What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

Ophiolite · May 29, 2025

Tinker Grey said:
And what do moral standards have to do with this sub-forum?

If you consider, as I do, that moral standards are an example of evolved behaviour then it is appropriately located, though Creation and Evolution would likely be an even closer fit.

Oompa Loompa · May 29, 2025

Bradskii said:
We apparently escape punishment for all the bad things we did.

You are evading the question. Do you not cease to exist after you die along with all your memories and experiences? Isn't there literally nothing after death, or do you believe that after death there remains some supernatural presence like a ghost?

Ophiolite · May 29, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
You are evading the question. Do you not cease to exist after you die along with all your memories and experiences? Isn't there literally nothing after death, or do you believe that after death there remains some supernatural presence like a ghost?

I see no evasion. If there is nothing after death then one has evaded any punishment due for bad things done while alive. What is puzzling you about that simple, direct statement?

Oompa Loompa · May 29, 2025

Ophiolite said:
I see no evasion. If there is nothing after death then one has evaded any punishment due for bad things done while alive. What is puzzling you about that simple, direct statement?

If there is truly nothing after death, then the events of life ultimately lose their lasting significance. For instance, if a perpetrator commits heinous acts such as torture and murder, the suffering experienced by the victim ceases to exist upon their death. Similarly, the pain endured by the victim’s family also disappears once they pass away. In this view, morality is reduced to a mere evolutionary mechanism that serves to perpetuate the species until humanity itself ceases to exist. Consequently, one might question why individuals should not simply pursue their own happiness, even at the expense of others, since it would not alter the final outcome. From this perspective, a nihilistic atheist could be seen as having a more pragmatic understanding of reality compared to those who do not share this outlook. I leave you, @Bradskii , and anyother atheist who disagrees the last word because this has gotten way off the topic.

Tinker Grey · May 29, 2025

Ophiolite said:
If you consider, as I do, that moral standards are an example of evolved behaviour then it is appropriately located, though Creation and Evolution would likely be an even closer fit.

A) It's a hijack from the OP (whether or not the OP joined in)
B) E&M is a better forum for the hijack

Tinker Grey · May 29, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
If there is truly nothing after death, then the events of life ultimately lose their lasting significance.

So? If a movie ends, was it not worth watching? (At least possibly.)

If I enjoy life, is it not worth living?

Live so as to make the world a better place regardless if there is anyone to remember it.

Ophiolite · May 29, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
If there is truly nothing after death, then the events of life ultimately lose their lasting significance.

So you consider that the only things of significance are, how shall I put it, actually significant are ones that last? How sad.

Oompa Loompa said:
For instance, if a perpetrator commits heinous acts such as torture and murder, the suffering experienced by the victim ceases to exist upon their death. Similarly, the pain endured by the victim’s family also disappears once they pass away.

But the pain and suffering experienced in the moment are very real. That's a bad thing.

Oompa Loompa said:
Consequently, one might question why individuals should not simply pursue their own happiness, even at the expense of others, since it would not alter the final outcome.

Well, it alters the final outcome of their lives.
Something remarkable occurred in this universe, a portion of the universe became self-aware, in a rather haphazard, confused and disconnected way. It also became able to increasingly understand at least some of the rest of the universe. It learnt to appreciate it, to use aspects of it that made that life less dangerous, more pleasant and to fashion tools to further enhance understanding. That's a remarkable gift and its significance is lasting because it occurred. Joy lasting a minute, rather than eternity is still joy. You seem unable to see that. How sad.

Oompa Loompa said:
From this perspective, a nihilistic atheist could be seen as having a more pragmatic understanding of reality compared to those who do not share this outlook.

Well, if you take a dark, negative view of the world, you'll likely end up with a dark negative view of the world.

Oompa Loompa said:
I leave you, @Bradskii , and anyother atheist who disagrees the last word because this has gotten way off the topic.

Since you have been talking explicitly to atheists and implicitly anti-theists, I would say is right on topic.

Oompa Loompa · May 29, 2025

Ophiolite said:
Since you have been talking explicitly to atheists and implicitly anti-theists, I would say is right on topic.

I dont know. That seems kind of a stretch. It seems the topic is more in line with pantheism than morality. So as much as I would love to continue the conversation, I want to play it safe.

Bradskii · May 29, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
You are evading the question. Do you not cease to exist after you die along with all your memories and experiences? Isn't there literally nothing after death, or do you believe that after death there remains some supernatural presence like a ghost?

I honestly thought that you wouldn't have to ask. I didn't exist before I was born and I'll return to that same state after I die.

dlamberth · May 29, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
It seems the topic is more in line with pantheism than morality.

I'd say Panentheism rather than Pantheism.

Bradskii · May 29, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
If there is truly nothing after death, then the events of life ultimately lose their lasting significance.

In the grand scheme of things? Yes, I agree. Consider two things. The first being the life and experiences of your great great x 10 grandfather. There is no grand significance to his life because the only impact he had on it was to continue your line of ancestors. All else is long forgotten and turned to dust.

"Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

The second is that at some point in the future someone will have the very last thought of you. It will then be as if you never existed. Now I can understand that some people find that terrifying. Actually, a lot of people would. Which is why all religions offer an afterlife. Dangle the carrot of eternal life anda lot of people will sign up.

My suggestion is to enjoy as much of the days that you have left as you can. Because this is not a dress rehearsal. You only get the one shot at it.

Oompa Loompa said:
Consequently, one might question why individuals should not simply pursue their own happiness, even at the expense of others, since it would not alter the final outcome.

As @Ophiolite said, we're not built like that. If you found that there was no afterlife, then would you pursue happiness at the expense of others? I'd say no. I'd like to think that you're better than that and that you don't need the carrot or the stick to live a morally worthwhile life.

If you were on that island then you'd vote no. And you'd have personally determined reasons for doing so. You wouldn't need to be told it was wrong.

SelfSim · May 29, 2025

Bradskii said:
In the grand scheme of things? Yes, I agree. Consider two things. The first being the life and experiences of your great great x 10 grandfather. There is no grand significance to his life because the only impact he had on it was to continue your line of ancestors. All else is long forgotten and turned to dust.
..
The second is that at some point in the future someone will have the very last thought of you. It will then be as if you never existed.

And I reckon therein lies the definition of the real afterlife .. ie the memories and some physical reminders that we leave behind in our offspring.

This also provides our real, (and perhaps an instinctual), reason behind 'the morality' of not letting anyone torture them as kids.

Anyway, it sure beats the notion that all kids are born with 'original sin'.

Fervent · May 29, 2025

Bradskii said:
That's what you think others believe. I wanted you to state your position by answering the question. Which you do below.

I'm working with entailments, not the inconsistent muddy notions people cling to

Bradskii said:
You might have missed the fact that you just did answer it. I highlighted it so you can see where. I have asked you for your opinion on torturing a child and you said 'it's wrong.' Well done. It took some time but we got there.

I'm well aware I answered it, you seem to not understand that I have maintained that my opinion doesn't matter. It doesn't help your case that I reccognize a genuine moral issue, because all your recognition of the intrinsic moral character does is demonstrate that you don't really believe that it's just personal preferences.

Bradskii said:
Now the question becomes whether people, like yourself, who believe it's wrong have personally decided that this 'objective truth' is justifiably true or whether they blindly accept it as being true. This is why I asked a couple of times if there are reasons available for not torturing a child other than 'it's an objective fact'.

What argument could possibly be had other than that it is intrinsically wrong? Not simply my opinion that it is wrong, but that it is in fact wrong. Which doesn't fit in relativism.

Bradskii said:
The question was obviously a simple one to answer. Others are more complex. More nuanced. But hey, I didn't want to tax you too much so I gave you an easy one. But whether these more difficult moral matters have justified reasons for being true (or false) or whether they are blindly accepted with no personal thought still stands.

Moral truths require agency since they are value juddgments, so unless there is an objective moral agent there can be no truth or falsity to moral claims.

Bradskii said:
You aren't the slightest bit interested in answering that so I haven't asked you. All the above is clarification for anyone else who has been following the thread. You only want to make claims and post statements and not involve yourself in messy things like discussions.

I'm not simply making claims, I'm not following you into the land of nonsequitor where somehow moral values are intrinsic but nothing more than personal preferences.

Fervent · May 29, 2025

Belk said:
OK. Tell us the methodology by which you determine there is something other then personal preference to morality. Tell us how we can test and repeat this methodology.

You'll meet Him one day.

Belk · May 29, 2025

Fervent said:
You'll meet Him one day.

In other words you have nothing but claims and are subject to the exact same limitations as every other human being who has ever lived. Welcome to the club. ^_^

Fervent · May 29, 2025

Belk said:
In other words you have nothing but claims and are subject to the exact same limitations as every other human being who has ever lived. Welcome to the club.

Not really, but as I said it's not a method but a person that makes the difference. I know moral truth because of Him, and the less of me and more of Him the more I recognize morality. Everytime you do what's right for the sake of it being right you acknowledge Him and condemn yourself.

Oompa Loompa · May 29, 2025

dlamberth said:
I'd say Panentheism rather than Pantheism.

I think you are correct.

Belk · May 29, 2025

Fervent said:
Not really, but as I said it's not a method but a person that makes the difference. I know moral truth because of Him, and the less of me and more of Him the more I recognize morality. Everytime you do what's right for the sake of it being right you acknowledge Him and condemn yourself.

I see. So your claim is that you are not subject to the same limitations of other mortals and this allows you access to see objective morality? If only I had a dime for every time I had heard that on this site from people who then go one to have morality that does not agree with one another.

Fervent · May 29, 2025

Belk said:
I see. So your claim is that you are not subject to the same limitations of other mortals and this allows you access to see objective morality? If only I had a dime for every time I had heard that on this site from people who then go one to have morality that does not agree with one another.

Human fallibility doesn't change what I've said, though we see through a mirror darkly now, it will all be clear in due time. Relativism is no morality at all, not simply a murky understanding of morality. To admit that there are moral truths is to admit a telos to the universe.

Belk · May 29, 2025

Fervent said:
Human fallibility doesn't change what I've said, though we see through a mirror darkly now, it will all be clear in due time. Relativism is no morality at all, not simply a murky understanding of morality. To admit that there are moral truths is to admit a telos to the universe.

Yeah yeah, heard all the grand posturing before. I'll leave you to pretend you are in possession of the capital T "Truth" all on your own.

What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Wanderer

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Senior Contributor

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

A non "-ist"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Similar threads