checkm8
"If you try to walk this path you will
minimize your own pain and
suffering"

I think that would be hard to prove. It also assumes that I at some point did not walk this path.

human beings would be better off if there were no religion.

i don't know what's best for people on an individual level because everyone is different. some people might be better off with their invisible buddy in the sky just like little kids might be better off with their imaginary friends.

the problems start when some people try to turn the wishes of the invisible buddy into the law of the land. or when they kill other people because their invisible buddy told them too. nobody is better off with that going on.

I think some of your claimed atheistic beliefs are harmful. Does that mean its better to not to be an atheist and theists who dont hold them are better then you. The more you know...

That's my opinion, what is your opinion? Some things cannot be rigorously proved.

Perhaps your pain and suffering could have been worse when you were walking that path had you not been walking that path. Assumptions swing both ways.

you're the one making the claim that walking that path will minimize my pain and suffering I'm just asking for evidence!

thanks

Define better.

lots of atheists think that religious
beliefs are harmful to society
and the species so therefore its better to be an atheist.

yes atheists feel it's better to be an atheist than a theist for a variety of reasons.

The meaning for human beings may be after the fact, but I don't see how it follows that it's after the fact for God. Whatever morality or perfection might mean for God, if these mean anything, they could be states or dispositions that follow necessarily from his nature. Now, I agree with your criticism that the meaning of God's morality or God's goodness to human beings would be strictly speaking vacuous without an external definition of morality or goodness, that's what I brought up to Aaron.

Again, just as a point of logic, if an entity is a necessary entity (exists in all possible worlds let's say), then if P is a necessary property of the entity (the entity fails to be itself without this property), then it can't be the case that P is different in any possible world. So if someone believes that God is a necessary being and the greatest possible being, what in your view should prevent them from believing that God's moral commands follow necessarily from his nature?

Basically what I'm saying is that we are being given two conflicting stories here. On the one hand, we are being told that there is nothing inherent to loving others that makes it greater than hating others, but rather that its being better comes from the fact that loving others is godlike. Then, on the other, we are being told that it is necessary that god have the attribute of loving others because god necessarily has all the great-making attributes, and loving others is a great-making attribute.

To me this presents the Christian with three alternatives. She can give up divine command theory and acknowledge that there is something inherent to loving others that makes it greater than hating others. Or, she can give up the claim that loving others is necessarily better than hating others (i.e. god could be a greatest possible being and it be the case that hating others is godlike). Or, she can just assert without explanation that god's attributes, such as loving others, are necessary and that their greatness comes from their being god's attributes.

I am not claiming that the Christian can't accept the third alternative--I'm not claiming that the view you are describing is incoherent--but I think doing so is to give up on the attempt to provide a theory of the basis of morality. As such, I don't see any reason to view it as preferable to non-theistic alternatives.

You're doing it! You're becoming mighty!

This has to do with what makes a claim true. What makes the claim that the sun is bigger than the earth true is not that god is continually "sustaining" the existence of the sun and the earth. Rather, what makes it true is that there is a sun and an earth and the sun is bigger than the earth. In this sense we say that this is ontologically objective--the claim is made true by facts about the universe.

Now, if you're an idealist like duffe, then you would reject this account. There would then be no external reality and so no sun or earth independent of our ideas of the sun or earth that makes this claim true. You can view this as the claim that none of our claims are ontologically objective. But, for now, I'll assume you aren't an idealist.

The other category of objective statements are statements which are also based on facts about the world, but these facts are ultimately based on our thoughts, attitudes, or behaviors and so are not based on a reality external to our minds. For example, we say that it is a fact that Albany is the capital of New York. Because what makes this claim true are things that we've made up--in this case the state of New York and the city of Albany. The state of New York exists, but it doesn't exist as a physical object (at least, not in the same way that suns and planets exist as physical objects). What exactly it is depends on your theory of what a state is (e.g. a state is a social contract, or a method of domination, or a natural condition of human animals, etc.).

Where you seem to view this as not being a real form of objectivity is that you seem to assume that any fact created out of our thinking or acting in the world could have been different than it is. Thus, we can't ground any kind of absolutist morality in these kinds of facts.

Now, this is obviously true about some such facts. For instance, it could have been the case that NYC was the capital of New York. However, this is not so obviously the case with other facts. For instance, some have claimed (going all the way back to at least Aristotle), that humans are by nature social beings and so will always when it is possible form communities. Furthermore, they have claimed that there are characteristic features of human beings such that there are consistent patterns or features about how humans interact in these communities, or that govern which kinds of interactions end up best fulfilling the human drive to form communities.

It is these regularities of human social life which some people have understood as being moral rules. On this account, whether they are absolute or relative ends up being an empirical question of the actual amount of variety in human nature. Are humans in fact social animals, or is this only an accident of the more recent past? If humans are social animals, are there any laws which apply universally to the kinds of societies they form? If so, are these laws moral laws or some other kind of law? And so on.


Again, you are here just challenging whether it is true that on the theory of morality I'm proposing that moral claims are absolute. That is a important question to raise, and it is still a matter of controversy (some think yes and others think no). But I'm not here trying to argue one way or the other about that, but rather am just describing what those who think the moral claims are absolute are saying.

I'm not really clear on what you're saying here. Obviously naturalists accept logic and physics. If you think they do so using different methodologies, fine. My point is that (some) naturalists do believe that there are laws "embedded" into the universe, so what is it that prevents them from thinking, just as you do, that some of these laws are laws about morality? After all, the laws of physics and logic (presumably paradigm examples of embedded laws) can be stated without reference to a god, so why couldn't it be the same for the laws of morality?

I like your zippy one liners better. I cant understand what you are trying to say here.

I can go two ways with this,

1. No one is better than anyone else,

or

2. I'm better than them, and by that I mean that I am at a distance from them, a safe distance. Horizontally, rather than vertically

Where Did the Trinity Teaching Come From?

I have a moral question for both atheists and theists. Let me first say I dont believe in morals or have these standards that you guys say you have.

Is it immoral to spend extravagant amounts of money on things we dont really need when there are mouths unfed in africa?

It seems to me if you do hold a belief about morals, good and what you ought to do, then surely sacrificing your wants and desires in the the way to go. I dont see how it can be justified under your moral system that you allow yourselves to spend 10k on the WSOP, or buy a 5k watch, or 20k car or whathave you and let the people die in africa. I dont doubt that there is charities who have done great work in africa, but could more not be done?

If you dont give more than you are already are giving then my question is why are you not? If you have empathy and mirror neurons should this not be the case?

I understand that we evolved from small tribes/groups, who looked out for each in a closer network of people, because we seen them day in and day out, and its easier to help people who are near to us.

I also understand that there is a "Selfish Gene" but even still can these process not be overwritten?

Really what is stopping your great strength of moral self by not giving the max that you can give?

Like I said you guys talk a good game about having morals, and empathy but I never see it. I think you prefer to spend what money you have on yourself, just like me, I think you prefer to spend time and energy on things you want to do, just like me.

You guys have the power and the knowledge to do so, but you choose to use your power for your desires, which is cool with me, but then you cant say that we ought to do this or that.

Do you value something more over the lives lost in africa?

batair would disagree with you, and he is an atheist.

He said,

so which is it batair? is it better to be an atheist or theist? get off the fence

you're misconstruing what huehue and batair said.

you do raise a semi-interesting point about charity, though. i think it applies to christians more than atheists since jesus taught that one should sell all of his possessions, give the money to the poor, give no thought for tomorrow and to follow him.

donating to charity is a moral action, but i don't think that means you're an immoral person if you don't bankrupt yourself for the sake of charity. you could argue that but i don't know how successful your argument would be.

so does yor goodness and sense of morality only stop at what you prefer?

I would like to know some reasons why both atheist and theist dont do this? I dont mean bankrupt either, more just having the basics to live.

no. some moral positions should apply to everyone (don't murder) and some might not (give all of your money to charity). the best morality humans will come up with is one that's arrived through reason and discussion.

i can only speak for myself, the reason that i do not give most of my money to charity is because i want to be able to partake in recreation and enjoy what life has to offer. you could make an argument that i'm too selfish and you might be right. but i don't know if you can make that argument earnestly since you already admitted you wouldn't donate all your money either.

let's think of the most extreme example of sacrifice imaginable. perhaps it's throwing yourself on a live grenade to save a fellow soldier. people have done this; a courageous act and also something that i would probably never do.

do you think that anyone who wouldn't throw himself on that grenade is an immoral person? you can't say there are no objective morals just because everyone wouldn't act exactly the same in a given situation.

Yeah you are selfish according to morality, golden rule etc...which is exactly why I don't believe in any moral truth. Once you understand that its just a matter of preference like the way you don't give money to charity you soon see that there is no "ought" more like everything is fair game.

Throwing yourself on a live grenade depends on what you value more, your life or trying to save others. I prefer to be alive to me its not a moral question but for you guys it is.

Collateral damage is another moral issue for you.

Reread what David said "mouths unfed" and I thought I was rude and up front. Over/under how rich David is and how many mouths he could fed. He probably does give to charity, good for him but could he give more according to his standard?

i wouldn't expect anyone else to give away all of their money either, so i'm not violating the golden rule. you're still refusing to understand what the golden rule actually means.

just because some things are a matter of preference does not mean that all things are. how much money someone gives to charity, if any, is a matter of preference. one could probably make a decent argument for giving none, giving some, and giving all.

then on the other side of the spectrum you could take the example of someone abducting, raping, and murdering a child. 99.99999% of people consider that abhorrent yet some people still do it. does that mean child rape and murder is a matter of preference? no. it means that some people are psychopaths and have dysfunctional brains. i'd be willing to gamble that most nihilists would be equally as repulsed by an example of child rape/murder as i am even if they won't admit it.

most of us, once in our lives, have probably encountered the thought, "nothing matters so why not just kill myself."

but there's a strong mysterious force that fights against the urge to do that. the urge that existence is preferable to non-existence is a good start for examining if and why we have moral truths.

meh...

Mr Muck McFold,

Have you read much of Immanuel Kant or know about his coined "categorical imperative"?

In case not it can be summarized as: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

^^ This.

Also, even though I think there are things that are "objectively" immoral, it's not this all or nothing binary absolutism. For example, I think lying is wrong. But telling someone their haircut suits them is less wrong than perjury in court. One is acceptable and shouldn't be punished by the state and the other should.