Do you believe in god?

Originally posted by Phledos
Youve got a GOOD POINT.

But, What great effect has Harry Potter had on the world, such as that the bible has?

Has it benefitted anyone, so physicaly enough that people recognise it to be a 'Good Book', capable of guiding people in a righteous way?

If we learn the source of wizadry and magic from the Harry Potter books then perhaps, in the future t ...[text shortened]... erhaps Harry Potter will be taught as fact in the future. (And not fiction - Who Knows?)

Bye.

Hi Tim

You know 'd like you as a neighbour. You seem an 'okay kinda guy' to me. You have your views and I have mine and never the twain shall meet.

PacMan

Originally posted by yousers
He believes that murder is not necessarily evil. What determines that your "personal code" is accurate and his is...

1.) Murder isn't necessarily evil. No particular action is in and of itself an evil action. Murder typically is evil, I would venture to say. The important thing is that there are always exceptions.
2.) There is no way to determine if a specific event is of Good or of Evil in a vacuum...the surrounding events must be taken into consideration.
3.) It doesn't matter one iota whether something is good or evil, except to the person committing the act (and possibly to a supernatural being, if one exists or the individual in questions believes in one, etc.). The purpose for defining good and evil is to aid in determine future actions.
4.) When speaking of good outside of a personal context, it is important to consider the appropriate context; currently that context is societal, or good in relation to all of humanity. In that context, a mass murderer or serial killer is, unless many people support him/her (i.e., a war hero, a super hero, etc.), likely to be judged evil. This is why a judicial system that utilizes a jury of peers is useful -- it tests whether society agrees with the individual's actions in that particular moment, and allows the necessary exceptions to the rules.
[...and so on]

Originally posted by echecero
1.) Murder isn't necessarily evil. No particular action is in and of itself an evil action. Murder typically is evil, I would venture to say. The important thing is that there are always exceptions.
2.) There is no way to determine if a specific event is of Good or of Evil in a vacuum...the surrounding events must be taken into consideration ...[text shortened]... ons in that particular moment, and allows the necessary exceptions to the rules.
[...and so on]

Read 'The Genealogy of Morals' by Nietzsche

Originally posted by echecero
1.) Murder isn't necessarily evil. No particular action is in and of itself an evil action. Murder typically is evil, I would venture to say. The important thing is that there are always exceptions.
2.) There is no way to determine if a specific event is of Good or of Evil in a vacuum...the surrounding events must be taken into consideration ...[text shortened]... ons in that particular moment, and allows the necessary exceptions to the rules.
[...and so on]

Ah, so the ruling of the moral majority, so to speak, is the indicator of good and evil. Interesting. I think we can take legislation as a good indicator of that which is supported by the majority. Abortion was illegal prior to Roe vs. Wade, does that mean that it was evil before that time and good/OK following the decision? Similarly was the consumption of alcohol fine before and after the prohibition, but not during?
The "jury of peers" seems to change its mind quite frequently. Does your moral system fluctuate as well?

The reason I am attacking your viewpoint here is that I have been unable to find an atheistic morality that does not reduce to relativism and/or a basis of arbitrary assignment. Your initial statements claimed a simple definition of good and evil and therefore no need for theistic influence on your system of morality. Hopefully, I have begun to show you that this is not the case. It is no less problematic than its theistic counterparts.

Originally posted by TheSphinx
Hi Tim

You know 'd like you as a neighbour. You seem an 'okay kinda guy' to me. You have your views and I have mine and never the twain shall meet.

PacMan

Thanks. Well you seem like a reasonable person to me. I like reasonable people.

Bye.

Originally posted by yousers
Ah, so the ruling of the moral majority, so to speak, is the indicator of good and evil. Interesting. I think we can take legislation as a good indicator of that which is supported by the majority. Abortion was illegal prior to Roe vs. W ...[text shortened]... e case. It is no less problematic than its theistic counterparts.

The least of their problems really. Why would an athiest need to differentiate between good and evil in the first place? I noticed quite a few of them posted that if the 100 years of life is all they get, then they want to enjoy it to the utmost. I don't see any small print about looking out for your neighbor or even needing to care about your fellow man. Why inconveniece yourself by helping your fellowman when you can be enjoying life? To the athiest, there is not god, so every man is his own god. There is no team spirit of trying to look out for your fellow man here. Good or evil is what gives the individual the most happiness or not.

Originally posted by Halitose
The least of their problems really. Why would an athiest need to differentiate between good and evil in the first place? I noticed quite a few of them posted that if the 100 years of life is all they get, then they want to enjoy it to the utmost. I don't see any small print about looking out for your neighbor or even needing to care about your fellow man. ...[text shortened]... for your fellow man here. Good or evil is what gives the individual the most fun and happiness.

That's a good point. But, I can't imagine anyone actually living by that goal, in total self-absorbtion. Anyone who really believed that would be reduced to an endless search for instant gratification. If the way one ought to live is to enjoy oneself, why not spend as much time as possible getting natural and/or artificial highs; and when that catches up with you, resort to suicide because your purpose has been fulfilled?

Originally posted by Halitose
The least of their problems really. Why would an athiest need to differentiate between good and evil in the first place? I noticed quite a few of them posted that if the 100 years of life is all they get, then they want to enjoy it to the utmost. I don't see any small print about looking out for your neighbor or even needing to care about your fellow man. ...[text shortened]... for your fellow man here. Good or evil is what gives the individual the most fun and happiness.

Because to maximize that same life, it helps to help others. Be hated by the world, your life will be cut short. Show disrespect for the life of another by killing them, and you justify the murder of yourself.

I have never met a self-proclaimed atheist, spiritual or aspiritual, who fit the description of "toss it all the to wind, and do whatever seems the most fun." They have all had an earnest respect for life itself so deep and foundational that they refused to act in a way that would lessen their lives or the lives of those around them.

Originally posted by Halitose
The least of their problems really. Why would an athiest need to differentiate between good and evil in the first place? I noticed quite a few of them posted that if the 100 years of life is all they get, then they want to enjoy it to the ...[text shortened]... od or evil is what gives the individual the most happiness or not.

None of these arguments that, absent God morality is strictly relative, need to be taken by the atheist seriously. You can argue that, if there is a (particular) God, and that morality stems from God, morality is not relative, sure. But the atheist does not believe there is a God to begin with.

So, whether the atheist thinks that morality, in the absence of a God, is relative or not, would in no way compel the atheist to accept the existence of a God. Think of it this way: if morality was truly relative, positing a God simply to “make it not so” would be delusional. Whether or not morality is relative may be a question for the atheist, but saying “there must be a God, otherwise morality is relative” is not a reasonable response. The atheist would simply say that, if that is the case, then the tragic fact would be that morality is relative.

One can argue from the existence of a (non-relative) moral order to God (the natural law argument), or one can argue from God to a particular moral order (e.g., divine command theory); one cannot argue both ways.

Further, although you might think that it is somehow irrational for an atheist to look out for his neighbor, or care for his fellow man, atheists do, in fact, do those things—maybe no less than theists—which has been pointed out many times in these threads. There have also been non-theistic (that is, without appeal to God) debates about whether morality is in any sense relative or not.

EDIT re echecero above: I have never met a self-proclaimed atheist, spiritual or aspiritual, who fit the description of "toss it all the to wind, and do whatever seems the most fun." They have all had an earnest respect for life itself so deep and foundational that they refused to act in a way that would lessen their lives or the lives of those around them.

My experience as well.

Originally posted by echecero
Because to maximize that same life, it helps to help others. Be hated by the world, your life will be cut short. Show disrespect for the life of another by killing them, and you justify the murder of yourself.

I have never met a self-proclaimed atheist, spiritual or aspiritual, who fit the description of "toss it all the to wind, and do whatever seems t ...[text shortened]... at they refused to act in a way that would lessen their lives or the lives of those around them.

Your statement totally contradicts your premise. Please clarify, why then, if man is just a evolutionary burp, would he need to have much respect for life? If I understand you correctly, you say that the only motivation for an athiest to do good things is so that he can live longer and enjoy a better personal quality of life. I don't see how this works. Enlighten...

Originally posted by vistesd
None of these arguments that, absent God morality is strictly relative, need to be taken by the atheist seriously. You can argue that, if there is a (particular) God, and that morality stems from God, morality is not relative, sure. But t ...[text shortened]... or the lives of those around them.

My experience as well.
[/b]

I'm sure that most athiests are life loving and essentially good people, but then they are not purist athiests in their beliefs. Morality can be only relative in the purist athiestic sense.

Originally posted by Halitose
I'm sure that most athiests are life loving and essentially good people, but then they are not purist athiests in their beliefs. Morality can be only relative in the purist athiestic sense.

If most atheists are “essentially good people,” then perhaps their morality simply flows from that essential goodness. Maybe there is a natural tendency (I prefer this phrase to “natural law” ) inherent in human beings that—while perhaps not absolute—on average drives their behavior toward themselves and others. And the atheist may simply not find the existence of such a natural tendency to be compelling evidence for a God. The question of “from whence does such a natural tendency come,” may simply not be a compelling question.

Morality can be only relative in the purist atheistic sense.

You’ll get plenty of argument on this from people here who are more philosophically learned than I am. My basic point is just that, even if atheists found morality to be relative, that would not be an argument for the existence of God.

Originally posted by vistesd
None of these arguments that, absent God morality is strictly relative, need to be taken by the atheist seriously. You can argue that, if there is a (particular) God, and that morality stems from God, morality is not relative, sure. But the atheist does not believe there is a God to begin with.

So, whether the atheist thinks that morality, in the absenc ...[text shortened]... that would lessen their lives or the lives of those around them.

My experience as well.
[/b]

I follow your argument quite well. I am concerned with the status of a morality for atheists because it is absolutely necessary to understand that morality, whatever it may be, rationally in order to know how one ought to live. I mean, if you don't have a clear definition of what good and evil are, then how can you try to live for good? If you aren't living for goodness, then what else is there that is worth the trouble?
So, I think discussing relative vs. absolute morality is quite important. If you cannot establish something sturdy without invoking a god, then yes, I personally would believe that the existence of one is implied. The alternative is stumble through life without direction. Without knowledge of how one should live, there isn't much point in living.

Originally posted by yousers
I follow your argument quite well. I am concerned with the status of a morality for atheists because it is absolutely necessary to understand that morality, whatever it may be, rationally in order to know how one ought to live. I mean, if you don't have a clear definition of what good and evil are, then how can you try to live for good? If you aren't li ...[text shortened]... without direction. Without knowledge of how one should live, there isn't much point in living.

I can only respond personally, for myself alone, from where my life is and has taken me.

I mean, if you don't have a clear definition of what good and evil are, then how can you try to live for good?

Circumstantially, in a sense. What seems the best course of action in this case?

If you aren't living for goodness, then what else is there that is worth the trouble?

Living itself is worth “the trouble.” I enjoy living. I don’t live for goodness (though for many years I did); I live to enjoy the richness of living: the joy of being me and being here, the joy of relationships, the joy of the journey—in the face of whatever hardships arise (and I have not lived a hardship-free life, although there has not been that much suffering either; I understand that people might experience so much suffering that living seems to be both joyless and hopeless). Living is its own purpose, and needs no justification for itself. I strive to live a life of eudaimonia, as bbarr puts it: a flourishing, thriving, harmonious life to the best of my ability. Acting in “goodness” seems to me to enhance that. Whether it does for someone else, I don’t know—though the posters on here seem to indicate that I am far from alone.

So, I think discussing relative vs. absolute morality is quite important.

I think it’s interesting. I think there are important social questions. And so I follow the discussions here with interest, for my own learning.

If you cannot establish something sturdy without invoking a god, then yes, I personally would believe that the existence of one is implied.

I’m not convinced of that as a general proposition. I know people who have found “something sturdy” by invoking God. I also know people who have found “something sturdy” by following the Buddha, for example.

The alternative is stumble through life without direction. Without knowledge of how one should live, there isn't much point in living.

Again, for me, living a eudaimonic life is the point. And it’s not generally that difficult to figure out as I go along what is helpful and what is harmful—without a “pre-paved” path. I make errors; I try to learn from them. I have never known anyone who does not make errors—including moral ones—as they go through life, no matter how well-defined their beliefs are.

Perhaps, my “something sturdy” (I like that phrase!) is some inner “gyroscope” or intuition that moves me toward harmony—within myself, with others, with my surroundings. That is not to say that there is always harmony; it is merely to say that I seem to move toward thoughts and behaviors that bring about harmony—and when I don’t, I find upon reflection that it has been because I didn’t heed that “inner sense.” Every time.

This is all purely first-personal subjective, I realize. I don’t know how else to live except in the first-person—but when I meet other people, I see that they also are living out a unique first-personal existence, and so I see them as subjects, not objects, not as a-personal. (Martin Buber’s I-Thou, as opposed to I-It.) That is the first basis for connection, for relationship. Perhaps that is why I find it difficult to discuss morality—or life—on some general, a-personal basis. (Objectivity, for me, simply means to avoid pre-judgment in my listening and observations.)

Thanks for raising these points: it was helpful for me to try to respond to them. And I’ll continue to let them “percolate” in my mind.

Originally posted by vistesd
I can only respond personally, for myself alone, from where my life is and has taken me.

[b]I mean, if you don't have a clear definition of what good and evil are, then how can you try to live for good?

Circumstantially, in a sense. What seems the best course of action in this case?

If you aren't living for goodness, then what els ...[text shortened]... lpful for me to try to respond to them. And I’ll continue to let them “percolate” in my mind.

Thank you for a great post. My only response is that I personally am not willing to live with a circumstantial morality, or simply to enjoy life as it is. I need something deeper, something beyond the natural.