I would argue my assumptions trumps yours because we categorically don’t know if god exists, thus my assumption be correct. Your assumption could be argued as blind faith.
I agree that we really can’t be certain of anything, but there are different levels of confidence. Some things are just much better understood than others. This is the scientific method: if we are able to independently run an experiments that proves a hypothesis then it is reasonable to suggest we understand the mechanics of that thing (at least within the parameters of science).
While science is not perfect and it is indeed a human invention, it has been a formidable force in helping us to understand the world. Speaking personally, I am more interested in using that as a guide than faith.
I think the two are connected. Throughout this conversation I would argue that you have met pretty much every point in which the existence of god is either challenged (or my view that we will never understand) with a response that alludes to “god is bigger than this”. The problem with this is that it negates any discussion driven by independent validation of a hypothesis.
If atheism is true, and there is no creator, then everything that exists does so by accident rather than by purpose. There is no “point” to anything, there is no goal or purpose, so there is no reason anyone should ever use the word “ought”. What is, just is. There is no universal right and wrong - who would have the authority to define such a thing? There is no absolute truth, and you couldn’t know it for certain even if there was.
This has a number of consequences. Moral criticism is mostly impossible; the strongest criticism you can offer is “that’s not what I’d do in your place”. But any attempt to impose the morality you have arbitrarily chosen (remember, there’s no “right” morality, because there’s no creator and no “ought”) on others must necessarily be tyrannical. But then, I guess, what’s wrong with tyranny? “Might is right” is just another moral choice people could make. Why not?
In addition, the theory of naturalistic evolution gives us good reasons to doubt that our cognitive faculties would reliably produce true beliefs. Why would we evolve to believe what is true, if believing what is false gave us some evolutionary advantage? If atheism is true, you can’t trust your mental faculties or your senses.
There are several other similar lines of argument. My point about inconsistency is, of course, that no atheist actually lives consistently with all of this. If you tried to, you’d go mad (and AIUI, that’s basically what happened to Nietzsche). Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you are inconsistent Someone who tried to live consistently with the above would also be (from a Christian, we-get-to-make-these-judgements-because-there-is-a-God perspective) a horrible person.
A good book on this topic is “How to be an Atheist: Why Many Skeptics Aren’t Skeptical Enough” by Mitch Stokes.
As an engineer, you will know that in some circumstances, the difference between 0 and 1 is very large :-). As argued above, the existence of the world requires explanation, if you don’t want to try living as the “consistent atheist”.
The fact that humans have, over the years, invented lots of false gods is irrelevant to whether there is a true God or not. In fact, lots of false gods is what you’d expect if Christianity is true. CS Lewis makes this point well in the Narnia books. An ape and a donkey use a dead lion skin to set up a false Aslan, who oppresses the people. This causes the dwarves to doubt the existence of the true one:
But of course, that’s terrible logic. The existence of a false Aslan is irrelevant to the question of whether there’s a true one.
But above, you were willing to agree that science is not an appropriate tool for determining the truth about God.
Note that “science” is not the same thing as “reason”. I’m not saying the truth about God can’t be discussed rationally. Jesus coming to earth is an event rooted in history; Christians claim he actually did walk the earth 2000 years ago and if you were there at the time, as some people were, you could have seen him and touched him.
I think that’s a false dichotomy; it depends what you want guiding about. Here are some questions science can’t answer:
Can science tell us everything there is to know?
Why does anything exist at all?
Is an unborn foetus a person?
Why do I find that sunset beautiful?
What is my purpose and how can I fulfil it?
How should I treat other humans, and why?
Is there life after death?
Does God exist, and what is he like?
People have all sorts of views on these topics but none of them are fully determined by science. I’m sure you have views on these topics; where do they come from? And how do you validate them? Do you think your answers ought to be adopted by other people? If so, why?
This statement is partially true there is no purpose to the existence of everything but not total randomness either. Life is self selecting an, I admit, amazing set of coincidences had to come together to begin with but once they did the evolutionary principle starts to take effect some random mutations work better than others and so these survive and future mutations are more likely to be the basis of future mutations while others disappear. This is easier to understand in the context of life because we have have free will and if, for example, I find a particular girl more attractive - not only for her looks but because her views on life chime with mine in terms of how we should treat everyone else then I am more likely to choose her as my life partner - If she feels the same we are more likely to have children together. To a lesser extent the same happens at a chemical level certain combinations can’t exist others are unstable and some just work.
Right and wrong are a human invention, I think, We define these for ourselves. Immanuel Kant used the term “categorical imperative” (though he said it in German) which basically is also said in the bible as “treat others as you would have them treat you” and is the idea that if we each accept that we have no special right over everyone else then if, for example, I do not want you to steal from me then I should not steal from you. This does not require a creator being to define the rules we do so as a community (Jono loves that word) because it makes sense. There is a lot in the Bible I find objectionable because of various intolerances but I am basically tolerant provided we stick to the basic Idea.
Be excellent to each other, (and party on dude)
Morals are an invention, that does not mean they are invalid. For example I am an heterosexual male and humanity would not survive if most people were homosexual because we would not produce children. But, if my sexuality was different and I liked men then provided the man I liked also liked me I don’t see a problem here. We must not act in a way that limit the needs of others and within that I am in favour of maximum freedom. This again does not come from a religious perspective but a recognition that the freedoms I want should also be available to everybody else.
Because only one person can have the biggest stick. This argument makes sense if you are that person, maybe, but not to everyone else. People band together when they feel similarly oppressed.
I disagree 100% with this statement, I am more than comfortable describing myself as atheist, There is an assumption that just because the the world as we see it fits us well then the world was designed for us. Expletive deleted why does it in not make sense to think we evolved to fit the world as it is? Any appeal to God is a desire to claim we are in some way special and in no way justified.
Your claims of a true god are just as weak as the claims by Lewis for Aslan. The only difference is that your lie is believed by more people.
Society wants you to believe in god for the particular reason that it gives them control over you. If you believe there is one true god and he knows everything then at the end of your life (you believe) he sets your fate for eternity and it’s only by being a good boy on earth that you get to spend a good eternity. Personally I find this argument very weak because if the only reason I did not steal, murder, etc. was because a book told me not to I would not be a decent human being.
In the last few weeks we have seen several tragedies, terrorist attacks in Manchester and London and a fire which it appears could have been avoided apart from a desire to cut costs: British people stood up and did what they could to help. Some were Muslim, some Christian, some Jewish and Atheist (there may be others) I don’t believe this is anything other than a basic human feeling that this could so easily of happened to me and if it did what would I want others to do for me ? I should do that for those affected.
Why does the existence of the world require explanation?
If your explanation of the existence of the world is: God did it then I need an explanation of the existence of God. Note: this needs to be a non-circular argument. If God had a creator then the creator needs to be explained in detail including who created the creator, and who created the creators creator etc. If God does not need a creator why does it make more sense to stop at God and not at the existence of the universe as we observe it?
I’m not trying to “mess with your head” here but I really see all claims in the existence of God, fairies, pixies, Aslan to have equal validity: None.
Wrong question. it just is “don’t ask why, do ask how.” Slight Misquote of Buffy St. Marie here
It depends: It is a potential person and is why I am, in general, reluctant when it comes to abortion but we need to consider the details in each case and it is often justified.
Why not? It is - as are so many other things such as the words “I love you” said by anyone who means it, in any context - including non-sexual.
That’s up to you. I feel we only have one life, and in this respect are very lucky, so live each day making it the best it can be. This may be treating yourself or sharing your love with others. Your choice.
How do you want to be treated?
Others may have more money than you, many have less. Show them the love and respect you would want for yourself.
No and No as I have argued several times in this thread.
I find it very interesting that you and I are looking at the same evidence and drawing two completely, polar opposite, conclusions. However, in reading your posts, I have to ask myself, is my motivations that I want there to be a God? In my mind, the evidence is clear, there is absolutely no doubt, but I really cannot say that question has occured to me. Something for me to ponder. And ones motivations can be a tricky thing to contemplate.
What got me thinking of motivations was something I read somewhere (a book, magazine, I don’t remember, so take this as you like) a historian mentioning that Charles Darwin’s motivation behind his research into evolution wasn’t evolution itself, but, rather, his completely justified, as far as I’m concerned, disgust and distaste for religion, specifically the teaching of eternal torment, which, of course, is central to most religions, including Christendom (note I did not say Christianity, for Christendom does not teach what Christianity was in it’s beginning). It may be of interest to note that the teaching of eternal torment is in complete conflict with the Bible! The result here is that many people conflate religion and God, which is an error.
In my discussions over the years with atheists (and I cannot think of any unpleasant discussions. Edit: There was one guy that was a real arrogant, patronizing, condescending jerk, but I’d rather not think about him.) I have observed motivations ranging from ‘I really doubt that there is a god’ to ‘ANYTHING BUT GOD’ said with religious ardor, for which it is quite evident, that evolution and atheism has become a religion. I don’t mean to be insulting, just an observation. I say that because one definition of religion is “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”
And if a person believes that way, I respect that and uphold that one’s right to believe that. That, for me, is not as much as a matter of ‘let’s all get along’, but more of a matter of principle because the intolerance of a differing belief has led to much pain and misery turning into a vicious cycle of bad behavior or even atrocities. And I do like getting along with others.
My list of questions was not a list of questions “that can’t be answered”, it was a list of questions that science can’t answer. And indeed, you have answers, but they are not based on science. For example, what science experiment shows that a foetus is a “potential person”? What experiment backs up the principle “treat others as you would like to be treated”? You may have pragmatic reasons for doing that, but they aren’t scientific reasons. And if I say “actually, I prefer ‘might is right’” shortly before shooting your wife and stealing all your money, who are you (by your standards) to say that my moral choices are any less valid than yours? You may not like them, but I don’t like yours - so what? Why should I care? There’s no science which can decide between these two moralities. You can’t say “one leads to better survival of the species”, because that’s smuggling in a purpose under the covers, and there is no purpose - you admit that, in your world, each person has to find their own purpose.
You can come up with answers to these questions - you have to, in order to function, but that’s not the hard bit. The hard bit is coming up with ones which are consistent with atheism, which don’t smuggle in Christian assumptions under the covers in order to justify them. If humans are all simply massive complicated bags of reacting chemicals (the naturalistic worldview), why is causing pain to someone else “bad”? It’s just making their chemicals fizz in a slightly different way.
“When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident… By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands.” – Nietzsche.
I disagree in one respect here An unborn foetus is a potential person this is proved beyond any reasonable doubt because we can see s direct link between the birth of baby animals and children and the foetus state
I fully accept my other arguments are not science but am appeal to common sense. We must accept that there are certain facts we hold to be true a priori and these help define our belief system.
You are accusing me of hijacking Christian Morality but I do not accept this my morality is not based on any particular religious faith and is certainly not Christian. I have a faith that states clearly that you you should show me the love and respect I want for myself, and I should show you similar respect.
I’m not intending to this point further as I feel this argument has become very circular.
Yeah, I have decided to bow out. Thanks everyone, for a great discussion, and one of the few discussions about religion online where people don’t start screaming at each other. I am proud of the BV community.
I’ve had about as much of this as I can stomach, I’m afraid. You don’t have to be religious or spiritual to know that some things are right and some things are wrong. It’s like having common law beside statute law. I don’t like being talked to, either directly or indirectly, as though I’m some sort of unworthy, immoral wastrel, undeserving of respect or truth, simply because the personally formed, personally owned beliefs in my head don’t align with religion.
I have personally seen nothing to persuade me that there is an almighty God, benevolent, kind, and rewarding of faith, devotion or anything else demanded of the pious. I have personally seen and experienced things which absolutely persuade me that if there is some kind of God, that they are anything but kind. They are ugly, cruel, and have no time for us mere mortals, other than to inflict unnecessary and unwarranted pain.
These are my own opinions, formed from personal experience. But the topic is a question. And I am permitted to answer it. Short of the Lord God Himself appearing in front of me, and apologising and explaining for murdering my brother, I shall not be swayed in my opinion. I shall not be told my opinion is wrong. I shall not be told my opinion should be changed. And I shall not be told that my opinion somehow makes me less of a person than someone who believes in God.
Yes, your opinion is your opinion also. You have every right to evince it, discuss it, debate it. But don’t demean while you’re doing it.
Clearly, this is a subject on which you have deep feelings, and is shaped by some painful experiences in your life. I have no wish to treat your pain glibly. But the very fact that you feel it, that you know that something is terribly wrong, your heart cries out for justice, that you know and hate evil when you see it, shows that deep down you believe that there is an ultimate right and wrong, binding on everyone. And consistent atheism flatly denies this. Whatever your religious beliefs are, you aren’t an atheist.
I am not arguing that all self-confessed atheists behave in evil ways or immorally, I’m arguing that consistent atheists don’t have the ability to use the words “evil” or “immoral” or even “unnecessary pain”, because such words imply an external standard we should all meet, that we are obliged to respect, and atheism denies that there is a Lawgiver. Atheists can choose to behave however they like, and all choices are equally consistent with their beliefs. That’s the terrifying thing.
Given that we all ignore and rebel against him, God doesn’t owe us anything - certainly not a comfortable, pain-free life. But Jesus came that we might know our Creator, be set free from our sin, receive his mercy and have true life, life to the full, in the knowledge that one day, all that is wrong with the world will be set right. For the atheist, as Death says in Pratchett, “There is no justice. There is only Me.” But for the Christian, one day, “[God] will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’”
[quote=“gerv, post:96, topic:11142”]
But the very fact that you feel it, that you know that something is terribly wrong, your heart cries out for justice, that you know and hate evil when you see it, shows that deep down you believe that there is an ultimate right and wrong, binding on everyone. And consistent atheism flatly denies this. Whatever your religious beliefs are, you aren’t an atheist.
[/quote]
…er:
Atheism is simply the disbelief in a god, not that the person doesn’t see and understand that good and evil exists in the world. The difference is that atheists see people as the source of that good and evil, not a god.
Perhaps the terms ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ are not the best ones to use here so I will substitute the presence or absence of Love. I want to be loved, I’m sure Jono and neuro do and I suspect almost everybody on the planet does too. This is not the prerogative of religion but a basic human need. It seems obvious to me that the only way I can rationally expect to receive this love, and respect, from others is to give it at every possible opportunity.
You may remember this topic I created: Mental Health Issues in it I reviled that I was going through a very bad patch because the brother of a close friend had committed suicide. My first reaction was not to say help me but to ask if anybody else needed help because as I saw it there was nothing that could be done for me: it had already happened. I was wrong: lots of people here in this community helped me a lot and I’m sure that we helped others too. This is basic human nature not an action to accumulate points we can cash in on come some day of judgement.
How can you claim I can’t use the words “unnecessary pain” I have seen it far too many times to count, in the UK and elsewhere. But I have also seen the ability of ordinary people, of every and no religious faith, to come together in the time of others need. If I am not to use the words ‘good’, ‘evil’, morality’ and ‘immorality’ what should I use instead?
I know the pain I feel when I see people being treated unjustly and I know that we are stronger when we stand together.
But if atheism is true, there is no global standard for “good” or “evil”. Right and wrong are personal choices, not global absolutes. So rather than using those words, it would be much clearer to say “things I approve of” and “things I disapprove of”. After all, other people may have different views; using words like “good” without qualification might suggest that morality is absolute rather than person-relative. But that would not be consistent with atheism.
If you think atheism is compatible with a global, applicable-to-all standard for good and evil, please tell me where that standard is defined, and by whom, and why everyone is obliged to agree with it.
Irrespective of religion or atheism, there is no standard for good and evil anyway. There are different individual definitions, but to your point there is no “global, applicable-to-all standard” of what good and evil are, but that is not specific to atheism, that applies to everything as many people have many different faiths (and non-faiths).
I would argue that this is semantics though. Put simply, I think people can have a decent moral compass and barometer without depending on god. I think what informs our definition of good and evil is more the societal norms that we have in place.
that this could so easily of happened to me and if it did what would I want others to do for me ? I should do that for those affected.
