for a condescending attitude is; whether I will accept the existence of true atheists. Thank you for any help you can provide.:yawn:
That’s “have you never spelled a word ‘incorrectly’” and we are on a new thread now.
:yawn: So you don’t have an answer, just the spouting of more of the party line. When you can find a reasonable argument, I will be waiting.
It has become apparent that you are grasping when you are forced to use the sentence, "“answer this honestly if you’re capable”.
It seems to take a lot of words and side steps, to avoid real issues. So why are you waiting? Why not just answer?
If you have the time, The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer deals with this subject very nicely.
I suppose it would help if I had an understanding of what you believe “natural law” is and isn’t, based on the currently accepted facts and theories.Just, FYI I looking at Natural Law and whether real atheists exist . Or a written better
If I am asked a specific question, which is, of course why I am here, then I will provide an answer.
What is your moral (or ethical) base?
To avoid the obvious implications of the various sets and subsets of the definition of morals, I propose we use these specific definitions for this discussion. Agreed?
Perhaps many of us (nontheists) are just sick and tired of repeating the basics - social contract (Hobbes), golden rule (Jesus, among many others), and categorical imperative (Kant). These are all powerful bases for a system of ethics and morals that do not require belief in the supernatural, or some peculiar notion of rewards and punishments after death. Only the beginning, of course, but three minutes of checking into those concepts will give you the general outline, Texas Roofer.
As to who I’d rather found my wallet, I would be happy if either a ‘devout’ (presumably meaning they follow the Church’s teachings, not just say lots of rosaries and stuff) Catholic did so, or an ethical nontheist. If someone’s a jerk, it doesn’t matter to me if they’re religious or not, and likewise, if someone’s really thoughtful and upstanding, again, their religion or lack thereof doesn’t concern me. I recommend those three basic ethical principles I mentioned for theists as well!
I do use the term ‘nontheist’ since ‘atheist’ isn’t precise, in a way. Many, if not most, nontheists, do not categorically deny the existence of the supernatural, so much as we find the entire question of whether such things might exist to be rather pointless in the absence of any evidence either way. As in ‘we don’t Believe, in the existence or non-existence of deities, period.’ And that’s really the only generality one can make about nontheists (or atheists if you insist on using the term…I’d be careful with it though, since that leads to misconceptions), the same way one cannot make general statements about all theists (or religious people, but again, that can get imprecise) except that they do believe in the supernatural.
Just trying to be helpful!
And a rather well thought position, I should say.Perhaps many of us (nontheists) are just sick and tired of repeating the basics - social contract (Hobbes), golden rule (Jesus, among many others), and categorical imperative (Kant). These are all powerful bases for a system of ethics and morals that do not require belief in the supernatural, or some peculiar notion of rewards and punishments after death. Only the beginning, of course, but three minutes of checking into those concepts will give you the general outline, Texas Roofer.
As to who I’d rather found my wallet, I would be happy if either a ‘devout’ (presumably meaning they follow the Church’s teachings, not just say lots of rosaries and stuff) Catholic did so, or an ethical nontheist. If someone’s a jerk, it doesn’t matter to me if they’re religious or not, and likewise, if someone’s really thoughtful and upstanding, again, their religion or lack thereof doesn’t concern me. I recommend those three basic ethical principles I mentioned for theists as well!
I do use the term ‘nontheist’ since ‘atheist’ isn’t precise, in a way. Many, if not most, nontheists, do not categorically deny the existence of the supernatural, so much as we find the entire question of whether such things might exist to be rather pointless in the absence of any evidence either way. As in ‘we don’t Believe, in the existence or non-existence of deities, period.’ And that’s really the only generality one can make about nontheists (or atheists if you insist on using the term…I’d be careful with it though, since that leads to misconceptions), the same way one cannot make general statements about all theists (or religious people, but again, that can get imprecise) except that they do believe in the supernatural.
Just trying to be helpful!
I don’t get it. You have a post with a link to another post with another link to another post with another lin. Does it just go on forever? Is it circular?
Welcome. Do you actually have a question for us?
Actually, the Japanese invented the nested dolls, Sergei Maliutin simply copied them.
You quoted me asking one. It’s even followed by a tell-tale “?”
Nice trivia
you moral base is the moral base that all morals are based on!