Right Said Fred

[Nancy Hale]

I am an atheist and I don't believe 100% that god does not exist. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods not a claim that god does not exist.

my mistake, I thought that was agnostic.

 

[Nancy Hale]

Why can't you humans see that it is your particular beliefs that are causing hell on earth?

So you're saying our beliefs are incredibly powerful and create reality?
Like, if we all joined forces and believed really hard could we create a reality where (insert your personal utopia here)?

 

[durangodawood]

It's always a choice.
You make them in every aspect of your life every day. How do you decide which banana to buy? Which orange? Do you not buy them because they could be bad? That's a choice.
You're not going to know if it's good unless you buy it, take it home, and taste it.
Psalms 34:8 (kjv)
O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.
Or, choose to fear making a choice, but that is still a choice.

You chose examples where there obviously IS a rational choice. With bananas you typically have some information - their appearance, which is enough to make a choice if you know anything about bananas.

But if there's no information available to distinguish among the bananas - if theyre identical, then all you can do is select randomly. Is that really a choice in any meaningful way?

 

[Nancy Hale]

You chose examples where there obviously IS a valid choice. With bananas you typically have some information - their appearance, which is enough to make a choice if you know anything about bananas.

But if there's no information available to distinguish among the bananas - if theyre identical, then all you can do is select randomly. Is that really a choice in any meaningful way?

Most of the bananas look exactly the same. But, one row doesn't. It's different.
Have you ever read "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis? It explains why he chose Christianity over... I don't remember if he was agnostic or an atheist. J.R.R. Tolkien convinced him. They were best friends.

 

[durangodawood]

Most of the bananas look exactly the same. But, one row doesn't. It's different.
Have you ever read "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis? It explains why he chose Christianity over... I don't remember if he was agnostic or an atheist. J.R.R. Tolkien convinced him. They were best friends.

Yes, if you can see differences among the bananas pertinent to your knowledge of banana quality, then yes, you can make an actual choice. If not, you cant. Thats my point: if you have no info you dont decide not to make a choice... you simply cannot make a choice. There's no decision about it.... (unless you consider random selection "a choice", which to me renders the notion of choice meaningless).

I suspect Neil was referring to deliberately choosing to ignore an issue, shutting out information, in which case he's probably right.

I did read MC some time ago. Long enough ago that I cant recall why it didnt stick.

 

[Nancy Hale]

Yes, if you can see differences among the bananas pertinent to your knowledge of banana quality, then yes, you can make an actual choice. If not, you cant. Thats my point: if you have no info you dont decide not to make a choice... you simply cannot make a choice. There's no decision about it.... (unless you consider random selection "a choice", which to me renders the notion of choice meaningless).

I suspect Neil was referring to deliberately choosing to ignore an issue, shutting out information, in which case he's probably right.

I did read MC some time ago. Long enough ago that I cant recall why it didnt stick.

It's been about 35 years since I've read it, so I'm hesitant to paraphrase. It details how he came to realize he was making a choice being atheist, and the differences between religions, the broad difference: could humans ever find God on their own? Wouldn't God have to be searching for us? Wouldn't He have to be the one to give us the way to Him?
Which is the difference between Christianity and all other religions.
The whole thing is pretty long, but I think this chapter is the right part.

 

[durangodawood]

It's been about 35 years since I've read it, so I'm hesitant to paraphrase. It details how he came to realize he was making a choice being atheist, and the differences between religions, the broad difference: could humans ever find God on their own? Wouldn't God have to be searching for us? Wouldn't He have to be the one to give us the way to Him?
Which is the difference between Christianity and all other religions.
The whole thing is pretty long, but I think this chapter is the right part.

He makes no attempt at all to imagine a natural or even cultural explanation for his sense of right/wrong or just/unjust. He just assumes it must come from a higher being. That's where this portion of his argument falls very short for me.

 

[NeverL0ved]

How do you know murder is wrong?

I don't.

 

[NeverL0ved]

So the belief that human life is valuable, that all people are to be treated equally and that justice should be available to all regardless of race, class, wealth or religion are ideas that are destroying the world.

While ideas like if it feels good to you do it, never mind what affects it has on yourself or others if it benefits you do it, have no regard for fairness, people are there to be used and abused are somehow saving the world.

Why would it be logical to weigh value on the scales of belief?

 

[NeverL0ved]

So you're saying our beliefs are incredibly powerful and create reality?
Like, if we all joined forces and believed really hard could we create a reality where (insert your personal utopia here)?

No, I can't see how that would be possible. Since measuring reality by belief will only give us a inaccurate view of reality.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

He makes no attempt at all to imagine a natural or even cultural explanation for his sense of right/wrong or just/unjust. He just assumes it must come from a higher being. That's where this portion of his argument falls very short for me.

Morality is often treated as an absolute when it is not. For morals to be absolute and unchanging, it would have to be attributed to a higher power because at it is--cultural and naturally influenced morals are generally very subjective. Morality is an abstract concept; even if it's cultural, that culture would've evolved their morals over a very long period of time starting with our first major advancements as a species. Altruism is part of our social mechanic, and we're social because those who band together tend to have a higher survival rate. It has little to nothing to do with just being a good person or caring about others, on that level; if you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty, in a realistic sense people like Hitler, for example, can't even be called immoral because even though he killed millions of people, he was doing it for what was a, outside of the context of we consider to be moral, a justifiable cause. (not saying I agree with Hitler, just playing devil's advocate)

There is a reason why morality cannot be divorced from philosophy--without philosophy, it does not hold up to the cruel truths of naturalism.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

I don't.

Then you can't even define what is right/wrong. That's where your entire argument crumbles.

 

[NeverL0ved]

Atheists believe God doesn't exist - 100%
Agnostics chose not to decide (if you chose not to decide,you still have made a choice - Rush, freewill)
7.5 billion people believe they can't breathe unaided underwater- those numbers are very far from zero

I will return to this some other time.

 

[NeverL0ved]

Then you can't even define what is right/wrong. That's where your entire argument crumbles.

Why does it?

 

[Jok]

Why can't you humans see that it is your particular beliefs that are causing hell on earth?

No one is born with beliefs. They are attached to the child by the parents and the society around them after the fact. Show me one person on this planet that has a duplicate belief system of someone else 100%? (You will find this to be a impossibility) Can you even show me two Christians who believe the exact same thing, can you?

It's believing thing's that are destroying everything, not the other way around.

Intolerance vs tolerance is the heart of hell on Earth? Everything else is just a subcategory. To be more specific, intolerance towards things that are not causing harm. An atheist or a Christian or an agnostic can all be intolerant. And likewise each one of them can all be tolerant as well. It's not reserved for a specific belief system. Things are also not static in life. Who is pushing intolerance down people's throats TODAY is the question. What good does it do any of us to complain about the corrupt Catholic Church in the Middle Ages?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Morality is often treated as an absolute when it is not. For morals to be absolute and unchanging, it would have to be attributed to a higher power because at it is--cultural and naturally influenced morals are generally very subjective.

Isn't the morality of a higher power just as subjective? The higher power is deciding what is moral and what is not and how can you know that higher power won't change its mind?

 

[durangodawood]

Isn't the morality of a higher power just as subjective? The higher power is deciding what is moral and what is not and how can you know that higher power won't change its mind?

Subjective...... and arbitrary unless it relates to some actual facts about human life and living, in which case it can be derived right here on earth rather than from somewhere else.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Isn't the morality of a higher power just as subjective? The higher power is deciding what is moral and what is not and how can you know that higher power won't change its mind?

Let me make an analogy; Say I make a character design--we will call her Lily. I create her looks, her personality, and give her a name. I now own the rights to the character 'Lily'.

Let's say now that I decide to lease her out to people to use her in films. I decide on which guidelines they must follow including how Lily is presented in their work. There's nothing subjective about what can/cannot be done with her, because I created her. I set the rules, not the people using her. They don't need to know my reasoning behind it at all.


I believe the same concept would apply to a higher power. If we were actually created by a higher being, as it's creation, it would be the one attributing traits and rules to us--and changing those rules doesn't make them non-absolute, since it is an authority figure. Besides, absolute is referring to something that is independent on other factors; not something unchanging.

Humans can't attribute these things to other humans, since at base level we're all equal and anything is fair game.


..Besides, let's face it; If everything in existence was created by a higher power, we can assume it also created the concept of morality anyways. It's not bound by subjectivity at that point if it created the very concepts.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Subjective...... and arbitrary unless it relates to some actual facts about human life and living, in which case it can be derived right here on earth rather than from somewhere else.

Even if you told me murder is factually bad for humanity, that doesn't really make it immoral for me as I am not obligated to care about you or anyone else. Morality stands independent of facts, as while facts can be in disagreement with each other( I.E "People generally want to survive" but "Murderers exist and cannot be punished outside of a legal system" ), morality cannot actively contradict itself lest it becomes subjective to interpretation.

This is exactly why we can't derive morality from anything here on Earth.

 

[durangodawood]

Even if you told me murder is factually bad for humanity, that doesn't really make it immoral for me as I am not obligated to care about you or anyone else. Morality stands independent of facts, as while facts can be in disagreement with each other( I.E "People generally want to survive" but "Murderers exist and cannot be punished outside of a legal system" ), morality cannot actively contradict itself lest it becomes subjective to interpretation.

This is exactly why we can't derive morality from anything here on Earth.

Grounding morality in some absolute that you cannot demonstrate doesnt oblige anyone either.