one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
It's becoming clear you you don't want to engage with any of the actual arguments on the topic John. That's a pity.
Perhaps you would answer one question....
Can you think of a moral position that isn't predicated on the well-being of conscious creatures?
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Stem cell-research is a useful example of the clash between the absolute moral pronouncements of theism and a more rational morality based on objective facts.
Compare ---
Yes, we believe that the soul is directly created and infused by God in the very moment of conception. It's not about the embryo having a neural system or not or ability to feel pain. It's about the soul already created - John_Mann
Catholics want to prohibit important medical research on the basis of the specific belief that god infuses the fertilised egg with a unique human soul at the moment of conception.
Objective facts show that this belief is impossible. These facts should give pause to those who would deny important medical knowledge to people suffering from debilitating diseases. It won't give them pause of course because their morality is based on the premise of "god says.... the end".
not all beliefs are worthy of respect, but when we read a book of fiction in my mind it's easier to travel outside ourselves and our absolute moral standards.
fiction allows our imagination to be free.
i haven't read " fifty shades of grey" but i read " romeo and juliet" at school,and juliet was 13, romeo i believe was supposedly around 18 or 19.
I don't know Vander. Perhaps you should ask somebody who wishes to justify the use of the Atomic bombs of WWII. I don't.
listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.
i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.
hope some of you get a chance to listen.
Sadly Peterson indulges in incoherent gibberish in this and other recent interviews.
I think he is unwell.
not all beliefs are worthy of respect, but when we read a book of fiction in my mind it's easier to travel outside ourselves and our absolute moral standards.
fiction allows our imagination to be free.
i haven't read " fifty shades of grey" but i read " romeo and juliet" at school,and juliet was 13, romeo i believe was supposedly around 18 or 19.
could there then also be benefits of slavery of the few (millions) for the benefit of the many (billions)? - Vander
That is the ethics of Yahweh not those of a post-enlightenment society.
Morality does not reduce to arithmetic. A world where universal human rights are respected represents a higher peak in the moral landscape than one where the weak can be enslaved.
It does remind me a little of Sam Harris's railway carriage issue: Is it right to pull a lever and cause a runaway carriage to kill 1 railway worker vs 5 on another track? - Simon
I have always answered no to that dilemma. I would not kill one to save 5. The victim cannot be used as a commodity without their consent.
some go back to churchianity!.
and that, to me, indicates they never had real faith in god- but it was in men.....
If turned off by the GB's latest bloopers- do you still have faith in God and Christ? - the-q
Why do you think faith is an effective tool for establishing what it true?
jws are known to have an obsession and preoccupation with demons.. this obsession and preoccupation is not without merit given that jesus, his disciples/apostles, and the general public of 1st century ce judea and galilee are reported as believing in the existence of demonic spirits and in the possibility of demon possession of an individual.. exorcism formed a large part of jesus' ministry on earth.
the gospels and the book of acts describe many exorcisms where jesus and his disciples release people from demonic possession.. ___ .
but how do demons get inside a person's brain or body?
There are no demons. No angels. No "spirits". Stop worrying.
If you can define spirit that would be interesting. I mean what is it exactly?
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Amazing how Atheists here seems just to take the Sola Scriptura approach. - JM
For the second time - if you bothered to read the OP you will see my argument does not depend on scripture.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Sam Harris' metaphor for objective morality is the "Moral Landscape" where higher peaks represent better states of well-being and vice-versa.
He asks us to imagine the deepest possible valley that represents the worst possible state for the maximum number of conscious creatures. Morality is about moving away from that position. There will be numerous places in the landscape of equal height just as there are equally moral positions and states of well-being.
In this landscape there is no need to know how high the highest possible peak is: no absolute state of moral perfection. Just as we cannot define perfect human health but we can take steps to objectively improve our health relative the the worse possible state - nothing is more unhealthy than a corpse.
I found it to be useful metaphor. His book is well worth your time. Substituting "god says...." for difficult answers is not satisfying.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
I have no interest in Catholic dogma and superstition. We have no need of it. Objective secular morality is far superior.
