Is Morality possible without God

  • Thread starter Thread starter defendermigs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am pointing out that our logic is build around first observing the reality that we can observe so far, which is within this universe. If time doesn’t exist, for example, before the universe came into existence, then our logic fails there. This is because what does it mean to say, “Before”, or “first cause” or anything else like that. Nothing is time linear dependent in a reality like that. Things can both exist and not exist as well. How does that make logical sense? for example. Our logical rules were created by first observing this universe and what is restricted within this observed universe. I don’t know if that logic works outside of this universe.
 
No I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t know if there is a supernatural or not for sure, but I am unconvinced that there is such a thing based on the bad evidence and arguments that the deists and theists present so far. I also believe that everyone is agnostic about the truth claim that the supernatural exists since there’s currently no way to detect it at all at this point by anyone. So everyone is honestly some sort of agnostic theist or atheist on the subject of the supernatural. However, those that claim to actually know the supernatural is there, like the christians, have for 2000 years still failed to actually produce any way to determine this at all is actually the case or not. They claim to know the supernatural is there, but have presented zero demonstrable evidence of it. So for 2000 years of failure, why do we have to keep taking this stuff seriously? Oh it’s because they can’t keep their religious rituals and practices to themselves. They try to legalize christianity as the rule of the government onto everyone else.
 
Damian said:
No I’m an agnostic atheist.
Click to expand...
You might reconsider the meanings of the terms: Agnostic and Atheist. It appears you are unsure about your stance and so ambivalently adopt both to describe yourself.
 
Last edited:
Gnostic is about knowledge claims
Theist statements are about what you are convinced off.
Ex: Person A drove a car into a tree. They are Gnostic to the explanation to their neighbor as to why their car is messed up since they directly experienced the event first hand.
Neighbor believes the explanation of why the car is messed up, even though they did not experience the event in first person.
The neighbor understands the claim is within the realm of possibility, sees the damaged car, etc.
So the neighbor is agnostic theist to the claim of why the car is damaged. They don’t know for a certainty that is the reason why the car is messed up, but believe the explanation given is most probable so far.
Person A is gnostic theist to the claim of why the car is damaged. He/She both knows and believes why the car is messed up.

That’s all I’m trying to distinguish when I say you can be both gnostic/agnostic and theist/atheist about claims of the supernatural.
 
Last edited:
So, are you an Atheist or an Agnostic? You can’t have it both ways. Sounds like your ambiance is ongoing.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I explained the difference and you didn’t explain why that explanation did not work on your end. What are you disagreeing with other than just being disagreeable?
 
He’s just pointing out that your device is a little nonsensical.

Agnostic is uncertain.
Atheist is a posit.

An uncertain posit is nonsense.
 
Where in the example did it state that being an atheist is a statement of knowledge? It is a statement of belief, what you are convinced of, not know you know to be the actual true case or not. How was that not clear? Or are you just ignoring that clarification of terms just to be argumentative, but ignoring what was actually presented?
 
What is presented, again, is nonsensical because there is no material difference between believing something and knowing something.
 
Knowing something to be true about reality informs your belief/conclusions for future similar events of reality since this is based on the assumption that reality doesn’t have miracles in it to change the predictive nature of reality.
IE: Experiencing gravity by dropping a ball. We now know that is a truth of reality, until new information changes this truth of reality. Now we can believe/conclude that other objects will operate similarly to the ball drop in the future. We can make mathematical models based off known tested experiments to make accurate belief claims about the future.
IE: After finding a heart in humans (knowledge claim based on direct testing) I believe I have a heart even though I have yet to cut into my chest and see my heart.

That’s the nuance I am pointing out.

1+2 = 3. 1,2 are experienced events of reality. +,= is our applied logic to that data from what we understand about reality. 3 is our beliefs/conclusions. You’re arguing that everything in the equation is the same and I’m arguing the difference between the Left side and the Right side it seems.
 
Last edited:
Damian said:
Knowing something to be true about reality informs your belief/conclusions…
Click to expand...
Knowing is having a high certainty that something is true.
Believing is having a lower, but still reasonable certainty that something is true.

They simply describe different points on the continuum of certainty.
 
I assure you, the Old Colonel is always agreeable, charming and socially adept as well. Yet, your perpetual lack of clarity in stating your position about the existence of God is notable throughout this thread. The only issue I have with your explanation is that it merely conveys, once again, your ongoing lack of clarity as to whether you are an Atheist or an Agnostic. You cannot be both at once.
 
No disagreement here. But theistic claims and gnostic claims are two different labels of certainty being used. One is to know something is the case, the other is to believe something is the case. As an agnostic atheist, I am clearly stating that I don’t know this to be the case but am pointing out where that I am not convinced. So on the number-line of certainty then, I am pointing out where I am not and pointing out where I am. I am a 1 on the scale of 0-10. Since only 0, and 10 are locations of gnostic claims of absolute certainty. 1-9 are scales of not claiming certainty but belief of possibility. I’m a 1 since there is currently zero data that indicates the supernatural is even possible at all then but open to actual data changing this position.
 
Last edited:
Your comments are the source of the confusion, not mine. I can’t fix that for you. Only you can clear that up. So, explain how you can be an Atheist and an Agnostic at the same time and we’ll be good to go, soldier. Hoorah! 😎
 
Damian said:
No disagreement here. But theistic claims and gnostic claims are two different labels of certainty being used.
Click to expand...
You don’t get to judge when one crosses over from belief into knowledge. That’s the issue with continuums, especially as they pertain to non-quantifiable phenomena.

“Where does gravity come from?” And the switch in the answer we’ve had during my life is an excellent, excellent example of this.
 
What? You’re going to keep ducking my question? At least you’re honest. 😎

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Not judging, just pointing out in an example for communication how I understand it. If you have a different example that works that needs to clarify a point, then present it. That’s all I’m doing. You can do the same if you want, but disagreement without clarification is just argumentative and annoying.
 
You didn’t have a question to address.
TheOldColonel said:
Your comments are the source of the confusion, not mine. I can’t fix that for you. Only you can clear that up. So, explain how you can be an Atheist and an Agnostic at the same time and we’ll be good to go, soldier. Hoorah! 😎
Click to expand...
Where is the ?? in there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top