Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Absurdity of Morality Apart From God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    The point is, just because you don't torture doesn't prevent someone from torturing you. So I don't know if that is necessarily a good reason.
    It's not as simple as "Do what would be best if everyone did it." If you are in a country where lying and stealing are completely acceptable, you put yourself at a disadvantage if you refuse to lie or steal.

    So morality requires buy-in from most of the people in a society. But if you are deciding whether to buy into a set of moral rules, then how you feel about being bound by those rules, and how you feel about everyone else being bound by those rules, are important considerations.

    Yet, if you are in power, torturing, if you do it, would be perfectly acceptable.
    Acceptable to whom?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
      It's not as simple as "Do what would be best if everyone did it." If you are in a country where lying and stealing are completely acceptable, you put yourself at a disadvantage if you refuse to lie or steal.

      So morality requires buy-in from most of the people in a society. But if you are deciding whether to buy into a set of moral rules, then how you feel about being bound by those rules, and how you feel about everyone else being bound by those rules, are important considerations.


      Acceptable to whom?
      The ruling class. For instance like in China or North Korea.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

        Not really, siam. Tribal behavior among humans is no different in principle to tribal or group behavior among other social species such as chimpanzees, with whom we are closely related.. Its a product of the evolution of the necessary social behavior to survive as a cooperative intelligent social animals.
        I do not completely agree with a linear model of evolution---the human brain is the same now as it was thousands of years ago.....nevertheless---even if we start with your premise that tribal/group behavior (on a limited scale) is similar between Chimps and humans---Chimps have no need/desire to ponder on their existence or to philosophize on what it means to be a Chimp (according to the argument proposed by Yuval Hariri) ---but humans do---we cannot make sense of our world otherwise.---call it an evolutionary trait, mental handicap, brain hardwiring...whatever....
        think about it---according to the rules of the evolutionary model of survival of the fittest---humanity is the most unfit animal to survive---we have no special hearing ability, visual acuity, strength, speed, our bodies do not come with weapons and shields like horns or shells----nothing. Nothing but our imagination.
        ...and if we can imagine creative solutions to our problems of survival---we can create stories that explain "us" at whatever group level we may be...In fact, I would posit that imagination is the most necessary trait for such an unfit species such as us to have survived.....?.....

        watch from approx 20 min mark....(for relevance to the topic of myths and human co-operation)


        Comment


        • Originally posted by siam View Post

          I do not completely agree with a linear model of evolution---the human brain is the same now as it was thousands of years ago.....nevertheless---even if we start with your premise that tribal/group behavior (on a limited scale) is similar between Chimps and humans---Chimps have no need/desire to ponder on their existence or to philosophize on what it means to be a Chimp (according to the argument proposed by Yuval Hariri) ---but humans do---we cannot make sense of our world otherwise.---call it an evolutionary trait, mental handicap, brain hardwiring...whatever....
          think about it---according to the rules of the evolutionary model of survival of the fittest---humanity is the most unfit animal to survive---we have no special hearing ability, visual acuity, strength, speed, our bodies do not come with weapons and shields like horns or shells----nothing. Nothing but our imagination.
          ...and if we can imagine creative solutions to our problems of survival---we can create stories that explain "us" at whatever group level we may be...In fact, I would posit that imagination is the most necessary trait for such an unfit species such as us to have survived.....?.....

          watch from approx 20 min mark....(for relevance to the topic of myths and human co-operation)
          Actually, Yuval Noah Hariri is a favorite author of mine – I’ve read three of his books but he (and you) is saying nothing different to what I’m arguing. Namely that tribal/group behavior is similar between Chimps and humans and for the same reason – the need to maintain cohesive social behavior.

          The difference is that humans are much more intelligent than chimps and so they ponder and philosophize as to WHY they behave the way they do. But this is not WHY they behave this way, it’s not the basis of their behavior. It’s just that, as an intelligent species, we like to understand why we do what we do.





          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            It is not as straightforward as that. We do not know what our early forebears thought and believed, or how they constructed their clans and groups. They have left us no written records. However, we can surmise that religious beliefs of some sort would probably have played an important part in the need to subsist and survive.
            Certainly, there is reason to think that religious beliefs of some sort played an important part in the need to subsist and survive among early and archaic humans, e.g., there is evidence of religious ceremonial being involved at Neanderthal burial sites. But my point is that people existed before the gods did and that gods were created to reinforce the need for cooperation as a survival mechanism.

            I take your point that behaviours in previous periods in history [and presently in some parts of the world] are considered barbaric by someone from a secular and advanced Western society.

            However, to define morals/morality more precisely both derive from the cultural norms specific to a particular society. Of course it does not necessarily follow that every individual within that society [particularly at later periods of human history] necessarily agreed with those norms. We know from some Roman writers that there were concerns over the abandonment of children and abortion. Although the former has to be viewed within its historical context given that it is often considered that throughout classical antiquity it was always practised everywhere..
            This is the point I was trying to make. Namely that morals and ethics are a product of the evolution of the necessary social behavior of humanity to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals and they vary to a degree from culture to culture over time.


            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post

              Again, not the point, which was - why is your objection to slavery meaningful, or more correct than the opinion of the slaver?
              For the same reason that the opinion of the Christian “slaver” was considered “correct” for many centuries in the past. Namely that the community opinion of the day considered slavery morally acceptable. Now it doesn’t – at least in the West.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                The ruling class. For instance like in China or North Korea.
                That apparently happens whether there is an objective morality or not.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                  For the same reason that the opinion of the Christian “slaver” was considered “correct” for many centuries in the past. Namely that the community opinion of the day considered slavery morally acceptable. Now it doesn’t – at least in the West.
                  So why are we right now as opposed to then?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                    That apparently happens whether there is an objective morality or not.
                    Yes, but apart from universal moral law or truths you/we have no rational argument against their practices. And rational justifications can lead to the moral impetus to act, hence our Founders took the idea of human rights out of the hands of the state and grounded them in the transcendent - in God.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                      Certainly, there is reason to think that religious beliefs of some sort played an important part in the need to subsist and survive among early and archaic humans,
                      Agreed.

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      e.g., there is evidence of religious ceremonial being involved at Neanderthal burial sites.
                      We do not know it was "religious ceremonial". That is conjecture. Certain Neanderthal burials appear to exhibit ritualistic elements; the foetal position of the body, the presence of animal bones, often deliberately placed, and grave goods.

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      But my point is that people existed before the gods did and that gods were created to reinforce the need for cooperation as a survival mechanism.
                      I would certainly agree that a belief in something above and beyond human control probably existed. The word "gods" is perhaps rather confusing, being that it is an advanced [later] human concept of deity. It is possible that the earliest "religious beliefs" were animistic and that a female principle was of more significance. The Willendorf Venus is around 30,000 years old.


                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      This is the point I was trying to make. Namely that morals and ethics are a product of the evolution of the necessary social behavior of humanity to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals and they vary to a degree from culture to culture over time.
                      And with that I have no disagreement.


                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Yes, but apart from universal moral law or truths you/we have no rational argument against their practices. And rational justifications can lead to the moral impetus to act, hence our Founders took the idea of human rights out of the hands of the state and grounded them in the transcendent - in God.
                        And we see how well that "rational argument" works in China and North Korea.

                        As I believe I've said before, it's easy to make a rational argument for anything if you start with the right premises. It's getting everyone to agree with the premises that's difficult.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                          And we see how well that "rational argument" works in China and North Korea.
                          It is not for them, it is for us. I believe that if a man thinks (or to a degree knows) that his rights are God given or absolute he would be more likely to defend them, and extend them. Less likely to lay down in the face of totalitarianism. To believe that rights, duties and obligations go beyond what the state or majority imposes provides a logical justification that would add a robust psychological and moral motivation to safeguard these rights.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            It is not for them, it is for us. I believe that if a man thinks (or to a degree knows) that his rights are God given or absolute he would be more likely to defend them, and extend them. Less likely to lay down in the face of totalitarianism. To believe that rights, duties and obligations go beyond what the state or majority imposes provides a logical justification that would add a robust psychological and moral motivation to safeguard these rights.
                            At best, you are arguing that we are better off if we believe that rights, duties, and obligations go beyond what the state or majority imposes. But that is not a reason to believe that rights, duties, and obligations go beyond what the state or majority imposes. (To claim otherwise would be an appeal to consequences.)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                              At best, you are arguing that we are better off if we believe that rights, duties, and obligations go beyond what the state or majority imposes. But that is not a reason to believe that rights, duties, and obligations go beyond what the state or majority imposes. (To claim otherwise would be an appeal to consequences.)
                              Of course I believe we would be off, but it also more rational or more psychologically fulfilling. But it doesn't prove that universal moral truths exist.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Of course I believe we would be off, but it also more rational or more psychologically fulfilling.
                                I don't see it as more rational, and more psychologically fulfilling is just part of being better off.

                                But it doesn't prove that universal moral truths exist.
                                Okay.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X