Just the fact that you have faith that your computer won't self immolate either. I like pointing out that nothing is, in fact, provable to 100%. That's beside the point though. The title of this has to do with the fact that "Atheists have faith in things too." Of course they do. To say that they do not is silly. They have faith that when they go to sleep, after awhile, they will wake up. Else, they'd prepare for their death every night before going to sleep. Proof of things is hard to come by.
Atheists have faith in things too.
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
While interesting, it's completely pointless. People can still get evidence for things. Theist's faith has a grand total of none whereas things like going to sleep and thinking your computer will turn on when you push the button have ample. No, it doesn't make it a guarantee, but it isn't faith. Invisible space goblins - that's faith.
True, but gods have been provable to 0%. See the difference in the distinction?
They have been disprovable to 0% as well. Someone once suggested in another thread that,"Undetectable flying woolly mammoths caused the wind". Maybe. Maybe it's just a viewpoint that, yes anything is possible, versus a viewpoint that, without some evidence, nothing is possible. If that's the case it is a simple philosophical difference that we probably will not be able to overcome. I love you anyway, Snakelord and (Q).
As have Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Of course, you may want to change that number to something significantly higher than 0%.
Please remember that the Church has apologized for their treatment of Galileo and more recently, Darwin. In other words, they admitted their doctrine was wrong, doctrine that apparently came from god.
Yeah, we love you too. :cheers:
lets expand
outlined here is the context in which morality operates
The majority of any type of moral laws deal solely with society and the relationship of individuals within the society. If there is no society, a hermit cannot refuse being a member of the society and thus ceases to be a hermit. The sins and the good deeds alike—courage, kindness, greed, avarice—are all defined in context of relations between members of society (Andreas Rosenberg)
we can of course extend the relation to non-humans as well. moving on ...
We can conclude that a rational argument shows that the moral code regulates the function of the society and that thus the axioms of the moral system, underpinning its consistency and perceived validity, must be found in context of the goals of the society in question. The moral calculus is the operator defining the history of a society. Or more theoretically, the timeline of happenings in the society is generated by the moral calculus of the society. (Andreas Rosenberg)
more ....
*The axioms of the moral teachings used by a society are thus closely related to the projections of the future of the society. (Andreas Rosenberg)
*However, the method of obtaining axioms for our moral calculations from projection of perceived goals of the society is a valid alternative for looking for absolute truth either established by scientific laws or revelations. We can start by looking at some quite general and adequate principles that, if applied, would move our society towards a state we humanists find to be in concordance with our understanding of an ideal state:
1. Survival of the human race and individual in a healthy biosphere.
2. Passage of accumulated knowledge to generations following ours.
3. Exploration of the unknown by individuals.
4 An eternal vigilance in balancing the freedom of the individual with the good of the society.
What we have argued here shows that all the necessary and desirable foundation blocks for a moral calculus can be derived solely by rational thought. This provides us with a moral system admittedly imperfect (as all human endeavors) but open-ended in the sense that it can be changed if the necessity arises.
The logic of the calculus presented can be challenged by claims that it is nothing but resurrection of the failed credo of modernism—ends justify means.
The separation of ends and means is artificial. Ends without means belong to mythology and means without ends to random chaos. We cannot define goals without explicit or implicit acceptance of means to reach them. Goals in our calculus have to be followed by clear restriction on the choice of means. We must remember that the weighing of the appropriateness of our actions, assuming full responsibility for them, is the central dogma of humanism which any form of moral calculus for humanists has to follow (Andreas Rosenberg)
i suppose we could hash further and perhaps refine these axioms if need be.
so prior to formulating a code of ethics, we ask ourselves..."what do we want out of life?" "what kind of society would we like to be in?"
the the validity of all propositions in this dialogue will be governed by reason and logic. for instance, if the moral relatavist insists on the right to kill another on a whim, he too should be prepared to be arbitrally killed in return.
that is of course if one wishes to be self consistent in one's arguments
the golden rule and whatnot, y'know
here we have a methodology of sorts.....
The Logic of the Generality of Moral Principles PDF
hazlitt expounds further.....
Real ethical problems arise; real conflicts arise; but they are comparatively rare, and they are not insoluble. It is often difficult to say with confidence what is the best solution, but it is seldom difficult to say what is the worse and what is the better solution. Humanity has, over the generations, worked out moral traditions, rules, principles, which have survived, and are daily reinforced anew, precisely because they do solve the great majority of our moral problems, precisely because it has been found that, by adhering to them, we best achieve justice, social cooperation, and the long-run maximization of happiness or minimization of misery. We do not have to solve our daily moral problems, or make our daily moral decisions, by a fresh and special calculus of the probable total consequences of each act or decision over an infinity of time. The traditional moral rules save us from this. Only where they conflict, or are patently inadequate or inapplicable, are we thrown back on the necessity of thinking out our problem afresh, without any "guiding principle" or "method of estimation." (Henry Hazlitt 1964 "The Foundations of Morality")
Last edited:
Actually, if you look at the doctrines you're talking about, the church doctrine was never "from scripture". The Bible is not a physics or biology textbook, It's more like a treatise on how God wants us to behave when dealing with both him and other men. Like I said, if you choose to believe, I'm sure that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny will visit the nearby local children at least. If you choose not to believe, I'm sure that it will escape your notice.
I guess you don't understand, I view all things as possible, so I play multiple choice for beliefs. You view no things as possible without proof. Thus you believe only that which you have proof of. By the earlier accepted definition, since mine wasn't good enough, that means that you have faith in things. You have faith that if you bite your finger, you will feel pain. If you don't, I suggest you seek evidence for it.
I guess you don't understand, I view all things as possible, so I play multiple choice for beliefs. You view no things as possible without proof. Thus you believe only that which you have proof of. By the earlier accepted definition, since mine wasn't good enough, that means that you have faith in things. You have faith that if you bite your finger, you will feel pain. If you don't, I suggest you seek evidence for it.
Gus! I hate it when you do that! Bad Kitty!
crap. it is never left up to one's own moral compass. one's conduct is defined and governed by well established, objective principles
crap
a common biologic system ensures that is not the case
Ever since our ancestors, the macrotermitine termites, achieved ten-kilogram weight and larger brains during their rapid evolution through the late Tertiary Period, and learned to write with pheromonal script, termitic scholarship has elevated and refined ethical philosophy. It is now possible to express the imperatives of moral behavior with precision. These imperatives are self-evident and universal. They are the very essence of termitity. They include the love of darkness and of the deep, saprophytic, basidiomycetic penetralia of the soil; the centrality of colony life amidst the richness of war and trade with other colonies, the sanctity of the physiological caste system; and the evil of personal rights (the colony is ALL!); our deep love for the royal siblings allowed to reproduce; the joy of chemical song; the aesthetic pleasure and deep social satisfaction of eating feces from nestmates' anuses after the shedding of our skins; and the ecstasy of cannibalism and surrender of our own bodies when we are sick or injured (it is more blessed to be eaten than to eat).
the termite's way of life
/cackle
Yes, I know, I brought many of those reprehensible, immoral and cruel examples to your attention when you first arrived.
Yes, but what you don't take into consideration is the probability of all things as possible. The "possibility" of gods existing is 50/50 or something along that line. The "probability" of gods existing is infinitesimally minuscule. Big difference.
You create a non-sequitor by comparing things that do in fact exist (pain, fingers, biting) with that which has never been shown to exist (supernatural) when you talk about faith. There is a clear distinction between them.
A Muslim and a Christian will agree to have faith their fingers will hurt if they bite them, but do they have faith in each others gods?
Simon,
I repeat - there is never a case when you have to believe something.
No. You don't understand yet. There is never a case when you HAVE to believe something when there is no evidence or if there is evidence but it is probabilistic then you can simply withhold BELIEF and simply state a suspicion.
I repeat - there is never a case when you have to believe something.
If I had proof that God has existed for as long as I have lived, will you consider that proof enough that God exists? That's the type of faith atheists have, not the faith theists have.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Are you sure about that?
This is news to whom? <smooches>
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Well you must have gotten the circular part since the word good was used to at least once as part of defining good.
As for the second.
A Christian could very well think that they would like to have their soul saved were they not already and see selling Jesus to an atheist as following the 'do unto others rule.....'
For example.
Or masochists.
Or how about this one...
How many parents - who were smacked around as children - think that it was good for them and taught them discipline and thus follow that rule when using the rod against their own children.
So the rule itself does not help. It can be twisted to justify pretty much all behavior.
'If I was a pathetic wretch like you, I would want to be put out of my misery.'
But this weakness in the rule is a secondary problem - which relates to the the main problem of circularity because 'good' is floating on a stack of elephants each named 'good'.
Take 'good' - out of his definition and see what you are left with.
Last edited:
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps, but not one thinks that. They may say it while intellectualizing - in a certain moment - but they do not believe their moral positions are merely subjective. They may have moral positions they consider merely subjective, but everyone I have ever met felt that at least in regard to certain moral positions they knew damn well what was good or what was bad.
This is includes the participants in the thread that I am familiar with.
I was unaware that faith in the supernatural was what the goal was here. Will a muslim and a christian have faith in each other's God? I guess it depends on the individual. I don't know that much about Islam, except that it is loosely abrahamic, therefore same God.
I was of the understanding that Atheists were being stated as not having faith in anything, and I elieve that point has been refuted. Now, whether an atheist has faith in anything supernatural, I would imagine not. An atheist is usually not much on the supernatural. It could be argued that they have faith that the supernatural does not exist, if you wish.
As far as possibility vs probability, I think this is an argument over whether an orange is round or a sphere. There is a 1 in 6 probability that a 6 sided die will come up on 1. There is a 1 in 6 possibility that a six sided die will come up on 1. If there is a possibility that God exists, there is a probability that God exists. Not 50/50 of one and a lesser percentage of the other. If you have some new evidence that we haven't succesfully beaten to smithereens, I welcome it.