite, how do you know it will be infinite without spanning the regression? You assume it, a groundless assertion which is not coherent given infinticism.

That assumption would have an explanation, and that one another. But what is the explanation of that assumption. We know it exists based on the assumption that was made, but where is it? In the lack of an explanation for this initial assumption we see a contradiction and therefore it is false.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 05:13:38 2011 No.2879999

is god the world we see, or beyond what we see?
did reality emanate from god, or was god reality itself?
was god the creative forces of the universe, or the basic laws on which those forces are based?
does god live through human beings, or is god a reality outside of human beings?
was god simply everything, or something specific to seek after?
was god the grounding that made our actions possible, or the energy with which we acted?

there are problems with all these concepts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPfFx9JTQl8

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 05:14:38 2011 No.2880001 >Unicorns are physical creatures, similar to a horse-with a horn. Hey bro, unicorns are imaginary. lol.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 05:16:38 2011 No.2880005

>>2879985
Assuming infinticism. Start at any point. Prove that the chain of events is infinite, how do you know it will be infinite without spanning the regression? You assume it, a groundless assertion which is not coherent given infinticism.

That assumption would have an explanation, and that one another. But what is the explanation of that assumption. We know it exists based on the assumption that was made, but where is it? In the lack of an explanation for this initial assumption we see a contradiction and therefore it is false.

>You can't prove them from a state of not using them. You need to start at nothing and prove everything... in terms of nothing, good luck.
>Yes, that's why a God doesn't help at all.
This proof has not yet been made, how then can it be more rational to believe in an account that does not account for being rational then an account that accounts for being rational.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 05:21:38 2011 No.2880013

>>2879998
>In the lack of an explanation for this initial assumption we see a contradiction and therefore it is false.
But in your argumentation against it using logic, what are your justifications for logic?

And if we take coherentism and foundationalism we have the problem of arbitrary justifications.
Especially coherentism to me seems weak, almost an esthetical argument "it fits together nicely", so what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 05:26:38 2011 No.2880016 >>2879976 >You need to start at nothing and prove everything... but that would mean god would have to be nothing, so your argument is rubbish. infinite regression is better than giving up after 1 layer of regression.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 05:32:00 2011 No.2880031 The Science is a religion in the eyes of fools.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 05:35:38 2011 No.2880039

>>2880001
Define a "unicorn" however you want and proceed from there to explain everything. I'm telling you that to once this concept of "unicorn" is defined in such a way that we can get a coherent not contradictory account for the present, it will have the exact same properties as how I define God to be. And THAT is my argument.
Before I begin, It would help if the person asking the questions had a coherent understanding of what God is, as these questions would go away.
>is god the world we see, or beyond what we see?

>did reality emanate from god, or was god reality itself?
God was, followed by we are. Reality was God, and now reality is God and His created world.
>was god the creative forces of the universe, or the basic laws on which those forces are based?
God is the creative force of the universe, and his nature consists of what you call these basic laws.
>does god live through human beings, or is god a reality outside of human beings?
Both, God is omnipresent. "live through" He by no means needs us in-order for him to live. When the bible talks of him living in us it talks of His spirit residing in us. A spirit is general concept of how we want to act. Our desire is to act as Christ acts hence spirit.
>was god simply everything, or something specific to seek after?
God is all that was... He created the universe from nothing. God exists as a person, that represents the person of God, Jesus.
>was god the grounding that made our actions possible, or the energy with which we acted?
Both, without giving us form, we couldn't do any action. God didn't "create" the concept of me or you, the concept always existed because of His omniscience.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 05:37:38 2011 No.2880047 File: 9 KB, 296x296, 1294326109844.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw people still debate concepts which were assumed true without proof in antiquity

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 05:48:38 2011 No.2880066
File: 27 KB, 510x340, 1231008543515.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2880039
>Define a "unicorn" however you want and proceed from there to explain everything. I'm telling you that to once this concept of "unicorn" is defined in such a way that we can get a coherent not contradictory account for the present, it will have the exact same properties as how I define God to be. And THAT is my argument.

fucking LOL. that is your argument? that gods and unicorns are the same? And this is why you believe they exist? lolololol

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:00:38 2011 No.2880100

>>2880013
>But in your argumentation against it using logic, what are your justifications for logic?
To actually believe this and abide by it can't be done. You can hold to it then proceed to ignore its implications though.

>And if we take coherentism and foundationalism we have the problem of arbitrary justifications. Especially coherentism to me seems weak, almost an esthetical argument "it fits together nicely", so what?

Sorry I shouldn't actually bother to answer this. I maintain my worldview is the only worldview. I can't even form a worldview in which the question can be asked without my presupposition because it isn't possible.

Truth by definition cannot be falsified. For something to be true it cannot contain a contradiction in which to falsify it. What will truth look like in form? Something without contradiction. You are saying my worldview is 'weak', even though it takes the form of what truth must look like. You keep asking me for justification, by I have already stated mine to where I can account for everything. First you must account for all that with which is needed to answer the question.

>>2880016
>You need to start at nothing and prove everything...

>but that would mean god would have to be nothing, so your argument is rubbish.

... I don't start from nothing, and therefor to not need to prove something which I hold is impossible. My point is that if you start from nothing this must be done, which it hasn't.

>infinite regression is better than giving up after 1 layer of regression.
Prove it... You haven't even shown the logic necessary to form your sentence, or have rational thought, let alone that this is such a thing as truth, or a concept of better.

I don't start at any layer of regression. I start at the only point in which I can justify even thinking.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:04:38 2011 No.2880111

>>2880066
Sorry, but you didn't define a unicorn yet to where you can even form a sentence or account for your existence. After-all it was suggested that everything can be explain with unicorns as the starting point, which I maintain is not possible, unless you assign every proposition God has to the unicorn, and discard all the properties a unicorn is normally said to have.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:09:38 2011 No.2880121 >>2879411 We derive ought from is all the time you dipshit. Its part of what makes everything but that doesnt mean the ought comes from god.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:14:38 2011 No.2880129 >>2880121 We don't derive it. We assume a fact to have moral value.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:14:38 2011 No.2880130 File: 155 KB, 471x354, 1279384557712.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2880121 >We derive ought from is all the time you dipshit. Its part of what makes everything

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:18:38 2011 No.2880137

>>2880100
Again you keep falling back on this argument that "nothing really means anything because it's all relative to the starting point". I'm sorry but that is a bogus argument.

Using your logic I could claim anything is true simply because my starting point for knowledge is different to yours.

Your response was "anything = god" , which is circular logic and therfore invalid.

Nothing we have acheived as a species was achieved through this type of reasoning. You are a hypocrit because you want to be a part of modern society and reap the benefits of scientific logic and reasoning, but in your own personal time you abide by a totally different set of creationist rules. The two concepts are mutually exclusive so you can't have it both ways. If you pick religion then you must give up everything science has offered because you are disagreeing with science on a fundamental level.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:24:38 2011 No.2880146

>>2880111
>>infinite regression is better than giving up after 1 layer of regression.
>Prove it...

Theres nothing to prove. It simply is just better to keep asking questions (regressing infinitely) than giving up after 1 layer of regression.

In other words, the jury is still out, but you've already reached the verdict.

I don't have to tell you why this is a bad way of doing things.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:25:38 2011 No.2880151 in atheist view religion is wrong u dumbasses

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:25:38 2011 No.2880154

>>2880100
>You are saying my worldview is 'weak', even though it takes the form of what truth must look like.
It takes the form of a circular argument, which is logically invalid.

>I don't start at any layer of regression. I start at the only point in which I can justify even thinking.
That IS one layer of regression, unless you insist that infinity doesn't exist (in which case a lot of your attributes of God doesn't exist).

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:32:38 2011 No.2880186 empirical evidence for god or GTFO. and no, you can't say 'the universe could not exist unless god created it' - because for that to work you need to assume that god exists in the first place, because otherwise it looks like the work of blind physics.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:33:38 2011 No.2880190

>>2880137

Nothing really means anything because it is only language that has meaning.

'True' means something specific withing a specific linguistic framework in the same manner that '2' means something specific within a specific linguistic framework. 'God' is simply a sign that could potentially mean anything. The meanings of God, True, 2 are not in the world. They are in language.

When he says God is a unicorn he is defining the sign. It is not a proof and therefore it is meaningless to mention its circularity.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:40:38 2011 No.2880211

>>2880190
>When he says God is a unicorn he is defining the sign. It is not a proof and therefore it is meaningless to mention its circularity.

No it is not meanigless, because that is his WHOLE ARGUMENT for there being a god. Simply that without a god we wouldn't have any foundation to form thought or reasoning in the first place.

CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGICCIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGICCIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGICCIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGICCIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC CIRCULAR LOGIC

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:41:38 2011 No.2880214

>>2880039
>God was, followed by we are. Reality was God, and now reality is God and His created world.

>God is the creative force of the universe, and his nature consists of what you call these basic laws.

>Both, God is omnipresent. "live through" He by no means needs us in-order for him to live. When the bible talks of him living in us it talks of His spirit residing in us. A spirit is general concept of how we want to act. Our desire is to act as Christ acts hence spirit.

>God is all that was... He created the universe from nothing. God exists as a person, that represents the person of God, Jesus.

>Both, without giving us form, we couldn't do any action. God didn't "create" the concept of me or you, the concept always existed because of His omniscience.

read this back to yourself, this is all nonsense

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:43:38 2011 No.2880221 >>2880211 set x=2 therefore x=2 set god=unicorn therefore god=unicorn set god=perfect being therefore god=perfect being

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:47:31 2011 No.2880233 >>2880221 >set x=2 therefore x=2 Relies on an axiom.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:47:38 2011 No.2880232 >>2880211 >>2880221 Also: We don't need a foundation for thought or reason. We think therefore we think. Reason as something more good than unreason is a vestige leftover from enlightenment philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:49:38 2011 No.2880236 >>2880221 exactly. you can set anything to anything and get any outcome you want. which is why his argument is complete and utter garbage. it's sad really...

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:59:38 2011 No.2880250 >>2880236 The notion of god is just an accident of history and biology as is every other thought.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 06:59:38 2011 No.2880252
File: 17 KB, 319x350, sam_harris[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

When I say, “Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen,” I have uttered a quintessential statement of scientific fact. But what if someone doubts this statement? I can appeal to data from chemistry, describing the outcome of simple experiments. But in so doing, I implicitly appeal to the values of empiricism and logic. What if my interlocutor doesn’t share these values? What can I say then? What evidence could prove that we should value evidence? What logic could demonstrate the importance of logic? As it turns out, these are the wrong questions. The right question is, why should we care what such a person thinks in the first place?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 07:05:38 2011 No.2880262 >>2880252 “Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen,” is a fact that can be affirmed empirically when one understands its meaning. If one doubts this then they don't understand the sentence.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 07:08:38 2011 No.2880264
File: 143 KB, 500x475, 1287850665180.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2880252
>The right question is, why should we care what such a person thinks in the first place?

YES. Precisely. What a fantastic reason for me to stop caring about what creationtards think and leave this thread in peace.

Thank you and good night.

Anonymous Wed Apr 13 07:12:38 2011 No.2880269

my neighbour (and work colleague) has a beautiful wife. she is a 5'7 brunette with a perfect figure. my wife is overweight and loud. he has been embezzling money for six years, and I have perfect proof that would send him to prison.

he is old, and I am considerably stronger than him. he doesn't have a landline, and she doesn't have a mobile.

should I rape his wife?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 07:14:38 2011 No.2880272 >>2880269 Yes. But I didn't tell you to do it. ;)

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 07:30:38 2011 No.2880294 >>2880252 And that's why people call you a philosopher first and a scientist second. Stay axiomatically classy, Sam.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 07:43:38 2011 No.2880303 >>2880129 >We assume a fact to have moral value. Exactly. Morals are just built into the human rationality. not given from a transcendant being.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 07:46:38 2011 No.2880305 >>2880269 No, because it goes against what you and everyone in this thread has been taught . not because "god" says its an inherently bad thing to do

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 13 15:55:38 2011 No.2881532 It's called a Nietzschen catastrophe. It's what happens when people get rid of God, but don't yet realize that the entirety of their society is resting on a foundation that assumed the existence of God. And yes, it is an issue that causes shit to flip.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math