Morality without God?

[Aloysium]

Not in this context. I mean behaviors that promote evolutionary success. Cooperation, close families, some level of fidelity, etc. Stuff that lets you live a long life with lots of DNA spread around.

a long life does not promote evolutionary success;
getting rid of old ppl would appear to be more effective in reaching these goals
as would eradicating any mutations

anyway, this is all beside the point
seriously, why i should care at all about evolutionary success
what’s in it for me

 

[tolstoy]

a long life does not promote evolutionary success;
getting rid of old ppl would appear to be more effective in reaching these goals
as would eradicating any mutations

anyway, this is all beside the point
seriously, why i should care at all about evolutionary success
what’s in it for me

What’s in it for you? The very reason for your existence (at least in regards to your question: getting as much of your DNA into the next generation as possible. Your long life will allow you to manage your progeny.

 

[Bradski]

But it appears as if you are saying no one reported Jesus’ resurrection for 40 to 60 years (when the gospels are purported to have been written). Is this your position?

Reported in any detail? Yes, that’s my position. Paul mentions it in passing in Corininthians and tells that lots of people saw him alive after his crucifixion. (Over 500! Count ‘em! 500!). As I’ve read on times – ‘it would be hard to dispute the credibility of half a thousand witnesses’. Say what? Well, 500 people saw me walk on water at Bondi twenty years ago. How can you not believe that…

But nobody disputed the numbers? Someone said – hang on, I wasn’t there? Well, this isn’t exactly a Youtube video that Paul posted. This is at a time when the majority of people couldn’t read. I know you don’t think that copies of Paul’s letters were photocopied and handed out at street corners throughout the area, but let’s just take a moment to think about how information was disseminated. Word of mouth. And I know that you know how unreliable that is.

So fast forward from Paul a few decades and we have others writing about the event trying to make sense of biblical prophecy, trying to tie it in with what people believed at that time and keen to put a positive spin on it. Were there any written records that would contradict anything that they wrote? No. All they had was each-others writings and I’m not sure they were available because each account varies. Which is what you’d expect if people are individually compiling a story that needs embellishing.

Firstly, why would St. Paul have had to describe it “in some detail” (meaning, I presume, written about it)? Were you aware that St. Paul preached “boldly for the space of three months” in the temple (Acts 19:8)? How can you be sure that he didn’t describe it ‘in some detail" during those 3 months’ preaching?

I don’t know that he did or did not. And neither does anyone else. So the point is moot.

If I may ask you: what makes you certain that the reports are definitely correct?

getting rid of old ppl would appear to be more effective in reaching these goals as would eradicating any mutations

I think you’ll find that nature does an excellent job at both. Luck for us that we have reached a point where medical science can thwart that durn evolutuion.

 

[PRmerger]

If I may ask you: what makes you certain that the reports are definitely correct?

Well, Bradksi, of course you may ask me! I thought we were past that by now.

I would glare at you if we met on my patio and you asked me how the weather was.

My answer:
I first believed because I was told it happened by people I know and love and trust. Then I investigated. And it made sense.

And then I read some more and everything just fell into place.

And it was confirmed by logic, reason and evidence.

The best logical argument for the resurrection I’ve read is this:

Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ
by Peter Kreeft and Ron Tacelli

The Strategy: Five Possible Theories

We believe Christ’s resurrection can be proved with at least as much certainty as any universally believed and well-documented event in ancient history. To prove this, we do not need to presuppose anything controversial (e.g. that miracles happen). But the skeptic must also not presuppose anything (e.g. that they do not). We do not need to presuppose that the New Testament is infallible, or divinely inspired or even true. We do not need to presuppose that there really was an empty tomb or post-resurrection appearances, as recorded. We need to presuppose only two things, both of which are hard data, empirical data, which no one denies: The existence of the New Testament texts as we have them, and the existence (but not necessarily the truth) of the Christian religion as we find it today.

The question is this: Which theory about what really happened in Jerusalem on that first Easter Sunday can account for the data?

There are five possible theories: Christianity, hallucination, myth, conspiracy and swoon.
1 Jesus died Jesus rose Christianity
2 Jesus died Jesus didn’t rise—apostles deceived Hallucination
3 Jesus died Jesus didn’t rise—apostles myth-makers Myth
4 Jesus died Jesus didn’t rise—apostles deceivers Conspiracy
5 Jesus didn’t die Swoon

 

[PRmerger]

Reported in any detail? Yes, that’s my position. Paul mentions it in passing in Corininthians and tells that lots of people saw him alive after his crucifixion. (Over 500! Count ‘em! 500!). As I’ve read on times – ‘it would be hard to dispute the credibility of half a thousand witnesses’. Say what? Well, 500 people saw me walk on water at Bondi twenty years ago. How can you not believe that…

But nobody disputed the numbers? Someone said – hang on, I wasn’t there? Well, this isn’t exactly a Youtube video that Paul posted. This is at a time when the majority of people couldn’t read. I know you don’t think that copies of Paul’s letters were photocopied and handed out at street corners throughout the area, but let’s just take a moment to think about how information was disseminated. Word of mouth. And I know that you know how unreliable that is.

So fast forward from Paul a few decades and we have others writing about the event trying to make sense of biblical prophecy, trying to tie it in with what people believed at that time and keen to put a positive spin on it. Were there any written records that would contradict anything that they wrote? No. All they had was each-others writings and I’m not sure they were available because each account varies. Which is what you’d expect if people are individually compiling a story that needs embellishing.

So I’ve read this over 3 times and I am still uncertain of your position:

Did the apostles lie or were they deceived into thinking Jesus actually rose from the dead?

If they lied, and all 12 apostles (save for St. John) were martyred for the faith, why did none of them recant?

You had posited “There are enough examples of people sacrificing themselves (and others) for something they had been told and believed to be true”, but this is if you believe they were deceived.

Do you have any examples of people dying horrific deaths for something they knew to be a lie?

Also, what did you think of my “video criticism” you asked for earlier? That one made me smile.

 

[Bradski]

Well, Bradksi, of course you may ask me! I thought we were past that by now.
My answer:
I first believed because I was told it happened by people I know and love and trust. Then I investigated. And it made sense.
And then I read some more and everything just fell into place.
And it was confirmed by logic, reason and evidence.
The best logical argument for the resurrection I’ve read is this:

Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ

The first part needs more of a reply than I have time for. Off for a week’s hols tomorrow – hope I remember to return to this.

In regard to the second, coincidentally I read the article lunchtime. Wasn’t impressed. Maybe longer reply later.

So I’ve read this over 3 times and I am still uncertain of your position:

They didn’t lie. Well, I’m being generous in assuming that. In any case, as you say, a lot of people went through a lot of trouble holding the beliefs they did. It’s difficult doing that if you know it’s not true. So I think they believed it. Same as you. But whatever they saw, whatever they heard, whatever they were told, they fitted it all in with what they wanted to believe. Everything that supported what they wanted to believe was accepted and written about and, I’m sure, embellished. And anything that didn’t was glossed over.

This is something we all do. The more important the beliefs are to us, the easier it to deceive ourselves. The most difficult thing is stepping away from what you believe and looking at it in a detached manner with a critical eye with all the scepticism that you can bring to it. An exceptionally tough thing to do. I find it as hard as anyone else would.

You had posited “There are enough examples of people sacrificing themselves (and others) for something they had been told and believed to be true”, but this is if you believe they were deceived.
Do you have any examples of people dying horrific deaths for something they knew to be a lie?

As I said, it’s possible to die for something in which you believe. But it doesn’t have to be true. You just have to think it is. If you believe it strongly enough, you can sacrifice your own life for others, poison your own children and fly planes into buildings.

But no, I don’t offhand know of anyone dying for what they knew to be a lie. Although I’m sure there must have been some who did so for more than just the lie.

Also, what did you think of my “video criticism” you asked for earlier? That one made me smile.

Prefered the smoking woman. But like them all…

 

[Gricken]

This is something we all do. The more important the beliefs are to us, the easier it to deceive ourselves. The most difficult thing is stepping away from what you believe and looking at it in a detached manner with a critical eye with all the scepticism that you can bring to it. An exceptionally tough thing to do. I find it as hard as anyone else would.

So would this be true of believing in atheism as well?

 

[Peter_Plato]

So would this be true of believing in atheism as well?

No, I don’t think so because when you swallow the pill of atheism, it comes with an immunity to mere belief, at least, so I’m told. Skepticism can, then, only apply to “other” beliefs and not to one’s skeptically arrived at beliefs because if it did the entire belief system would collapse. One cannot be skeptical of one’s own skepticism. What would that do except kick you to the curb of faith? Atheists detest that possibility more than anything and are entirely immune to it anyway. At least that’s the belief of atheism.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So would this be true of believing in atheism as well?

That might depend on which form of atheism you have in mind (strong, weak, apatheistic, ignostic…).

 

[PRmerger]

They didn’t lie.

So who was it that people thought they saw after Jesus died? Was it a mass hallucination?

But whatever they saw, whatever they heard, whatever they were told, they fitted it all in with what they wanted to believe.

Please proffer your explanations of what could have mimicked a resurrected body of Jesus.

And it needed to have been seen by a lot of people (not necessarily 500) for Christianity to have been spread on this deception/hallucination.

 

[Stillness]

There seems to be no true morality. Or I should say, “higher” morality, nothing inherent in the universe. Most of our behaviors can be explained through either biological functions or through intellectual assumptions.
By intellectual assumptions, I mean that if we accept certain assumptions as being true, then our ideas of morality will flow from them, even if they would otherwise be contrary to our animal nature.

But in the grand scheme, there is no good or evil, no “right” and “wrong” behavior. There are only things that happen and things that don’t happen.

 

[Hamlet123]

There seems to be no true morality. Or I should say, “higher” morality, nothing inherent in the universe. Most of our behaviors can be explained through either biological functions or through intellectual assumptions.
By intellectual assumptions, I mean that if we accept certain assumptions as being true, then our ideas of morality will flow from them, even if they would otherwise be contrary to our animal nature.

But in the grand scheme, there is no good or evil, no “right” and “wrong” behavior. There are only things that happen and things that don’t happen.

Written like a true nihilist.
"The negation of the infinite leads straight to nihilism. Everything becomess a mental conception’’…“Nihilism has not point…There is no such thing as nothingness. Zero does not exist”, Victor Hugo, Les Miserables

 

[Stillness]

Written like a true nihilist.
"The negation of the infinite leads straight to nihilism. Everything becomess a mental conception’’…“Nihilism has not point…There is no such thing as nothingness. Zero does not exist”, Victor Hugo, Les Miserables

I will say that I make the assumption of “nothingness”, so far as my limited mind will allow. Hugo is correct in that it has no point. But nothing else does either, if my assumptions are correct.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Most of our behaviors can be explained through either biological functions or through intellectual assumptions . . . .

philosophy is so confusing: you say explained, so i assume you are dealing with ideas

then you say “biological functions” as opposed to “intellectual assumptions”

doesn’t the idea of biological functions, involve assumptions?

aren’t you assuming that perceptions and their cognitive organization into some kind of biological model have something to do with something out there, something biological, outside of mind?

in other words:
doesn’t one need faith to consider that whatever idea one has, is accurately describing something that exists?
Don’t you naturally assume you can reach it through your senses and the technology that extends them?
You must have faith that your mind, in making sense of the “data”, can come up with a concept that means anything.

The other way I interpreted your statement is to say that when faced with human behaviour you can either think about it or pass wind.

 

[Hamlet123]

There seems to be no true morality. Or I should say, “higher” morality, nothing inherent in the universe. Most of our behaviors can be explained through either biological functions or through intellectual assumptions.
By intellectual assumptions, I mean that if we accept certain assumptions as being true, then our ideas of morality will flow from them, even if they would otherwise be contrary to our animal nature.

But in the grand scheme, there is no good or evil, no “right” and “wrong” behavior. There are only things that happen and things that don’t happen.

Written like a true nihilist.
"The negation of the infinite leads straight to nihilism. Everything becomess a mental conception’’…“Nihilism has not point…There is no such thing as nothingness. Zero does not exist”, Victor Hugo, Les Miserables

 

[Stillness]

philosophy is so confusing: you say explained, so i assume you are dealing with ideas

then you say “biological functions” as opposed to “intellectual assumptions”

doesn’t the idea of biological functions, involve assumptions?

aren’t you assuming that perceptions and their cognitive organization into some kind of biological model have something to do with something out there, something biological, outside of mind?

in other words:
doesn’t one need faith to consider that whatever idea one has, is accurately describing something that exists?
Don’t you naturally assume you can reach it through your senses and the technology that extends them?
You must have faith that your mind, that in making sense of the “data”, it can come up with a concept that means anything.

The other way I interpreted your statement is to say that when faced with human behaviour you can either think about it or pass wind.

I am saying that precisely because we can only rely on our brains and sensory organs to interpret the world around us, we can’t know anything with certainty. There is no way to step outside of our own corruptible senses and view things as they truly are. Thus, for all I know, the things I see around me are nothing but projections of a shattered mind.

So yes, even examining our biology requires assumptions. I assume that I exist, I assume that my biology as a human being operates as it appears to, etc.
So I am saying that if we do indeed assume our knowledge of biology is correct, we can explain some of our behaviors with it. But that, like all things, relies on assumptions.

 

[Bradski]

So who was it that people thought they saw after Jesus died? Was it a mass hallucination?
Please proffer your explanations of what could have mimicked a resurrected body of Jesus.
And it needed to have been seen by a lot of people (not necessarily 500) for Christianity to have been spread on this deception/hallucination.

I think that we’re talking in circles. They didn’t see anyone. It was just written that they had.

There weren’t 500 people who saw Him after he died. And the numbers don’t matter in any case. It could have been written that a million saw him. If 500 people had individually written that they had seen him, then you’d have a very good reason to think that it might have happened. You’d have to think that surely they couldn’t all be wrong. But for ONE person to say that 500 had seen Him, then only ONE person has to be wrong.

And that person never wrote about the resurrection in any detail at all. He just said: It happened. And the other Gospels who do mention it in detail? There is no compelling evidence at all that they were written by anyone who had seen the resurrection first hand. They are all second hand accounts. They were all wrong. They may have been written by men who believed what they had been told, but that doesn’t make them true.

So would this be true of believing in atheism as well?

That question could only be asked by someone who doesn’t really know what atheism means.

 

[Aloysium]

Originally Posted by Gricken
So would this be true of believing in atheism as well?

Do I have atheism right?
I see it as an act rather than a system of belief.
It is the act of saying, “No its not!” and then mocking the person who stated their belief (usually Christian).
It could be more; I do recall those buses - what did they say? Oh yeah:
“There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”
Conscience bothering you? Don’t worry, be happy - It’s all for naught - The new morality.
(i must say there is a perverse pleasure in mocking ppl for their beliefs - but it’s all good, i’m being told)

 

[Stillness]

Do I have atheism right?
I see it as an act rather than a system of belief.
It is the act of saying, “No its not!” and then mocking the person who stated their belief (usually Christian).
It could be more; I do recall those buses - what did they say? Oh yeah:
“There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”
Conscience bothering you? Don’t worry, be happy - It’s all for naught - The new morality.
(i must say there is a perverse pleasure in mocking ppl for their beliefs - but it’s all good, i’m being told)

Atheism is a belief in the sense that it relies on an assumption, just as Catholicism is a belief in the sense that it relies on an assumption.

In the case of atheism, the assumption is that there is not god. In Catholicism, the assumption is that there is a god.

 

[Bradski]

Do I have atheism right?

Let’s have a look shall we?

I see it as an act rather than a system of belief.

Then I’m afraid the answer would be ‘No’.

It is the act of saying, “No its not!” and then mocking the person who stated their belief (usually Christian).

Well if someone is daft enough to believe things like ‘Atheism is an act’, then yes, I’m going to end up saying: “No it’s not!’ and mocking the person who stated their belief (usually Christian).

So to keep up my end of the bargain, consider yourself well and truly mocked.