Posts by cofty

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

Evolution explains very well why we should display empathy and cooperation. It is the winning strategy if we wish to benefit from living in successful social groups.

We are all descended from many generations of ancestors who had the capacity for what we now call morality or ethics. Rudimentary versions of these capcities can be found in other social species.

Survival of the fittest in our case includes moral intelligence. We all understand what contributes to our own well being and how that can be best achieved in cooperation with others.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

John your one-word dismissal of many of my most important arguments is not conducive to a useful conversation.

Let's try a different approach. My contention is that moral decisions can best be determined by wrestling with their likely effects of conscious creatures.

You insist that there is a greater source of moral authority grounded in the nature of a perfectly good god.

How does your position add anything helpful to my position? How is it better, or more useful, or more ethical?

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

But can't it be argued that none of these moralities exist in the absence of a God? Or that all morality in the absence of God is subjective? - Cold Steel

No it can't for the reasons I laid out in some detail in my OP.

The problem is, there has to be standards to determine morality.

No there doesn't as I have explained at length. Our actions can be measured against the effects they have on the well being of conscious creatures.

If you want to argue that homosexual sex is morally wrong you have to provide objective reasons that don't amount to "god says...."

Who says abortion is excluded from discussions about objective morality? I think this a perfect example of an issue where facts are essential to reaching a reasonable decision. However as soon as you throw in evidence-free assertions about souls you exclude yourself from rational debate.

Your assertion regarding pedophilia is groundless fear-mongering. The objective facts surrounding sexualisation of children is the strongest protection we have.

Secular Nazism and communism murdered many more

Nazism was a pseudo-christian cult. Communism was profoundly anti-rational and opposed to objective scientific research that conflicted with its ideology.

I am advocating a rational, post-enlightenment, objective morality based on evidence about reality and human nature.

6

My first paid comedy gig

by usualusername1 in

jw
friends

after 5 months of struggling, yesterday i was paid to perform.

for those who saw the last video i hope you see an improvement.. would love feedback as always.

the first 2 minutes is on my life as a former jw.. cheers.

cofty

Well done Paul, congratulations on your first pro gig!

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

I know that not so deep in your mind, when you think about your own death, automatically comes a steady sensation that someway somehow clinical death is not the end. - John_Mann

I can honestly say I do not have that sensation. The possibility of a hereafter is more than a philosophical puzzle to me (metastatic currently in remission). I had no consciousness prior to my physical life, amazingly the world proceeded without me. It will do so again. I have had a general anaesthetic a few times. I suppose death will be exactly like that.

However I think this comment of yours is the real core of the debate. Unless life is eternal you find it hard to see that it is meaningful. Unless moral decisions are based in the character of an almighty god you see them as no more binding than a personal preference. You then make an unnecessary leap into abyss of nihilism.

I hope I have characterised your position accurately. Please correct me otherwise.

I do sympathise with your fears. Coming to terms with the provisional nature of our existence is not easy. The odds of our being here as individuals was astonishingly small. We won the biggest lottery imaginable the moment we were conceived. The speciality of our species was our large and complex brains, evolved for their ability to live in complex social groups using advanced language skills. We possess functions for empathy, compassion, justice and reciprocal altruism as well as guilt, disgust, fear, anger and revenge.

You make a distinction between Homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom that is unwarranted. Ethologists have observed many of the functions that underpin our moral capacity in other species of social animals. Pre-human species left behind evidence that they were in any ways like us. They cared for their aged and sick and buried their dead with ritual. I could recommend some sources for you on that.

Christians build their beliefs about humanity on unproven and unscientific dogmas that have some very negative moral consequences. Prohibitions on stem cell research rests on an anti-scientific assertion about the zygote. Laws about contraception have done immeasurable harm to the poorest societies on earth. The desire for eternal rewards and justice leads to the indoctrination of children with disgusting threats about hellfire. Saving the souls of infidels from eternal torture has been the justification for appalling atrocities.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. You boast about the contribution Christianity has made to science and yet you want to put unscientific dogma off-limits. I found your assertion that "the logical conclusion of materialism is consciousness doesn't exists at all" to be especially strange. I have read Dan Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained" - he over-reaches in the title but nowhere does he claim the consciousness does not exist. Neither does Sam Harris. Neither have I. Consciousness is very real. However it is not necessary to posit a "ghost in the machine" in order to account for it.

I actually believe that theists and atheists find life to be meaningful for exactly the same ordinary reasons. Both of us have the similar longings and fears. Atheists accept the inevitable uncertainty, insecurity and injustice of life. Theists adopt evidence-free narratives that provide easy answers and go to extraordinary lengths to cover over the inconsistencies that result.

Lots more to say, but enough for now.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

That's a very helpful description of your position John thank you.

I don't have time to reply right now but I look forward to responding later.

82

the-question (607 BCE explained and proved)

by pleaseresearch in

so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).

cofty

Fisherman - When every expert in the world says you are wrong then onus is really on you to give reasons why you disagree.

The date of the fall of Jerusalem is not even controversial. It's very silly to make a stand on such a trivial mistake.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

Just catching up. Thank you all for your input. I will read your comments carefully this evening and reply.

Enjoying the conversation, thanks.

"eliminativism" - I learned a new word today.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

John_Mann if you listen carefully to Sam Harris' talk you will see that he is explaining that there is no "ghost in the machine".

Consciousness is a property of our brains. We have a sense that we are somehow separate from the rest of us as if we were something ethereal that inhabits and controls our own minds and bodies.

This is the illusion that he refers to.

In no way does this lead to nihilism.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

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.

cofty

John_M you are way off regarding nihilism. I am rushing out will explain later.