Basis for Atheist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2014, 08:47 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 03:32 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Remember, just because we can't accurately measure something yet, does not mean that there is not an objective basis. There was a long time in human history before people could detect radio waves, radiation, etc, and those things were still there.


Argumentum Ad Ignoratiam.


Quote:If you work on the assumption that an intelligent creator exists blah blah blah....

You seem to conveniently "forget" your assertion that the mythical "creator" you claim is indifferent and "uninvolved" with this world.

You can't have your fucking Special Pleading and eat it too (per WillHop).

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 08:49 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.

Most of us have seen YOUR true colors from the start, troll


Quote: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.

Revisionist self-delusion much?


Quote: 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.

If you don't like how you are being treated here, then


[Image: Too+_f6be8c3067bd93de6370b7f74187b6cc.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 08:55 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).

And your bullshit snake oil sales pitch has been thoroughly destroyed time and again.




Quote:I just kinda want to discuss a different issue for a while.


In other words, you wish that the fact that you aren't going to convince anyone here that your fairy tale monster actually exists would go away, and you want to just talk about your fairy tale monster as if it really existed, and we won't let you, because you haven't shown that it actually exists. No, we aren't going to join you in your fucking fantasy world.



Quote: 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.


And we are bored to death with you droning on about the supposed qualities of your fairy tale monster that you haven't demonstrated actually exists. You aren't going to fucking get anywhere here until you show that your fairy tale monster actually exists. And no, you aren't going to sit and bullshit about what this fairy tale monster is supposedly like until you fucking prove it exists.

Quote: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.

You aren't going to get away with trying to force an end run around your burden of proof. You keep getting put back on your paper like a puppy because we aren't going to entertain your bullshit about what your supposed creator is all about until you prove it exists, which you fucking can't.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 08:58 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 aren't going to get away with trying to sidestep your burden of proof by starting a bunch of threads that assume that it does. You are just going to keep getting put back on your paper like a little puppy that's too fucking stupid to figure out not to piddle on the fucking floor. Deal with it or go the fuck away.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 09:04 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 05:57 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  
(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.

It also uses a Special Pleading Fallacy (the "creator" somehow "doesn't begin to exist") and a Question-Begging Fallacy (that this "creator" exists at all).

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 09:05 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 06:30 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  The difference in my mind is that without a higher power in the picture, my view of what is moral and immoral doesn't really have any meaning. It is an objective code because the answer to moral questions in based on the best way for humans to interact with each other, from the perspective of the whole. The problem is that is not the perspective that people have. People have the perspective of an individual. From the perspective of the individual, it's a prisoner's dilemma situation. The best way to succeed in society is to appear moral while being immoral. While the worst way to succeed in society is to appear immoral while being moral.

Morality. I think that every action an individual takes, no matter how outwardly altruistic it may look, it is still a self-centered decision. I can't think of a single example to the contrary. Even the most seemingly unselfish actions stem from gratifying the self.

As an example a parent sacrificing their life for a child. The parent weighs the options of doing nothing and having to live with the consequences vs their own death. In most if not all cases the parent perceives their own death as the least painful.

The decision in this example is reached by both religious and non-religious people. I don't see how inserting a god into the formula changes how a parent would act if their child was in danger.

I think all actions by individuals, no matter how trivial, are weighed and measured by how it will make them feel and what repercussions they may have (whether real or not). So in my view all of us can be labeled immoral for always doing what is in our best interest. Or all of can be labeled moral for always doing was is in our best interest.

Describing moral vs immoral is determined by the society in which that person lives, it is relative and subjective and no higher power need apply.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 09:15 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 06:30 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  For the record, even without the existence of a God, I still think that objective morals exist.

Then why the fuck did you ask the question at all, if that is what you believe.

Fucking troll.


Quote:The difference in my mind is that without a higher power in the picture, my view of what is moral and immoral doesn't really have any meaning.


You are both contradicting yourself AND destroying your own assertion of an "objective" morality.


Quote: It is an objective code because the answer to moral questions in based on the best way for humans to interact with each other, from the perspective of the whole.

That's not "objective". Headhunters and cannibals put the lie to your assertion.



Quote: The problem is that is not the perspective that people have. People have the perspective of an individual. From the perspective of the individual, it's a prisoner's dilemma situation. The best way to succeed in society is to appear moral while being immoral. While the worst way to succeed in society is to appear immoral while being moral.


STRAW MAN.


Quote:The reason why I asked the original question is that, in terms of evolutionary models, why would humans evolve morals?

What the fuck do "evolutionary models" have to do with it. Your whole bullshit of "creation vs. evolution" and "atheism as belief in evolution" is a fucking straw man. Atheism existed LOOOONG before the theory of evolution. The fucking Buddha was an atheist ,for example.


Quote:If we assume that most people are moral, why? If we evolve for the purpose of being in the best situation to propagate our genes, then morals get in the way. The only benefit of morals would be the appearance of being moral, while actually being moral would only stop someone from doing what may be the best action to succeed and propagate.

Straw. Man.


Quote:Obviously, I can fit morals into my deist model.


No you can't. If your mythical deity doesn't care or intervene (which it couldn't NOT, if it supposedly "created" the universe), then no, it would have no hand at all in morality. You are just pulling shit out of your ass, as usual.


Quote: I asked my question because I am curious as to how morals fit into an atheist model.

How do morals fit in "The Fucking Emperor Has No Fucking Clothes". You are comparing apples to oranges.


Quote: Like I say, it's not meant as an attack, it is a question.
\

Bull. Fucking. Shit. Stuff your fucking gaslighting bullshit up your ass with a fucking jackhammer, you disingenuous fucking liar.


Quote: I definitely know some very moral atheists (such as my fiancee),

Whom probably no one here actually believes exists.

Quote: but I don't know if they have ever actually thought through why they are moral or how they got to be. My answer would be "they are moral because the creator made them that way.

Assertion from Ignorance. And personal incredulity.


Quote: They understand morality and are just too blinded to realize where that knowledge comes from."

Oh, look more arrogant presuppositionalist bullshit to stuff up your ass with your army of strawmen and your disingenuous gaslighting. You are starting to become a fire hazard.


Quote: But, I thought I would get the perspective of some more deep thinking atheists, you know, the type that come on pages like this and discuss philosophy for fun, lol.

Oh, look at the veiled swipe: We supposedly aren't "deep thinking" because we don't put up with your trolling tactics. Fuck you very much, asshole.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 09:57 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 08:47 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  You can't have your fucking Special Pleading and eat it too (per WillHop).

And don't think it didn't hurt when you stopped using this as your signature, TM. Sadcryface2

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WillHopp's post
13-02-2014, 10:01 PM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2014 10:52 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 09:57 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 08:47 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  You can't have your fucking Special Pleading and eat it too (per WillHop).

And don't think it didn't hurt when you stopped using this as your signature, TM. Sadcryface2

Awwwwwww..... here ya go, Will...oh, wait -- it's still there, let me move this fucking trash out of the way so you can see it....

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
14-02-2014, 04:21 AM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2014 04:36 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 03:13 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  If we can understand that the universe is headed toward death by entropy. And we also know that we contribute far more entropy than order to the universe. And if lookingforanswers' claim of there being an objective morality is true. Then is our continued existence an immoral act?

"time must die that we may live"

Indeed. The law of thermodynamics are universal so any objective reality must also be subject to them.

You can point at anything in the universe and explain how it was somehow shaped by the laws of thermodynamics, or at least attempt to. A question to the OP then could be, how were his objective moral laws shaped by the laws of thermodynamics?

EDIT: Made stupid mistake in how I phrased it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: