- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf it is so clearly not, I would think atheist biologist Richards Dawkins would clearly agree with you.
Clearly not. You may believe that the law of gravity and morals come from God and thus your understanding of them may be part of your religion, but neither you, nor anyone else, would correctly say that the law of gravity was based on or produced by your religion.
Rather he says the universe without the existence of God has no good and no evil but only blind pitiless indifference.
"Blind pitiless indifference" are the trademarks of his Athiestic world without the existence of God. No good and no evil, thus no real objective moral sense. He says this is what we should expect and this is what we see.
Conversely, with the existence of God, not by a religion is there ethics but by God's mere existence. (Other things on the video are not the main point I am making here).
30 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipHe does agree with me.
If it is so clearly not, I would think atheist biologist Richards Dawkins would clearly agree with you.
Rather he says the universe without the existence of God has no good and no evil but only blind pitiless indifference.
And nothing I said contradicts that. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
"Blind pitiless indifference" are the trademarks of his Athiestic world without the existence of God.
No, they aren't. They are just facts about the universe.
No good and no evil, thus no real objective moral sense.
Don't confuse 'the universe' with 'human beings'. As a theist, do you believe the universe itself has morals and wishes you well? Does the universe hate you?
Conversely, with the existence of God, not by a religion is there ethics but by God's mere existence. (Other things on the video are not the main point I am making here).
No, Gods existence doesn't provide ethics, nor is Gods existence required for ethics.
30 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipVery silly misreading of Dawkins. In saying that the universe is indifferent to our situation, there is no implication that humanity is indifferent to our own situation. When nature swamps a passing ship with a massive wave, causing it to founder and sink, the occupants of that ship are by no means indifferent, but the wave is indifferent to their concerns. The wave / the universe just do what waves / universes do and we have to make the best of things as we find them.
If it is so clearly not, I would think atheist biologist Richards Dawkins would clearly agree with you.
Rather he says the universe without the existence of God has no good and no evil but only blind pitiless indifference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yvEeDefRNE
"Blind pitiless indifference" are the trademarks of his Athiestic world without t ...[text shortened]... ut by God's mere existence. (Other things on the video are not the main point I am making here).
The real contrast is that, in your imaginary world, the wave / the universe are entirely built around us, and everything that happens to us is part of the designed purpose of that wave / universe. The entire animal kingdom apparently exists only to meet our human needs. We are the godlike centre of the universe. How narcissistic!
Obviously, to impute intentionality to a wave is pantheistic or animist so you might prefer to argue that the wave is itself propelled by an act of God, either directly (occasionalism?) or ultimately, so one way or another God cares rather than the wave cares. What matters is that you would argue that not even a bird falls from the sky without God poking his finger into the affair.
Indeed, Christians and other religious groups typically like to imply (however irrationally) that the acts of nature are morally guided and we get what we deserve on some level. This for example comforts those who imagine their good fortune is the reward for their intrinsic sanctity while the bad fortune of their neighbour is the result of immorality (and hence apparently we need not help). People who survive a natural disaster thank God for selecting them out to survive, without questioning that God thought it a reasonable plan to destroy other lives either quite arbitrarily or for some implied failing of morality or virtue. The entire thought process is demented.
The whole idea of a moral universe is weirdly pagan and animistic. Morality only makes sense in terms of social behaviour and social standards, socially approved and socially sanctioned. Human behaviour may be good or evil but nature is neither. The concept is absurd.
30 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonshipThere is a long way to travel from the idea that humanity is inherently moral or has an innate sense of morality, assuming that we accept this notion, to the idea that this innate morality can be mapped onto any one set of religious teachings about morality or ethics. The simple reality that different social groups adopt divergent moral codes demonstrates that there is no innate code.There is no requirement for a moral code to be based on or produced by religion. That is only one of the avenues available and only one of the forms of morality encountered in studies of human societies.
Is an ethical sense or moral sense as a component of man's created being [b] "a moral code based on or produced by religion?"
...[text shortened]... ternal moral sense whether or not individuals subscribed to a particular religion, if so. Right?[/b]
What does it even mean to say that we have an "internal moral sense"? It would make sense to say that we are social animals, we can observe social behaviour in many other species and we can observe the associated patterns of social behaviour that reflect their social constraints and requirements. It would make sense to observe an innate capacity for empathy and thus an ability to adapt our own behaviour to take into acount how others react. But when you demand an innate moral code you are on the same territory as no1marauder, except that he argues we have an innate need to be laisse faire neoliberals and an innate need to prefer primogeniture in order to transfer wealth between generations. He even gives better pseudoscientific arguments to support his innate moral code than you do for your religious moral code.
Whatever our innate capacities, we have huge choice as to how these are expressed. Indeed, Christians, like Muslims, have to resolve a long running debate about the role of free well versus predestination before deciding if an innate moral code is helpful or not to their religious dogma.
So my next question is aimed at atheists and is as follows: Do you believe in moral absolutes and why?
The way I see it, If God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
19 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAre you just ignoring everything we have already said on this issue?
So my next question is aimed at atheists and is as follows: Do you believe in moral absolutes and why?
The way I see it, If God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, moral ...[text shortened]... ve that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God.
19 May 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkVarious people have explained quite a lot. The problem is you typically respond with sarcasm which effectively ends the conversation as nobody is quite sure what your opinion is or what you disagree with.
I have had atheists tell me there are no moral absolutes and others tell me there are. Those who said there are moral absolutes haven't told me why.
19 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadOk I would assume atheists have no logical reason to have moral absolutes. Do you disagree?
Various people have explained quite a lot. The problem is you typically respond with sarcasm which effectively ends the conversation as nobody is quite sure what your opinion is or what you disagree with.