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

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

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

First not all research about stem cells requires human embryos.

Second what's the point about how this embryo was created? Naturally or In Vitro? It will be intentionally destroyed in this research.

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

Let's imagine the lowest possible valley in the "moral landscape". This represents the maximum, pointless suffering for the maximum number of conscious beings. Please don't be tempted to obfuscate here, I am not describing suffering for a better purpose, just pointless, hopeless, abject misery for all.

This is called Hell. And I agree that such "place" is possible. Evil for the sake of evil with no purpose to a greater good. I believe God created the possibility of evil just like an architect creates the possibility of a suicide jump from a balcony (in law this is called normal risk). It's not the original purpose but it can be used to achieve an evil act. The possibility of evil is necessary to free will.

Oversimplification means that some moral decisions will only show its greater good in a far future (at the moment of our deaths). That's part of my worldview, involves mystery and a future disclosure.

Are you talking about stem cells from embryos? How is that possible without abortion (intentional destruction of the embryo)?

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

Please note, I don't accept that our differences are simply alternative opinions. There is a true and false answer. Let's see if we can get there.

Yes, I agree. We can't be both right and we can't be both wrong either.

You agreed that morality is about how our actions effect the well being of conscious beings.

Right. And usually there's apparent evil in the meantime just like parents submitting (unaware) children under painful medical treatment to achieve a greater good.

If you are correct then you should be able to demonstrate that your system is superior. It should demonstrably lead to more reliable moral decisions.

I think this is an oversimplification. Anyway we are already talking about abortion as an example of application/demonstration of our views on morality. We can continue to use this moral dilemma. You know my position I'm totally against abortion.

You advocate a top-down model based on an absolute standard. I propose a bottom- up method based on objective evidence.

This is where I see a total nonsense. Your attempt to differentiate absoluteness and objectiveness is complete pointless to me.

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 is your "top down" system of morality based on the character of a perfectly good god better than my "bottom up" morality?

I can also throw this question to you.

This is the very point we disagree. I'm not saying your view is pure nonsense and I can see our "species of thought" bifurcate because a very little mutation. I don't know why you can't see this.

But in the end of the day only a long-term application of our views can (and will) show who's right.

I also know we can't be both right.

I find very interesting the fact I reached the "top down" starting from the "bottom up" and you'd found the other way. This is what is very interesting to me. I was in your shoes once and talking with you in a way is talking with a "me from the past". I have to say I had a very supernatural experience that made me question my positions. Now in retrospective I notice I always felt very uncomfortable with the position you defend now.

Each to his fate...

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

@cofty

Theistic morality is a very broad term.

I see you constantly put any theistic morality under the superstition umbrella.

I disagree with this view.

If I have a belief that something evil or good will happen if I clap my hands in front of a mirror at midnight then I agree I'm totally in nonsense and plain superstition. But I'm totally against such superstitions.

Then we have a middle terrain like the JW view on blood transfusions. JW's simply say this belief is based on their unique interpretation of a few Bible texts. They don't provide any philosophical base about this belief. And the history of how this belief was formed shows that was just an opinion of a single man and nothing more. Even though this belief is considered "theistic morality" ultimately I can't see how it's different from superstition.

Finally we have beliefs that are not based purely on Bible or science but on revelation and/or philosophy. Like when exactly the human soul is created.

Not every theistic morality has practical problem about this. There's a theological view that says every human soul were created before Big-Bang and they stay in a Limbo until conception. I don't see much problems regarding abortion taking this view in consideration.

Some religions use only Bible texts to base the problem of when a soul is created. I think this is superstition too.

IMHO I can only defend a belief if it's not anti-scientific, have a genuine philosophical ground to it and have at least some kind of metaphysical sign (or revelation, which can be private or public) attached to it.

John_Mann

Posts by John_Mann