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

Conversely, theism, as interpreted by Christians and most other religions, is thoroughly demolished by science. I have long ago concluded that the strength of Christianity is rooted on the ability of the leaders to maintain the masses ignorant. They have done an excellent job so far.

This is very true to some Christian denominations.

I know theism is not science. But it's not anti-science.

I just find very intriguing that people like cofty preach the "Sola Science" but at the same time has no problem professing a non-scientific central position and blaming others to hold non-scientific positions. It's a double standard.

I think the majority of people here defending the "Sola Science" lacks basic knowledge about philosophy of science. Here's a good video about it:

https://youtu.be/kH785oawwkk

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

Yes thank you all for a good conversation.

Just reminding atheism is not science. Atheism is a philosophical position. But some atheists add the position of "Sola Science" which is not a scientific position either.

Just like the Sola Scriptura it's not found in Bible the "Sola Science" it's not found in science too.

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

Well I think we reached a dead-end and my conclusion is:

# By analyzing our morality systems we're able to spot just one dilemma (human embryos in scientific research).

# And the bases of our morality systems are different. What you defined as absolute vs objective (which I disagree) and I define as Catholic vs atheist.

You say embryonic research can bring a lot of good. But China is doing this kind of research since it was possible because they don't have this moral dilemma. I don't know nothing about what China discovered in this specific research, do you know about some panacea invented based on this research?

Also I repeat you have a very Sola Scriptura influence in your atheism.

And your position about "there's no absolute(s) in the universe" is a contradiction by itself.

The reason of why our morality seems to be very similar is because I believe everyone has a soul created with absolute moral commands. Even if you deny the existence of the Law-giver you can't deny the law written inside you.

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

Why should those suffering painful diseases care what you believe?

Your position is stem-cell research specifically using human embryos is a miraculous panacea.

You know this is not true.

Can you please provide me other example of "anti-science" from my religious position?

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.

John_Mann

Posts by John_Mann