Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What is God to you?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Yes I would like to question it. You said "A person can decide to act how he pleases to other people through is strength and ingenuity, based on your "it's nice to live together". And a society can act how it wants to other societies based on "it's nice to live together." What exactly is stopping them under the system of "god says you shouldn't but isn't actually going to do anything about it until after you die?"
Ok, well under any moral system, the moral system itself does not physically stop you from doing anything. We are talking about ethics as well, so it's about "what can we do ethically" not just, "what can we do".
So it doesn't matter if nothing stops them from doing it, just that what they are doing can be called wrong. Which your system cannot. Now if you say "I don't care", then this immediately excludes you from any moral argument. And (If you'll allow me to start talking about your position as you have been doing mine), many of your beloved criticisms about religion will lose any meaning.
The authority of the majority? Lets call it a democratic government.You're the only one talking about a governmentally derived system. That's just as much an argument from authority as a god derived system. I'm talking about a system based on shared values where rules are not defined based on the edicts of an authority figure but agreed on by everybody based on the fact that there are great many things that are universally undesirable.
In think what I have said above responds to this. You are jumping ahead without first justifying your premises. That's what I've been talking about the whole time. Arbitrariness of this "shared value system". Now, the only thing stopping this is if you just say "we agree that our universal shared values are good".To go back to my example of why rape should be illegal you just have to ask yourself if you would like to be raped or could imagine anyone wanting to be raped. The infinite loop of why stops inside your head. You don't want to be raped. Why you don't want to be raped doesn't matter. You don't want to be raped and no one else does either so we all agree that rape should be illegal. No argument from authority required. To borrow from the bible it's "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Because he's a wizardWhy is it less arbitrary? Why must the wizard not provide reasons and cross Hume's gap just as much as any other system?
. I already said, a million times, all moral systems are in some sense arbitrary, and if not them, then the axioms preceeding them. Just as any moral axioms could be said to be arbitrary by definition.The "legitimacy of wizards is not the question at hand" because, as I said, the god concept is just a way of dodging these questions
In my opinion, there is no-one more guilty than dodging these questions than the new atheist brigade. "I'm an atheist and I'm nice" As I've said previously, is the almost the only argument ever given. And it shows a massive misunderstanding of the issues at hand0 -
-
Oh right so it's semantics. I can say that their actions are not compatible with social living, that they are doing things that they would not like done to themselves and that they will be punished by the society if they are caught but you can say it's wrong, then presumably sit back and watch people massacre each other secure in the knowledge that what they're doing is wrong.Ok, well under any moral system, the moral system itself does not physically stop you from doing anything. We are talking about ethics as well, so it's about "what can we do ethically" not just, "what can we do".
So it doesn't matter if nothing stops them from doing it, just that what they are doing can be called wrong. Which your system cannot. Now if you say "I don't care", then this immediately excludes you from any moral argument. And (If you'll allow me to start talking about your position as you have been doing mine), many of your beloved criticisms about religion will lose any meaning.
What does it matter if you can say something is "wrong", if the end result of people harming each other is exactly the same?
You're clutching at straws now. A democratic government is answerable to the people, they are not an unquestionable authority and if they don't do what the people want they will be thrown out. Democracy is not an argument from authority. Until we find ourselves in a situation where the majority of people list their hobbies as something along the lines of "being raped, having all my money stolen and getting my teeth kicked in" we can define an ethical system just fine without any need for an argument for authority and where the end result is just as good as any god derived system except I can't have that sense of smug satisfaction that comes from knowing that the person who is about to slit my throat is doing something that is objectively wrongThe authority of the majority? Lets call it a democratic government.
If all moral systems are arbitrary why even mention god's one?Because he's a wizard. I already said, a million times, all moral systems are in some sense arbitrary, and if not them, then the axioms preceeding them. Just as any moral axioms could be said to be arbitrary by definition.
In my opinion, there is no-one more guilty than dodging these questions than the new atheist brigade.
One of my main reasons for being an atheist and I'm sure the same can be said for many, is that I realised that the god concept is just a way of dodging these questions. You want us to give you a system of objective morality but we can't do that. What we can do is define a system where a society can survive and flourish, even though we can't use the words "right" and "wrong" in a way that only makes sense if a god defined them and, as I said, doesn't actually make any more sense that way either. It just passes the buck to a magic man and says we're not allowed question him.0 -
So do you actually think taht there is no difference between modern atheism, and the likes of nietzche or... pretty much anyone who isn't a small class of people who could be described as "new atheists"
Do you not believe that a group of people who congregate together on the basis of one shared view cannot devolope more shared views?
I think that until very recently atheists would have been putting themselves in serious danger for saying the things they now do. I notice a difference between "new gay people" and "new black people" too because they're no longer discriminated against to the extent they once were. Even today in America atheists are the least likely to be voted for:http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/some-americans-reluctant-vote-mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx
As I said before, the things that atheists are saying aren't new and a perception of rudeness is far from unique to atheism, we're just allowed say it now without serious consequences
0 -
-
I think that until very recently atheists would have been putting themselves in serious danger for saying the things they now do. I notice a difference between "new gay people" and "new black people" too because they're no longer discriminated against to the extent they once were. Even today in America atheists are the least likely to be voted for:http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/some-americans-reluctant-vote-mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx
As I said before, the things that atheists are saying aren't new and a perception of rudeness is far from unique to atheism, we're just allowed say it now without serious consequences
I've already said a million times, yes nothing they are saying is new, it's more scientifically based, definitely.
My point is, that something "back in the old days atheists..." isn't really a proper statement, because atheism, was back then just a non-belief in god. Nowadays, of course there is still people who are "just atheists", and we can even say "just scientific atheists"
But go anywhere onto any of the forums on the internet and have a look. I'm not going to accept then that "atheism" is nothing more than atheism.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
you're the only one talking about metaphysical absolutes. As I keep saying a non god derived system can't do that. What I can say is that "indiscriminate slavery is detrimental to society".Well I like this turn of argument. But there certainly must be an ought for us to talk about ethics or to condemn some actions while praising others. It's the source of all value judgements. I wouldn't mind you saying "there doesn't have to be an ought" if you didn't then respond to arguments about the superiority of one system over an other.
Ok there are many systems which allow social living. Not just those you've defined. Your position becomes self-contradictory when you say things like "slavery is bad" or other such metaphysical absolutes. Remember when I say things like this I'm not talking about people within a society enslaving each other, though it wouldn't be difficult to construct a system where this works, but that would only confuse matters.
Why is it detrimental to society? Because it leads to perpetual fighting which makes society impossible.
Why do we want to live in society? Because evolution gave us that instinct.
Why did it give us that instinct? Because that instinct was conducive to survival.
Why is it conducive to survival? Because the objective facts of our universe mean that mutual cooperation means more people survive.
Why are the objective facts of the universe the way they are? There is no why. They just are.
Why do I need an ought in any of the above?
No it wouldn'tIn my opinion, this argument here is the exact same as jakkass universally conceived god-given conscience. If we were universally constrained to not kill each other by the fact that killing things is something we don't wish on ourselves, then nobody would kill anybody.
I never said we were universally constrained not to kill each other. I said that we have a universal desire not to be killed and from this we can derive a law that we can all agree on that killing should be prohibited. This does not prevent individuals breaking the law when it benefits them but no system does.I think we've at least reached a passage into another realm of discussion. And I'll redefine my initial points to take your moral system into account.
I believe that an atheistic moral system derived only from shared emotions, is inferior to one based on a god concept in many ways.
- I believe people would behave less morally under such a system. (here I will appeal to things that you have said, or that we can all agree on because of our "shared values" rape, slavery, wars, no incentive to give moneys to charities, all of the problems that arise from definition of an "other")
- I believe that it is just as arbitrary as belief in a god.
- As an axiom , and reason to follow a moral system, a god-derived one has more reason to accept it. I.e a loving god is more aesthetically pleasing than a bunch of apes thinking of ways to have more sex with each other. Note I understand this isn't aesthetically pleasig to everyone, and perhaps the time where it can be is over, but it can be rephrased as, theistic people are more attracted to this idea than non-theistic people are to the idea of selflessly devoting themselves to society in self interest.
And if you'd like to argue against my use of the word "belief" just exchange it with a statement of absolute certainty.
You've fallen into the common theistic trap of arguing why a god would be useful. As I've said many times in this thread I fully agree that a system where all immorality is punished and where everyone is fully aware of this would be better than the system I describe. The point you seem to be missing is that the fact that a moral system derived from a god would be better does not mean that a god exists. We're back to comparing cars to teleporters. No amount of telling me how much better teleporters are changes the fact that teleporters do not exist. I would rather face reality and work with the ethical system we can derive ourselves than (metaphorically) sit at home letting my car rust while imagining how great it would be to have a teleporter. My point here is that an ethical system can be derived without god and is not worthless, which you seem to accept. Any argument about how much better morality would be under a god is moot until you it can be shown that this god actually exists0 -
you're the only one talking about metaphysical absolutes. As I keep saying a non god derived system can't do that. What I can say is that "indiscriminate slavery is detrimental to society".
One could argue that indsicriminate lots of things would be bad for society. Just as one could argue that slavery which discriminates is good for a particular society. And discrimination between people can be drawn from "objective facts of the universe". Ie, all it takes to discriminate between black and wihte is noticing a difference in skin colour.Why is it detrimental to society? Because it leads to perpetual fighting which makes society impossible.
Why do we want to live in society? Because evolution gave us that instinct.
Why did it give us that instinct? Because that instinct was conducive to survival.
Why is it conducive to survival? Because the objective facts of our universe mean that mutual cooperation means more people survive.
Why are the objective facts of the universe the way they are? There is no why. They just are.
Why do I need an ought in any of the above?
The ought is for when someone comes a long and says "I don't care about certain people or whether they survive. As long as I have enough people to ensure my survivial." The same argument applies with respect to inter-society relationshipsNo it wouldn't
I never said we were universally constrained not to kill each other. I said that we have a universal desire not to be killed and from this we can derive a law that we can all agree on that killing should be prohibited. This does not prevent individuals breaking the law when it benefits them but no system does.
Not only does it not prevent them, it encourages this sort of behaviour. (that is assuming we're basing it on evolutionary principles and things like enlightened self interest)You've fallen into the common theistic trap of arguing why a god would be useful. As I've said many times in this thread I fully agree that a system where all immorality is punished and where everyone is fully aware of this would be better than the system I describe. The point you seem to be missing is that the fact that a moral system derived from a god would be better does not mean that a god exists. We're back to comparing cars to teleporters. No amount of telling me how much better teleporters are changes the fact that teleporters do not exist. I would rather face reality and work with the ethical system we can derive ourselves than (metaphorically) sit at home letting my car rust while imagining how great it would be to have a teleporter
Well again, this debate started out as "atheists can be just as moral as religious people, arguments that religious people put forward about atheists with regard to morals are ridiculous and unfounded". Also it does come down to metaphysical absolutes, namely good and bad, and a concrete physical existance is not necessary to move logically from one metaphysical absolute to anohter.
And you can say "we atheists question everything, and we're virtuous upstanding yadaydyaydyad", but in relating all you seem to be questioning is religion. A questioning of everything would probably lead to nihilism. But you're not starting this from a point of view of nihilism. You're saying "I'm an atheist and am completely rational, I question everytihng and only believe thigns that are true".
You are moral because you want to be. People believe in god because they want to.
You could say "no science is logically correct", but logic depends on axioms. And why do people find the axioms of empiricism, and those of science so appealing? Is it because they think it leads to truth? Maybe some people. Why does the common man like science so much? It means he can sleep in a more comfy bed, have more sex etc. (I once heard this argument in a discussion between a monk and a scientist in some book. It was nearly 7 years ago and I can't remember the name of the book. Needless to say I recently re-discovered it whilst considering the value of axioms)
I had this discussion with my friend recently, and we focused on "everyone walks into walls", to talk about empiricism. "If you walk into a wall you'll bump your nose". Yes If your only interest is things like bumping your nose, then you need only admit the existence of things like walls.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement