You are basing your argument that it is 'better' to do something that better humanity. This is already a moral argument. Why should anyone do jack squat for humanity?
Peace be unto you
God Made Me - A Teachers Guide To Indoctrination
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
You are basing your argument that it is 'better' to do something that better humanity. This is already a moral argument. Why should anyone do jack squat for humanity?
Peace be unto you
It's more an observational argument. People seem to enjoy life more when they're in an environment in which they feel comfortable vs. an environment from which they constantly feel the need to shield themselves.
You don't have to do jack squat for humanity; this is not a plea on my behalf. But, I find this brief spurt of conscious experience and our collective potential (however temporal) to be interesting, and a worthwhile pursuit. It seems there are others here who feel the same, hence their concerns over the indoctrination of children.
The 'why' is irrelevant. Why venture out over that snowy mountain? Why invent tools? Why use fire? When weighed against the fact that all life eventually ends, sure - there's no reason why anyone should do anything. But when weighed against the fact that life has started, an opportunity arisen; well why the hell not?
You considering a perspective on morality "logical",786 said:
from your perspective of an a priori committed belief in deities as irrefutable sources of absolute morality, who communicate that absolute to you through magic books interpreted by experts,
is not really evidence in an argument.
That silliness is why some atheists observe that you have no morality - you just haven't recognized that yours, too, is "relative", and so you have no protection against its corruption by authority.786 said:
Your choice of book and expert, for example - is that absolutely reliable?
Others, like me, observe that under certain confusions you are arriving at what actual morality you have the same way we all do, and so you have a morality - confused and inadequate justification is no barrier to having the morals in the first place. Some theists have excellent, profound, solid moralities.
Its not 'evidence' in a argument between an atheist and theist. But it is for a theist.
But if its an atheist vs atheist argument (which is the POV I was arguing from if you haven't noticed)- I find it laughable that an atheist can make an argument for 'indoctrination is wrong' while also believing in relative morality. Norsefire is an example who is an atheist who is clearly different in his morality.
It may be that we are arriving at morality in a 'similar' fashion. It still doesn't doesn't change the fact that you can't say your morality is right compared to another, even if the other person in question is a theist. The theist though can say that an atheist's morality is definitely wrong because they have a basis for it which is at some point derived from something other than themselves.
Peace be unto you
From an atheistic point of view, all of 'history' and 'society' doesn't have to mean anything.
Peace be unto you
Or, shorter version, it's not evidence.786 said:
When you are done laughing, attempt to acquire an education. You will learn the difference between mockery and understanding through personal experience, among other benefits.786 said:
All human morality has the same basis. You have no idea what it is, because you haven't done the research or devoted the thought, or attended to those who have.786 said:
Btw: reason, derived community principle, and similar factors, are just as much "outside" the atheist as the theist. Morality providing deities, on the other hand, are not found in the world outside the thest's mind. The atheist and the theist have reason and human nature in common, outside themselves. The deity is personal, inside the theist, and everything derived from said deity likewise. So you have it backwards.
What theists have is a particular kind of justification. It is based on a disavowal of responsibility for the rules of their morality and the consequences of the decisions they make. It looks like cowardice, from the outside. Blaming imaginary authorities for one's moral rules is not honest.
If you think adulterers should be stoned to death, say so and own up to your rules and their consequences and their motives - don't weasel around about some deity and his magic book commanding all of humanity to stone the promiscuous.
You don't know what my point of view is, as an atheist.786 said:
You continue to make false statements about it. Why do you continue to spread falsehood? If you read above, I have made some corrections to your most obviously screwy claims - please try to attend to them in the future.
Sure it is. If one thing is accepted as fact- you can't get more 'evidence' than stating the fact- so sure it is for theists.
That 'basis' is as groundless as any other basis as long as the underlying philosophy is that of Atheism.
But none of this matters because they are all groundless. 'Reason'- who's reason?
'Derived community principle'- which community? Why does community matter
'similar factors'- similar answers as above.
Doesn't that mean its not 'my morality' but one that came through something other than me, even though its a 'personal diety'.
Not everyone is happy with morality provided by their religions, take GeoffP for example. He doesn't want to apply any biblical laws. Can you then attribute this to GeoffP, I can't. Clearly your previous arguments were complete bs- even though the assertion that a deity is 'personal' is correct in a sense. The deity though is universal if you care to know.
Sure, I don't know your point of view as an atheist. But I know mine if I was an atheist. All atheists don't have the same point of view
(oh ya relative morality?)No.. I still see all your morality to mean jack squat within Atheistic thought. Its a 'true statement' which you don't want to accept, for understandable reasons.
Peace be unto you
Show who? I said it was evidence for theists- I never said it was for atheists.
So you don't count Atheism as a philosophy? What, perhaps Humanism?
Can you please first describe which philosophy which is based in Atheism holds any value from an atheistic point of view? I find all philosophies to be pointless as long as you are an atheist. You can come up with your own 'morality' but it still means jack squat.
Peace be unto you
Statements of belief do not somehow become statements of fact when uttered by theists. Theists are not a special kind of magic person whose beliefs become facts if they all say so.786 said:
See the Bandar-Log, in Kipling's "Jungle Book".
So? You have no idea what "atheistic thought" is.786 said:
Atheism is not a philosophy, underlying or otherwise.786 said:
Reason is "groundless"? community and principle and so forth are "groundless"? You sure about that?786 said:
Anyway, my point was that they are outside the individual, shared between everyone regardless of belief - and deity is not.
Your deity is inside you. You are responsible fro what you accept "through" your own internal factors.786 said:
Just quit claiming that is how actual atheists think.786 said:
That is how a theist thinks. And dragging in a God doesn't improve it much.
Atheism is not a philosophy underlying anything.... I sure as hell think the fact you reject the belief in God presents you a understanding of the world other than an understanding presented by God.
Yes reason is groundless as is any community.
Anyways I'm repeating myself so I'll just leave it.
I would be interested in knowing why Norsefire does not believe in relative morality anymore.
Peace be unto you
Yes reason is groundless as is any community.
Anyways I'm repeating myself so I'll just leave it.
I would be interested in knowing why Norsefire does not believe in relative morality anymore.
Peace be unto you
Untrue: you claimed it was a "fact" and also claimed that was all the evidence required.
Atheism is not claimed to be the basis for morality. Hence, again, the requirement for your education.
Do try to read what is written, as opposed to just using a post as an opportunity to display your ignorance.
Fact for theists.
I never said Atheism is a basis for morality. What I do contend is that atheism leaves everything else that talks about morality as groundless. Perhaps you don't make the connection.
Atheism + X = doesn't matter.
Peace be unto you
Wrong. A fact is a fact or it isn't. If it can be shown to be factual then it must be a fact for all.
No?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2581007&postcount=49786 said:
Why?
Didn't I just say Atheism + X = does matter.. Atheism is still in that equation no?
If you read my statement again, I said all of those 'basis' are 'groundless'- those other 'basis' would be the X in the equation, which can be anything. But as long as Atheism is there, it makes it groundless.
Because of the questions I asked to Iceaura.. you say reason I ask whose? Community? Which.. and even if you come up with these. why do they matter. You're replacing God's authority with something of your own- and that's authority has no reason to be respect or accepted. Anyone has the right to do whatever the hell they want because these added philosophies actually don't mean jack squat.
Peace be unto you
That's an opinion. Only. And yet to be "supported" let alone demonstrated to hold any water.
No, that isn't what you wrote:
You stated that the basis is groundless as long as the underlying philosophy is atheism. And, as has been pointed out, atheism is not the "underlying philosophy" for morality.
Wrong. I repeat: get an education.
Sure, its only a logical connection which you don't want to make. Its not like it is something physical that has physical evidence.
Hmm...
Let me quote what you quoted me as saying :
'That 'basis' [of morality] is as groundless as any other basis as long as the underlying philosophy is that of Atheism. '
I never said that the 'basis' was Atheism. I said the 'basis' is groundless, as long as the underlying philosophy is Atheism.
That is regardless of what you base it on- i.e any philosophy X (Humansim?)- the end result is still groundless as long as the underlying philosophy is 'that of Atheism' - that is as long as the philosophy is 'atheistic'- please note I didn't say that the underlying philosophy is Atheism, but 'that of Atheism'- I was trying to say 'atheistic' essentially (maybe a misunderstanding).
X = some authority other than God. Which would be the basis for an atheistic philosophy. Atheism doesn't replace God with some other authority, but the X (philosophy in conjunction with Atheism) does.
Peace be unto you
You keep claiming this, yet you have, so far, failed to show there is any logic to your contention.
One more time: the "underlying philosophy" [of morality] is NOT atheism, even for atheists.
Please learn to read.
And you are still:
A) wrong and
B) making assertions that you have yet to show to be true.
Atheists don't "replace" god. They simply ignore that particular fantasy.
Last edited: