I am an atheist thread 3

[Skavau]

Do we have another foaming at the mouth anti-atheist? I think we do.

freesoulhope:

All human beings initially come to obedience in fear of punishment (no human is good); and then, hopefully they eventually learn to love good things. You are no different. I would describe a Christian convert as being infinetly honest, somebody who admits that they’re are a sinner, and that they need God in order to see value in life and become a better person. That takes a strong character, and a mature adult, in order to accept that one has flaws and selfish desires; not a dishonest person.

Absolutely.

So how is this relevant to anything? All you’re saying is that converts to Christianity are honest in their self-evaluation and convictions.

freesoulhope:

Secondly; there no such thing as evil, if materialism is true. Your charge of evil is meaningless. There is only evolution; and your guilt or distaste for any act, is merely a deceptive illusion brought on by a chemical reaction in your brain.

Before declaring that there is no good nor evil under materialism please actually define ‘good’ and ‘evil’ first.

freesoulhope:

You have no more value then an atom; in fact, your just an object like any other biological organism.

So we will elevate ourselves. Why?

Because we can.

freesoulhope:

Your belief that some act or behavior is wrong, is like somebody claiming that they visit Mars everyday through a hidden door behind a wardrobe. Your either hullucinating, or your simply being dishonest.

I believe that raping another human is wrong. I am neither hallucinating nor being dishonest in that standpoint.

freesoulhope:

Its the materialistic concequences of atheism that reduces us to pathetic nobodies; you included.

A Buddhist can be an Atheist, so there are no intrinsic materialistic consequences of Atheism.

freesoulhope:

Nobody i know has ever claimed that the number four is real. However; the number 4 can measure the Quantity of objectively real objects. It is true that there are four pigeons, if there are in fact four pigeons. If there are only three pigeons; then i am either lieing or hullucinating.

If the number four cannot represent real things, then it has no objective authority as far as “measuring” the objective “truth” is concerned.

Absolutely.

A good thing then that the number 4 does represent real things.

freesoulhope:

The same problem arises in human invented Ethics. When it comes to the claim of good and evil you must have an objective basis for claiming that a given act is subject to moral judgement. What is you objective measure?

1. Someone inflicts upon the rights of another individual with the purpose of causing harm (and possibly pleasure)
2. The Individual suffers from this and is in pain either emotionally or physically
3. This is evil (Give or take the effects of two)

This essentially leads to an objective presumption of personal liberty. In a pluralistic society (i.e: the real world) No human being shares the same moral values and the ultimate maximum for morality (for everyone) is to provide the individual freedom for everyone to impose their own standards for themselves.

freesoulhope:

When you claim that a thing is wrong, you are implying that the thing is other then how it should or ought to be, irrespective of other peoples opinon. 4+4 ought to equal 8 regardles of whether or not i agree.

Your understanding of morality appears nothing more than imposition of force. Under your world view, morality exists as a deontological framework. A system which only asserts that some actions considered ‘sinful’ are universally forbidden. This is simply not adaptable in the real world. We have people with differing values on what is and what is not moral. We cannot enforce a specific system which infringes on their own personal view of morality because that is nothing short of totalitarianism - whatever the justification.

What we can do is establish a system of co-operation which as I have said above, allows every individual the maximum personal liberty to put their values into their live. The ‘co-operation’ is that an individuals right to their liberty ends at the tip of my nose.

Moreover, you also make the error of the naturalistic fallacy. Ethics is not fact based, it is value based.

freesoulhope:

My subjective opinon about the sum has no authority over the objective answer. In other words; a things is wrong despite whether or not people agree. Subjectivism has no authority over truth. So unless you are speaking about a morality which is grounded in an objectively perfect God, then you are not really talking about good and evil; you are talking about likes and dislikes.

The irony is frankly delicious.

What is the ultimate measure of doing good under your world view? It is what God wants. It is what God likes and it is what God dislikes. It is consequently infinitely subjective and totally arbitrary. I ask you this: Is something good because God has decreed it or does God decree it because it is good?

freesoulhope:

It is true that you don’t like being punched in the face, but it is not true that it is “immoral” to punch somebody in the face.

It is immoral. If the other individual does not wish to be punched in the face, the individual is not consenting to the action. It then becomes an imposition of privacy, and an imposition of force.

Which seems to be how you measure morality.

 

[Righteousone]

I just today thanked my sweetheart for a lovely evening. I have plenty of people to thank, and don’t need to give the credit they deserve to an imaginary bully in the sky.

You’ll change your mind when you breathe your last. All atheists do…

 

[Skavau]

Righteousone:

You’ll change your mind when you breathe your last. All atheists do…

And we have the tirade of rhetoric.

Good day.

 

[Righteousone]

I often wonder why an atheist would come on a forum, especially a Catholic one, they must be curious to want to know about Christ. If they say ‘no way’, then why are you here?
Do you feel something in your hearts that is restless? Or are you just bragging to the world your unbeliefs.

 

[Skavau]

I often wonder why an atheist would come on a forum, especially a Catholic one, they must be curious to want to know about Christ. If they say ‘no way’, then why are you here?
Do you feel something in your hearts that is restless? Or are you just bragging to the world your unbeliefs.

I wouldn’t get any delusions of grandeur (or pomposity).

I also visit Muslim forums.

 

[Minnie31]

I often wonder why an atheist would come on a forum, especially a Catholic one, they must be curious to want to know about Christ. If they say ‘no way’, then why are you here?
Do you feel something in your hearts that is restless? Or are you just bragging to the world your unbeliefs.

And why would a Catholic visit an atheist thread? Do you question your faith?

People are curious and like to learn from each other.

 

[Jonathan82]

you still didn’t answer the question.

 

[Jonathan82]

If your ultimate view of God and Jesus, Allah or whatever is always gonna be that they don’t exist, then you are wasting your time in trying to learn about our customs if thats it? or how we are with our families if thats it? because it simply is not productive. You should focus on something that you believe in, like chess.

 

[freesoulhope]

Do we have another foaming at the mouth anti-atheist? I think we do.

I am agains’t flawed philosphy. You are saying that i am wrong, when in reality i have nothing to feel guilty about; that is why i am foaming at the mouth.

So we will elevate ourselves. Why?

Because we can…

I can invent all kinds of value, and give the objects around me values, but if i am honest with my self, i know that nothing has objective value, or any moral significance, because i my self invented it. Its a fairy tale

I believe that raping another human is wrong. I am neither hallucinating nor being dishonest in that standpoint…

The fact that you have a belief is not dishonest, but to claim that an objective act is wrong, just because it contradicts you subjective opinon about how people should be treated, is a fallacy.

A Buddhist can be an Atheist, so there are no intrinsic materialistic consequences of Atheism…

Human beings invent things; one of those things is buddism.

A good thing then that the number 4 does represent real things…

yes

1. Someone inflicts upon the rights of another individual with the purpose of causing harm (and possibly pleasure)
2. The Individual suffers from this and is in pain either emotionally or physically
3. This is evil (Give or take the effects of two)

This essentially leads to an objective presumption of .

No it leads to a “subjective” assumption. If i claim that you have rights, this might be objectively true in terms of what philosophy your soceity practices; but it is not objectively true that, by you intrinsic nature of being human and alive, you automatically have objective human rights; just because you exist. You have those rights because people give them to you; not because it is objectively true that you “should” or “ought” to be treated with respect. Under naturalism, human beings are nothing more then animals, regardless of whether or not we invent fantasys about having human rights and values.

Your understanding of morality appears nothing more than imposition of force. .

Then so is any system of morality.

I am against abortion being legal, yet i am forced to accept that it is legal. I might like to murder people, yet i am forced to go to prison.

I fail to understand your point.

Moral law is simply fact. It is either a fact that something is wrong, or it is not. If it is an objective fact; then whether you like it or not, you are in the objective wrong.

Moreover, you also make the error of the naturalistic fallacy. Ethics is not fact based, it is value based…

If it is not fact based, then it follows logically that it is not true.

I fail to understand why you cannot see that.

The irony is frankly delicious.?.

The true irony is that you reject God, but you can’t quite bring yourself to frow away morality and accept that we are nothing more then animals. fantasies die hard.

Does God decree it because it is good?.

God decrees it because he is perfectly Good; not only in will, but in nature. He is perfection, he is love, in will and nature. God is not defined by a concept of Good; Gods very being, defines what is good and what is not. Therefore if God is the objective root of being, perfect goodness is the root of all being; so every act you do, will be measured by God

It is immoral. If the other individual does not wish to be punched in the face, the individual is not consenting to the action. It then becomes an imposition of privacy, and an imposition of force…

It is wrong according to your subjective philosphy; it is niether good or bad according to objective reality. You can be an atheist and believe in right and wrong, but you cannot justify calling somebody wrong by pointing out that a given act hurts somebody. Human beings have no objective rights; they invent them. Its a fairy tale. I do no objective wrong by killing those who do not please me.

 

[Skavau]

freesoulhope:

I am agains’t flawed philosphy. You are saying that i am wrong, when in reality i have nothing to feel guilty about; that is why i am foaming at the mouth.

Not strickly true.

I say that your beliefs have no objective empirical evidence.

Moreover, Atheism is not a philosophy.

freesoulhope:

I can invent all kinds of value, and give the objects around me values, but if i am honest with my self, i know that nothing has objective value, or any moral significance, because i my self invented it. Its a fairy tale

In the grand scheme of the universe we have absolutely no value whatsoever. The universe can go on existing with or without our existence.

So what is your point?

freesoulhope:

The fact that you have a belief is not dishonest, but to claim that an objective act is wrong, just because it contradicts you subjective opinon about how people should be treated, is a fallacy.

What fallacy is this? And how do you define subjective?

Do you define subjective as something that not everyone agrees with or do you define subjective as something that is not applicable to everyone?

freesoulhope:

No it leads to a “subjective” assumption. If i claim that you have rights, this might be objectively true in terms of what philosophy your soceity practices; but it is not objectively true, that by you intrinsic nature of being human and alive, you automatically have objective rights; just because you exist.

Absolutely.

Human morality takes a presumption of co-operation. It takes a presumption of what one ought or ought not do. If you reject the idea of ‘co-operation’ in that then you ultimately reject morality.

Morality is an entirely human affair - which is practiced by humans and invented by humans.

freesoulhope:

Then so is any system of morality.

I am against abortion being legal, yet i am forced to accept that it is legal. I might like to murder people, yet i am forced to go to prison.

Regarding your example of murder and it being an imposition of force, you forget the entire purpose of the reason behind declaring that murder is wrong. The reason that murder is wrong is because of a philosophy that runs contrary to imposition of force. To murder someone is to impose your position upon them and enforce a fate on them that they have no intent of receiving. No human wants to receive this fate and it is in the interest of a society of people to enact laws against it.

freesoulhope:

Moral law is simply fact. It is either a fact that something is wrong, or it is not. If it is an objective fact; then whether you like it or not, you are in the objective wrong.

‘Moral Law’ is only fact in so much that it satisfies an ethical argument and that it satisfied the purpose of morality.

freesoulhope:

If it is not fact based, then it follows logically that it is not true.

We give ethics meaning by simply acknowledging it.

freesoulhope:

The true irony is that you reject God, but you can’t quite bring yourself to frow away morality and accept that we are nothing more then animals. fantasies die hard.

This is not a ‘fantasy’. It is a standpoint which asserts that humanity ought to co-exist.

freesoulhope:

God decrees it because he is perfectly Good; not only in will, but in nature. He is perfection, he is love, in will and nature. God is not defined by a concept of Good; Gods very being, defines what is good and what is not.

So then you ultimately by consequence reduce moral assertions to sheer arbitrariness. God could decree rape and under your own world view it would be perfectly applicable.

I fail to see the attraction.

Freesoul, why do you do good?

 

[Skavau]

If your ultimate view of God and Jesus, Allah or whatever is always gonna be that they don’t exist, then you are wasting your time in trying to learn about our customs if thats it? or how we are with our families if thats it? because it simply is not productive. You should focus on something that you believe in, like chess.

With that argument, you’ve negated all interest in fiction as well. Fiction is not real and yet by engaging it is one wasting his or her time?

 

[_A]

You’ll change your mind when you breathe your last. All atheists do…

Since you could not have any knowledge about this, you are either lying or joking. Which is it?

 

[_A]

And why would a Catholic visit an atheist thread? Do you question your faith?

People are curious and like to learn from each other.

Thanks, Minnie…saved me a few keystrokes.

 

[_A]

You should focus on something that you believe in, like chess.

Don’t ‘should’ on me.

 

[freesoulhope]

Not strickly true.

Human morality takes a presumption of co-operation. It takes a presumption of what one ought or ought not do. If you reject the idea of ‘co-operation’ in that then you ultimately reject morality.?

Moral obligation, apart from human force, is therefore not objectively real. And idea, that is not rooted in objective truth, is just an idea.

We give ethics meaning by simply acknowledging it.

This is not a ‘fantasy’. It is a standpoint which asserts that humanity ought to co-exist. ?

A fantasy is something which is not objectively true.

So then you ultimately by consequence reduce moral assertions to sheer arbitrariness. God could decree rape and under your own world view it would be perfectly applicable.

I fail to see the attraction.

Freesoul, why do you do good?

Because it is Gods will

The reason why we can sense to some degree that a thing is good, can be for two reasons.

1. The act or deed contradicts the law which is written on are hearts by God. We do not just contradict Gods personal “opinon” about how we should act; we contradict Gods nature of being. We contradict the root of all reality. Under God, my free personal act is either right or wrong regardless of whether or not people agree.
2. It is purely a biological and subjective phenomina which is the result of blind chemical stimulas in our brains. In other words, the only reason you think a thing is wrong, is not because you are good or because there is something specail or true about “your way of seeing things”, it is because your brain has been randomely wired that way. If your brain did not release chemicals which gave you a sense of guilt; then, unless you value God, there would be very little encoraging you, above your own human survival, to commit acts of virtue and unselfish love.

Regardless of what you “believe”, Number one is the only resonable basis for concluding that a human being is obliged or should act in a Moral manner. Rape is not an objectively “perfect” act, therefore it is immoral. If God does not exist, then moral law is just a means to control. Human beings are just animals and are acting according to there desires and stimulas; and like animals they have no obligation, above human opinion, to practice virtue.

 

[Skavau]

Welcome Skavu and AnAtheist. I hope you stay around, and even though smith does repeat and decline to read answers, I don’t mind going over basic principles several times.
I think it is important

Absolutely.

I am incredibly patient with repeating myself.

 

[_A]

Because it is Gods will

I think this suggests that if you did not believe in your god, you would not be ‘good’.
I guess you better keep going to church. It will be that or jail for someone with that attitude.

 

[Righteousone]

Since you could not have any knowledge about this, you are either lying or joking. Which is it?

It is fact my friend.

 

[Righteousone]

And why would a Catholic visit an atheist thread? Do you question your faith?

People are curious and like to learn from each other.

Catholics would visit an atheist thread to tell them that God exists…I do not need to question my faith, I know there is a God, and it is sad when you find out that there is, you will fall on your knees and scream in terror.

Still haven’t answered my question…

 

[Skavau]

freesoulhope:

Moral obligation, apart from human force, is therefore not objectively real.

It is real in so much that it is a shared human idea. It comes alive in the co-operation of humanity. For a single iota or co-operation based either on mutual interest or desire of progression - you have a recognition of morality.

freesoulhope:

A fantasy is something which is not objectively true.

It is an assertion. Let us say that I assert that I like peanuts.

This is not objectively true. The idea is only in my mind. Is it therefore a fantasy?

freesoulhope:

Because it is Gods will

So if God willed for you not to do good, then you would in fact not do good? You are presenting a system of obedience rather than morality. And although the consequences of doing something for ‘God’s will’ is clear as far as I am concerned, I want to make sure that we are on the same page:

You did not answer the question though. If God commanded rape, would you do it?

I suggest you rename your argument to ‘Disobedience causes subjective morality’.

freesoulhope:

1. The act or deed contradicts the law which is written on are hearts by God. We do not just contradict Gods personal “opinon” about how we should act; we contradict Gods nature of being. We contradict the root of all reality. Under God, my free personal act is either right or wrong regardless of whether or not people agree.

So a contradiction of nature is wrong? Do you want me to go into the fallacy of that?

freesoulhope:

1. It is purely a biological and subjective phenomina which is the result of blind chemical stimulas in our brains. In other words, the only reason you think a thing is wrong, is not because you are good or because there is something specail or true about “your way of seeing things”, it is because your brain has been randomely wired that way. If your brain did not release chemicals which gave you a sense of guilt; then, unless you value God, there would be very little encoraging you, above your own human survival, to commit acts of virtue and unselfish love.

So I ask then, assuming the above is true. But then your final few lines there could be used to assert good reason for a co-operative society.

What is the difference between you and me? You do good, why? Because ‘God’ says so? Why obey God?