Basis for Atheist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 03:47 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  I think the concept and discussion are interesting and worth exchanging ideas, but why are many of your posts started with "the assumption that a creator exists"? I am just asking why there is this need for a creator to be involved? It is like no other option can be entertained by your mind. Exploring morality without the creator aspect may provide more insight than you think. It just appears to me you are clinging to something that is based on wishful thinking rather than evidence, and there is a concerted effort to make it all workout in that regard.

Frankly Timber, the reason I start my comments as such is because I spent most of my time on these forums discussing my reasons for believing in a creator, and the arguments with which I support that belief (primarily the cosmological argument). I just kinda want to discuss a different issue for a while. I know that it's the first question that pops into most atheists minds when I am discussing any of this stuff, but if I keep engaging in that every time someone brings it up, I'm just going to end up discussing that one issue until I'm too bored to continue.

I assure you that I have considered the question of a creator's existence and have discussed it with people on this forum very extensively. I understand the points on both sides. I don't consider it to be based on wishful thinking and you can feel free to read most of my first 75 or so posts on this site if you want the reasons why, lol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 04:06 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 03:46 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 03:32 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  If you work on the assumption that an intelligent creator exists
BY THE WAY.. you still haven't given me a good reason to support to your assumption.

JUST GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON to support your far-fetched,absurd assumption just one and maybe then i'll consider your God thingy seriously.

IndianAtheist, I would refer you to my comment directly above to Timber, but I know perfectly well that you have participated in multiple of the discussions that I am talking about where I gave you plenty of support. If you don't want to accept my reasons, that's fine, but you have my reasons, and I know you've read them.

If you want to engage in the current discussion, feel free. If you want to engage in the "Does God exist" discussion, you can feel free to re-read all of the posts that I have already made on the subject.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 04:12 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 03:53 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 01:45 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Now, if you'd like to stop pretending to be a deist and just admit you're a theist troll, we'll all get along a lot better.

It's nice to see your true colours TwoCult.

It's funny how a few of the people on this forum have abandoned their civility as soon as they realize that they can't back up their own beliefs with enough logic to sell me on their answers. I guess some people just like to lash out at those who hold different opinions. It's funny how many people like to think they are open-minded because they hold a certain set of beliefs, and yet close their minds to the possibility that they may be wrong.

I'm grateful that some of the others on this page are a little more courteous, or my view of atheists might have taken a bigger hit.

You have some gall, feigning civility while in fact all you do is troll and hide behind a phony facade of genuine curiosity. The reason we do not have enough logic to sell you on our answers is rather simple: You do not value logic. If you did, all your double-talking, word-twisting, disingenuous arguments would come crashing to a halt. You are not an honest debater, and you are preying on the good will of honest people to suit your own personal need for attention. Most of us see right through your phony act, and some of us are impatient enough with your kind to call you on it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
13-02-2014, 04:27 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 04:02 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 03:47 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  I think the concept and discussion are interesting and worth exchanging ideas, but why are many of your posts started with "the assumption that a creator exists"? I am just asking why there is this need for a creator to be involved? It is like no other option can be entertained by your mind. Exploring morality without the creator aspect may provide more insight than you think. It just appears to me you are clinging to something that is based on wishful thinking rather than evidence, and there is a concerted effort to make it all workout in that regard.

Frankly Timber, the reason I start my comments as such is because I spent most of my time on these forums discussing my reasons for believing in a creator, and the arguments with which I support that belief (primarily the cosmological argument). I just kinda want to discuss a different issue for a while. I know that it's the first question that pops into most atheists minds when I am discussing any of this stuff, but if I keep engaging in that every time someone brings it up, I'm just going to end up discussing that one issue until I'm too bored to continue.

I assure you that I have considered the question of a creator's existence and have discussed it with people on this forum very extensively. I understand the points on both sides. I don't consider it to be based on wishful thinking and you can feel free to read most of my first 75 or so posts on this site if you want the reasons why, lol.

Understood, and I get where you are coming from. I also rechecked the questions you asked at the start of the thread. The frustration on my part (and apparently others) is that the answers to the OP questions were in the first few pages, but the remaining posts were focused on selling us the concept of a creator that created a definitive and objective morality. Guess how that train was going to track here. I am open to ideas and do have an open mind as long as there is some kind of substantiation to any claims/concepts. That is the big difference here as I do not run with any assumptions as truth, and waste my time fitting them into a discussion.

So once more - no evidence for a creator, no evidence for a definitive and objective moral code, no evidence for a moral code coming from a creator or god, and absolutely no evidence supporting a simple equation for predicting morality.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 04:46 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 04:02 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Frankly Timber, the reason I start my comments as such is because I spent most of my time on these forums discussing my reasons for believing in a creator, and the arguments with which I support that belief (primarily the cosmological argument).

Then you believe for bad reasons.

The cosmological argument is fallacious.

Did you believe in a god before the cosmological argument convinced you, or do you use the cosmological argument to support your already existing beliefs?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Simon Moon's post
13-02-2014, 05:06 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 04:06 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  If you want to engage in the "Does God exist" discussion, you can feel free to re-read all of the posts that I have already made on the subject.
The thread's topic is quite funny for one that it assumes that morality needs a basis in God whereas you've failed to provide me a reason to that particular correlation of God&morality.

you say that your belief in God isn't based on wishful thinking if that's true how come you can't provide me with a practical,rational reason to believe in one?

Newton came up with the law of Gravity because he saw an apple fall down a tree and you think there's a creator God because!?

> A logically contradictory&fabricated Book tells you so?
> God personally gave you a visit?
> You can see what all other scientists on earth cannot? Rolleyes
> ........................... ?

If you're going to presuppose that there is a creator God in ANY argument or topic you have to provide sufficient explanation for that assertion.

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 05:26 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
Atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) is the belief that there is no God. Therefore, the belief in atheism requires one to explain the existence of the universe without a sentient creator. Yet, atheists have absolutely zero way of doing so. Therefore, the belief in atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) requires a "special pleading" to explain how the universe can exist by only natural processes, when everything we know about natural processes shows us that none of those processes can be the cause.
[/quote]

No. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, not a belief that there is no god. atheism is not a knowledge claim. The lack of belief in a god places no burden on us to explain how the universe came about. You are making a knowledge claim that you have not sufficient reason to claim to know. You are taking it for granted that the universe had to be created. You are evading the possibility that the Universe has always existed in some form or another. You can't logically discount that possibility. We can't logically rule out that the Universe could have come about by natural processes which are eternal and don't need a creator. There's no special pleading. So far, all we have are natural explanations for things so it is reasonable to conclude that natural processes are responsible for the current state of the Universe.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like true scotsman's post
13-02-2014, 05:36 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
It's been pointed out numerous times to LFA that the cosmological argument is not an argument at all. It is a proposition based on a question that has a false premise (that there was a First Cause). The proposition literally exempts itself from the conditions of the argument, thus declaring itself to be an answer to the question by fiat rather than by reason or logic.

Briefly, the argument is "everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause." The Creator is posited as a being that did not begin to exist, thereby exempting itself from the premises of the argument. But how do we know that the Creator did not begin to exist? We don't. There is no evidence for or indication of any such thing. It is declared by fiat.

Now, if we were to examine the argument again, we can see some interesting issues.

First: "everything that begins to exist has a cause." Fair enough. Great minds have argued this point. I am underqualified to engage in that discussion.
But then we come to the next point: The universe began to exist.

Here we have an interesting issue. When we say "the universe began to exist," what exactly do we mean? Most people think of the beginning of the universe as "something coming from nothing," also known as ex nihilo. But on what do we base the assumption that there ever was "nothing"? The law of conservation of matter-energy would contradict that very notion. The Big Bang starts with something, not nothing. I have heard and read interesting discussions about what that first "something" was (a singularity? What does that even mean?) but I have never heard a scientist posit that the Big Bang started with the philosopher's nothing. All the matter-energy in the universe was always there and always will be there. All the matter-energy in the universe was once in one infinitely small, infinitely dense point, and the expansion of the universe began from there. Time begins there, making it impossible for us to speak intelligently of a time "before" the Big Bang.

The law of conservation of matter-energy has been observed, tested, confirmed, etc. It is a law of physics. And it holds even in Big Bang conditions. It is derived from the evidence.

A Creator outside of time and space who flicks the switch, lights the fuse, gets the ball rolling... has not been observed, tested or confirmed. Merely posited. The cosmological argument doesn't prove there was a creator. It ASSUMES there was a creator. It is the ultimate act of begging the question -- assuming the truth of that which you're seeking to prove in the first place.

There was no Creator. There is no creation. All the matter-energy that makes up the universe has always existed and always will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
13-02-2014, 05:52 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 03:53 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 01:45 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Now, if you'd like to stop pretending to be a deist and just admit you're a theist troll, we'll all get along a lot better.

It's nice to see your true colours TwoCult.

It's funny how a few of the people on this forum have abandoned their civility as soon as they realize that they can't back up their own beliefs with enough logic to sell me on their answers. I guess some people just like to lash out at those who hold different opinions. It's funny how many people like to think they are open-minded because they hold a certain set of beliefs, and yet close their minds to the possibility that they may be wrong.

I'm grateful that some of the others on this page are a little more courteous, or my view of atheists might have taken a bigger hit.

Do you really think that we care what your view of atheists is? Yeah, we really need your approval. Pompous dick.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes joben1's post
13-02-2014, 05:57 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 05:36 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  It's been pointed out numerous times to LFA that the cosmological argument is not an argument at all. It is a proposition based on a question that has a false premise (that there was a First Cause). The proposition literally exempts itself from the conditions of the argument, thus declaring itself to be an answer to the question by fiat rather than by reason or logic.

Briefly, the argument is "everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause." The Creator is posited as a being that did not begin to exist, thereby exempting itself from the premises of the argument. But how do we know that the Creator did not begin to exist? We don't. There is no evidence for or indication of any such thing. It is declared by fiat.

Now, if we were to examine the argument again, we can see some interesting issues.

First: "everything that begins to exist has a cause." Fair enough. Great minds have argued this point. I am underqualified to engage in that discussion.
But then we come to the next point: The universe began to exist.

Here we have an interesting issue. When we say "the universe began to exist," what exactly do we mean? Most people think of the beginning of the universe as "something coming from nothing," also known as ex nihilo. But on what do we base the assumption that there ever was "nothing"? The law of conservation of matter-energy would contradict that very notion. The Big Bang starts with something, not nothing. I have heard and read interesting discussions about what that first "something" was (a singularity? What does that even mean?) but I have never heard a scientist posit that the Big Bang started with the philosopher's nothing. All the matter-energy in the universe was always there and always will be there. All the matter-energy in the universe was once in one infinitely small, infinitely dense point, and the expansion of the universe began from there. Time begins there, making it impossible for us to speak intelligently of a time "before" the Big Bang.

The law of conservation of matter-energy has been observed, tested, confirmed, etc. It is a law of physics. And it holds even in Big Bang conditions. It is derived from the evidence.

A Creator outside of time and space who flicks the switch, lights the fuse, gets the ball rolling... has not been observed, tested or confirmed. Merely posited. The cosmological argument doesn't prove there was a creator. It ASSUMES there was a creator. It is the ultimate act of begging the question -- assuming the truth of that which you're seeking to prove in the first place.

There was no Creator. There is no creation. All the matter-energy that makes up the universe has always existed and always will.

This is a very good refutation, but the problems with the CA go even deeper than the premises themselves.

The argument contains the fallacy of equivocation.

It uses 2 different meanings for the phrase 'begins to exist'.

In the first premise, it is using 'begins to exist' to refer to creatio ex materia. This is creation by rearranging existing matter and energy. Trees, tables, people begin to exist in this manner.

The second premise uses 'begins to exist' to refer to creatio ex nihilo. This is creation from nothing.

Two different meanings for the same term = fallacy.

It also contains the fallacy of composition.

Just because something is true of part of the whole (things within the universe have a cause), does not mean that it is true of the whole (therefore, the universe has a cause).

It also smuggles the conclusion into the first premise, thus also being guilty of the fallacy of affirming the consequence.

Modus ponens does not hold up. The conclusion can not be inferred from the premises.

Yeah, it's really a bad argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Simon Moon's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: