|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution | |||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4576 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
What you call moral absolutes are simply things that make everyday human life better. We all know it. Avoiding murder and theft, for example, reduces suffering and pain in society, and reduces stress on the average person. I am aware that it feels better when you have an all-powerful deity to invoke when you preach about these standards, but the emotional satisfaction of a premise has absolutely no value in determining whether it is the truth.
As someone who sees no evidence for the existence of gods in this world, I have struggled with the justification for the moral standards I possess. This in no way compels me to manufacture the existence of someone more powerful or righteous than I, and claim their support for my ideas. Believe me, I would love to, but honesty compels me otherwise. Emotionally speaking, I would somewhat prefer to think there were someone watching over us, a cosmic parent who will set things right in the end. I make my conclusions in spite of my feelings, in spite of how lonely and vulnerable they leave me, and in spite of my wish that total and absolute justice would someday reign over humanity. You, on the other hand, claim absolutes which come from a god as evidence for a god, and fail to recognize that your wishful thinking has led you into untenable circular reasoning. One final note: an atheist who holds a moral position for the good of humanity alone is more altruistic than someone who does it because they imagine a frightening and all-powerful deity commands them to. That (sorry to disillusion you) leaves the godless heathens holding the high ground over coerced believers. Good luck demonstrating otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4576 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
quote:Sorry, I didn't quite explain that like I intended. I meant that we are all aware that certain codes for behavior benefit the greater good. Therefore, I hold that pragmatism is the reason we have moral standards, until you demonstrate otherwise. quote:There is the same type and volume of evidence for Islam, according to its believers. And so on and so forth. As one who was always taught that a literal belief in the Bible was the only kind that could stand, I can hardly even read it with a straight face, with the scientific and historical knowledge I now possess. quote:These things can be explained many ways. You see God in them because you already believe God responsible for all good and reliable things. That's not learning from evidence. That's circular argument, claiming to derive belief from ideas based on pre-existing belief. quote:It's believable because it was forced to adapt. The early, malleable Christian church survived by adopting palatable doctrine that would be accepted by the people of that time. Doctrine has continued to change (though not as dramatically since the canon was "fixed") to keep "the church," in the generic sense, socially acceptable. What Christian theology is not, and never will be, is the truth as originally imparted to anyone, ever. It is historically impossible. quote:All I need to explain is human emotion. Chemistry explains it quite satisfactorily. As for metaphysics, once again you assume a basis that need not be assumed. Metaphysics cannot be documented or shown to exist outside the firing of synapses in our brains, so I'm under no burden to explain it when I say that I can accept the apparent absence of a deity from my world. quote:I'm just fine with all of that. Let's just note that all their useful results were achieved through methodological naturalism, and we can leave it at that. Any responses there would be better off in the MN thread. quote:Back to the emotions now. To many people, your conclusion is not self-evident by any means. Intuition says otherwise, but intuition is known very well in science as a bald-faced liar that often serves the interests of human learning and achievement in an extremely poor manner. Electrochemical impulses explain how we take actions based on our feelings, as well as their physical effects on our bodies. Any other aspects you feel are not explained?quote:Of course not. I only said it was unrelated and a terrible means of determining either way. quote:I myself ask theists for nothing. I had a really great talk just the other day with one of my best friends, a devout Catholic, about our faith and our life stories. Neither demanded anything. We just compared how faith has affected our lives and both found the experience enriching. People only tend to demand proof when you demand they kneel. Outspoken proponents of atheism are rare, and are not out to win converts but rather to fight for things like religious freedom and sound education. Of course, it's a different story here. Some people just like to argue, and some (like me) are here to learn and only get involved when something interests or riles them. Just my two cents.quote:I could possibly concede a little on this point: some theists are genuinely altruistic, but the issues get way more muddy when you incorporate the promise of reward and the threat of divine wrath. Thus I still feel that altruism as such (the doing of good for others without promise of benefit) is more clearly served (if not necessarily better served) by one who believes without a doubt that his/her actions will solely work to the advantage of others. I speak of altruism not as an absolute, ever-present moral thing, but rather as a category of action motivated by a type of thought process. One is in no way obliged to assume that anything else is involved. Moreover, people believing in altruism is not the same thing as altruism existing, or altruistic acts occurring. I don't see you being particularly careful to separate these concepts. quote:Because it is less selfless to give when you are 100% sure you won't be enthroned in paradise as a result. Pure altruism requires believing that what you do is all for the good of others. Seems obvious. I'm not saying atheists are more virtuous, as that's a totally subjective thing. I _am_ saying that it is possible to be a kind and caring person who benefits the human race without doing it for God, and that one popular concept (altruism) is best served and best represented by one who does it for no apparent reason.quote:Again, why is this so in your worldview? How can it even begin to give an account? quote:Evidence of a particular thought pattern is not the same as evidence for anything in the real world beside the activity of nerve cells! quote:Christianity teaches that it's more selfless for an unbeliever to give than for a believer to give? quote:So we agree on some things. quote:I'd like to see you demonstrate that the concept of doing good for others originated after the concept of an invisible, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity. While it may be true that religious institutions have been vessels for the ideals of charity and good will and such, 1) they have often served completely different ideals, such as exploitation of the masses and temporal power for their masters, and; 2) this does not in any way prove that these concepts originated within a religious context or have been best served by organized religions.quote:If anyone denies the realities of the world we live in, it is Biblical literalists dabbling in the realm of science. They deny physical reality constantly to maintain the sort of faith they desire. Worse, they force their twisted interpretations of evidence on other people, accuse them of sin and faithlessness, slander those who accomplish difficult and demanding scientific work, and generally countermand the moral imperatives they claim to hold. I don't mean that I consider atheists morally superior to theists. I consider virtue to be independent of faith. Each has possible positive and negative effects on one's worldview, potential for good and for abuse, and I have seen each as a catalyst for negative or positive change, depending on the person and the situation. And yes, this equanimity comes naturally to me. Wow. I had no idea I was going to write that much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4576 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
quote:I beg to differ. Creation is morally neutral apart from the purpose of the creator. For example, if you created people just to watch them suffer, you could hardly call that a morally positive act. Like Calvin and Hobbes, when he builds a whole tinker-toy world just so he can imagine being a wrathful god, demanding sacrifice and smashing his puny subjects at will. According to the Christian worldview, the created purpose of quite a few modern-day people would seem to be this: be born into poverty in a pagan nation, worship Mohammed or whatever false god you are forced to believe in, live in squalor and die of disease or starvation, and go to hell. Hmm... morally positive creation?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024