:-)
I look forward to your next O.P.
The Rebel
JoinedPosts by The Rebel
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone 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.
-
-
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone 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.
-
-
The Rebel
Cofty " Many who attach themselfs to scientific study do not have the freedom to think nor their own personality on views on right and wrong"- REBEL
I would find it regrettable if I should be held to account, with the above statement, without the reader reading my complete post and the context I made that statement. Otherwise I am in complete ageeance with Coftys post.
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone 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.
-
-
The Rebel
Ruby456 " thanks for the discussion cofty"
and let's also thank John-Mann and others that contributed to a great thread. Because sometimes in life the things we don't think we can believe can be discussed.
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone 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.
-
-
The Rebel
On my first contribution to this thread I commented " Many who attach themselfs to a religious organisation do not have the freedom to think nor their own personality on views on right and wrong?"
I refer back to that comment, because I don't want double standards. Therefore I must also ask the question is it possible " Many who attach themselfs to scientific study do not have the freedom to think nor their own personality on views on right and wrong?"
Anyway my conclusion having read the thread is that we are all skeletons, what ever we believe we die and become skeletons, the ants turn in to skeletons and so does the human. Until a person becomes a skeleton some learn to believe in God and believe in " Morality WITH diety". And in my opinion the only way they can do this is because they must " feel God" and believe. But a self professed athiest simply can't feel like that, they can't learn to believe based on emotion no matter how appealing the emotion in words that can't be supported by fact.
Anyway from an emotional perspective I believe for a former believer, not to believe requires strength of character, to fight religious fairy tales and demand facts. If there is a God the God I want to feel with the mysterious power over life and death ( the resurrection of skeletons) then the argument we are having on this thread would not exist. My verdict on the thread is that God is a skeleton and we are living in a world without his existence and diety.
As for the deeper questions raised on the thread, I am now rushed for time (translation not qualified to answer) but will compete in the debate if challenged.
-
20
Why do you get upset about family shunning you?
by mr_doubtful ini understand people love their family but i also don't understand why you end up caring in the end.
i'm ready to leave and i 100% don't expecting my family to have any contact with me nor do i want them to contact me.
if they are going to chose a man made religion over me, that's their choice and i will sleep easy at night.
-
-
The Rebel
mr-doubtful :-
Q) " why do you get upset about family shunning you?
A) Because it hurts emotionally.
Most of us had their first puppy love, only too receive kind words like these " I love you, but there's this other person I fancy. I don't want to two time you, so I am breaking up with you" And these words hurt and break our heart. So i think it only humane a person will also get upset about family shunning them over a stupid religion.
-
26
Do you think I should get something for my wife for her birthday?
by schnell inmy wife is still nominally in, but only because it "makes me (her) happy".
there is nothing academic about her beliefs and when i try, she interprets me as negative.. but then she cusses like a sailor and watches certain movies with me.
her birthday is coming up and it's also right around valentine's day.
-
-
The Rebel
We were told we don't celebrate birthdays because it's a sign of pride. However I celebrate my or a loved ones birthday because it's been 365 days since the last one, and their is another year of life to look forward too. Why not tell your wife the gift is given, because you are celebrating not her birthday, but her life?
-
7
Why I believe the quality of my posts has improved.
by The Rebel in" thinking fast and slow" is a self help book by d kahneman.. according to my simplified understanding of the above self-help book we have 2 brains, which the author calls system 1 brain and system 2 brain.. system 1 brain is the brain that make the decisions, that we do as routine.. system 2 brain is the brain that uses conscious reasoning.
thinking that requires conscious effort.. now the interesting thing is system1 brain is often making decisions system 2 brain isn't even aware are being made.
this is because system 2 brain requires conscious reasoning, and thinking that requires effort.
-
-
The Rebel
little-socrates:-
Q) Is all this different from the concept of " mindfulness" ?
A) Possibly you have jumped to an initiative thought which is system 1 thinking.
The book gives a good example of why we should take Kahnemans theory seriously:-
Linda who is single, outspoken and very bright, and who as a student, was deeply concerned with the issues of discrimination and social injustice. So which is more probable: (1) Linda is a bank teller. Or (2) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
85% of students in Stanfords Graduate School of Business, who had extensive training in probability flunked the Linda problem . The correct answer is (1) Linda is a bank teller, but the overwhelming responce was that answer ( 2) was more probable, which is of course a blatant violation of the laws of probability. This illustration shows how we value our opinion ( system 1 brain) over logic and conscious reasoning, ( System 2 brain)
DJS " You are an asset to this site,. I aspire to be more congenial like you"
Thanks DJS system 2 thinking at its best :-)
-
7
Why I believe the quality of my posts has improved.
by The Rebel in" thinking fast and slow" is a self help book by d kahneman.. according to my simplified understanding of the above self-help book we have 2 brains, which the author calls system 1 brain and system 2 brain.. system 1 brain is the brain that make the decisions, that we do as routine.. system 2 brain is the brain that uses conscious reasoning.
thinking that requires conscious effort.. now the interesting thing is system1 brain is often making decisions system 2 brain isn't even aware are being made.
this is because system 2 brain requires conscious reasoning, and thinking that requires effort.
-
-
The Rebel
Thanks for the kind words Tapioca
Q) " I would be interested in more examples of how this model has improved your life?"
A) Well one example is I consider the risk factor more frequently, before I make decisions. A simple illustration would be driving a car and using the mobile. System 1 brain thinks it's ok to drive the car and use the phone at the same time, whilst System 2 brain would consider the risk factor of driving whilst on the mobile. The point is many people make errors of judgement because they only think in System 1 brain. If we employ System 2 brain in our decision making we are less likely to make these errors of judgement.
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone 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.
-
-
The Rebel
Reading this thread as a poker player (which I am not) what do I see?
A) Most playing poker and thinking they have the best hand.
B) Some thinking they have the best hand wait to discover the opponents hand.
C) Some joining the game, think they have the best hand and force the opponent show their cards.
I was enjoying and learning from the friendly game, each trying to teach their opponent how to play poker. It doesn't need to be a heavy game of poker with blacked out windows, it can be a fun game. Then even if we think we have a winning royal flush, it's not about winning the hand, it's about teaching our opponent in a respectful and friendly way. But then that's not poker is it Vivianne?
-
7
Why I believe the quality of my posts has improved.
by The Rebel in" thinking fast and slow" is a self help book by d kahneman.. according to my simplified understanding of the above self-help book we have 2 brains, which the author calls system 1 brain and system 2 brain.. system 1 brain is the brain that make the decisions, that we do as routine.. system 2 brain is the brain that uses conscious reasoning.
thinking that requires conscious effort.. now the interesting thing is system1 brain is often making decisions system 2 brain isn't even aware are being made.
this is because system 2 brain requires conscious reasoning, and thinking that requires effort.
-
-
The Rebel
Anders Andersen, I am glad the book is on your radar. However whilst I am grateful for the author teaching me about, System 2 brain, the irony is System 2 brain (which is thinking that requires thought and reason ) taught me that like all self help-books the book itself contains a few paragraphs of beneficial self help, but the additional 400 pages were simply the author and publishing company filling pages to financially benifit themselves by selling a book. Ok If I am too be fair to the book, maybe I am now cynicle of all publishing companies, possibly because of my experience with the "Watchtower publishing company" and all those Watchtowers, Awakes, and stupid noncence books I read like " Revolution it's Grand Climax at Hand" etc, etc, etc, etc,