Posts by John

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.

John_Mann

John - I am happy to discuss the issues with you but I don't appreciate your efforts to psychoanalyse my feelings and motivations.

Sorry I'm not comfortable in analyzing your feelings too but I think is necessary because I perceive a very emotional approach from you. I said that as a constructive criticism.

My criticism of faith is not blind. It is based on a lot of experience. If I am making "gross logical contradictions" they should be very easy to point out. I am aware of no contradictions in my position but I am listening.

You are making a philosophical attempt to differentiate objectiveness and absoluteness. But you're failing to do that.

We agreed that when we talk about morality we are concerned about maximising the well being of CONSCIOUS creatures. How is achieved by prohibiting stem-cell research?

Because I believe consciousness is produced by a soul and I believe the soul is created at the moment of conception. I'm not saying a fertilised egg is conscious but it have a conscious soul attached to it even though in a temporary dormant state (limbo).

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.

John_Mann

I spent most of my life basing my beliefs on faith. Eventually I realised that faith is not a proper basis for knowledge. It is something people resort to when they lack evidence. Faith is a hindrance to morality. Faith is not a Virtue...

As I said before this is the very reason of your clear feeling of revolt.

Your previous faith truly made you accept anti-science doctrines like creationism.

Creationism is a lie. For some reason you extrapolate your experience with faith to every other faith.

Catholic faith (or Judaism and Buddhism AFAIK) for instance is not anti-science. Truly it can limit science in some very narrow aspects (human embryos), but this is not a total opposition to science. Establishing ethical limits to science is not the same as anti-science. BTW do you have more examples of "anti-science" in Catholicism?

You are so blindly attacking faith itself that you are making gross logical contradictions in your position. And so far you seems not bother to see theses errors.

Ironically now you embrace the faith that science must be the universal method to things not reached by science. Now you embrace the faith in scientism, and it's plain wrong just like your JW and Pentecostal faith.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

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.

John_Mann

The Christian view on homosexuality is related to human conception. The conception and the moment of death are sacred in Christianity and are the bases to other doctrines.

No matter how scientific you want to be cofty, you must understand this is not science but faith. Faith is not anti-science but at the same time can't be science because it copes with metaphysics while science not.

Faith is a Divine gift and I don't know why some people does not have it.

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.

John_Mann

In my view you can research non human embryos at your will.

Just don't mess with human embryos.

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.

John_Mann

I can think of many situations where taking a life is a moral good. If a crowd of innocent people are being fired on by a terrorist it is heroic for a policeman to shoot him dead.

Sure.

But this is not the same situation like the destruction of embryos, right?

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.

John_Mann

While my premises cannot be scientifically verified my conclusion have an objective outcome of maximization of well being of humans.

I don't know how someone can consider the quantity value of how many lives are saved. I have the morality that every human life is absolutely important.

Anyway if your challenge consists in quantity what about if Alexander Fleming was destroyed when he was a fertilised egg?

How do you know you are not killing the embryo who would cure cancer if it was give the chance to continue its natural development?

We must respect the unknown. It's a moral and wise thing to do.

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.

John_Mann

Scientific evidence?

This is not science, 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.

John_Mann

How can you justify your position and show that it is more moral. In other words how is it more effective in promoting the well-being of conscious creatures?

You never passed through the stage of being a fertilised egg, cofty? Did you came to existence squeaky clean in a beak of a stork?

I was a fertilised egg and I'm very thankful to not being used as a scientific experiment.

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.

John_Mann

a fertilised egg might split days later and become two or more people. Where and when did the extra souls come from?

God creates every soul from nothing (creatio ex nihilo). Being directly created by God the nature of the soul is perfect and cannot be undone that's why the soul is immortal.

By revelation and respect for the unknown it's assumed this creation occurs at the moment of conception. If a fertilised egg splits we can assume the other soul is created at the moment of this division.

Most zygotes fail before implantation - where did all those souls go and why?

We don't know if it failed because God chose to not give it a soul. But if it was gifted with a soul, this soul goes to a Limbo. Because the final destiny of the soul is to be eternally united to a human body, but this destiny will be only fulfilled after the resurrection in the Last Judgment.

Sometimes two fertilised eggs will fuse creating a chimera. The person will develop normally. How many souls do they have? etc etc etc.

Every human have only one spiritual immortal soul.

God is not limited by time. He knows in advance that the egg would fuse or split, etc.

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.

John_Mann

what I can add to this thread is that it isn't possible to entirely evacuate the self

Yes. The Self is the main feature of the spiritual soul. The soul is always busy, it's not solitary in the sense it's insulated from everything. It's intellect and will are always busy. When I mentioned its solitude I was talking about its NATURE in relation to the physical world. Every soul is a direct creation of God.

but what I would argue is that the solitary consciousness we call me is always under the spell of something else - something sensuous (I guess what you would call qualia John-mann).

That's not qualia but I understand what you mean.

Our intellectual I is under the spell of reading (and this is the difference from oral societies) - this is a sensuous activity as we do become caught up in the world of reading though our senses - reading on the internet for example. we are not even solitary selves when we are reading books.

You're are describing what in Psychology is called "flow".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

so your argument that disbelief in god leads to an elimination of the self does not stand up

Non sequitur.

You only (correctly) mentioned the Self can't be insulated from the physical environment which gives non-stop work to the Self.

My argument is the theistic view gives a metaphysical nature to the Self. This is easy to accept because the nature of Self is scientifically mysterious, science doesn't even have a definition of what is Self and/or consciousness.

If science is totally in the dark about something and if you denies a metaphysical explanation it's logical to assume the Self is an illusion. Because this is the very method that is used to assume God is an illusion. That's exactly what is the eliminativist materialism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

John_Mann

Posts by John_Mann