Zone1 Atheism Has No Basis for the Idea of Good or Evil, Just or Unjust

[forkup]

No I'm asking some very specific questions about morality. Specifically how the religion you adhere to, changed their view.

My premise being that the view you hold on morality doesn't come from your religious belief but rather your adherence to humanism.

I couldn't be evasive if I tried.

As to your premise . I don't believe morality is subjective. I believe morality has nothing to do with God, or for that matter that it relates to survival as Ding claimed.

It is as I said a human construct.

 

[buttercup]

As to your premise . I don't believe morality is subjective. I believe morality has nothing to do with God, or for that matter that it relates to survival as Ding claimed.

It is as I said a human construct.

If it's a human construct, then it is subjective.

Objective truths are not man-made. Objective truths are true for everyone, and isn't dependent on what we believe or disbelieve, it is just is.

So which is it? Anyway, I stuck around for a little while, because I was watching something on YouTube, but I really do have to sign off now.

 

[forkup]

If it's a human construct, then it is subjective.

Objective truths are not man-made. Objective truths are true for everyone, and isn't dependent on what we believe or disbelieve, it is just is.

So which is it? Anyway, I stuck around for a little while, because I was watching something on YouTube, but I really do have to sign off now.

Human constructs can be perfectly objective. In fact it's the whole premise of science. Removing subjectivity so you can get too objective truth.


There's nothing subjective about considering rape wrong. To give an example.

It objectively hurts another person and takes the control of their body away.

I can look at those objective facts as morally wrong without ever having to involve God.



You are a Christian. In that book, a book I suppose you adhere to. Raping a woman is NOT considered wrong. Neither is slavery.



The reason you, and I'm pretty sure I can speak to that, consider it wrong is because we and the church no longer consider those parts of the bible moral.

It was always wrong. Yet the Bible allowed it.


See you later.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

​

​

Atheism Has No Basis for the Idea of Good or Evil, Just or Unjust 240215​

•90 ding Feb’24 Sahnbf: Correct. The law of nature aka the moral law aka the law of right and wrong is innate. It's the basis for inalienable rights. That there are natural rights that exist that are beyond man's authority to redefine them as he wishes. It's literally the basis of the Declaration of Independence. dvng 240215 Sahnbf00090

The law of nature

Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were considered to be atheists by churched Christians of their time who held fast and accepted only truth channeled through the supernatural eternal salvation magic found in the unique sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ, born of a Virgin, who could turn water into wine, and rise from being dead for a few days but had to float up into a place called heaven before disappearing for 2024 years now. But when you believe this story you are the only truly GOOD humans on the PLANET because everyone else is EVIL .


America was founded as an enlightened multicultural Nation 200218

ding said: Can you show me a similar example of the so called deism culture?

nfbw 200218 Sawfaa00035 #35 reply to #39 yes. The Declaration of Independence with ‘ Nature’s God’ referenced.

The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.

Allen, Ethan. Reason, the Only Oracle of Man: Or, A Compenduous System of Natural Religion Boston: JP Mendum, 1854. A book by Ethan Allen

“While Christians and Enlightenment philosophers each had faith, the nature of their respective faiths differed. Christians emphasized faith in Scripture while philosophes put their faith in science, nature’s God, and secular progress (natural theologians bridged the gap between them). “

7 Enlightenment & Great Awakening | History Hub

Enlightenment Religion

“But the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. In his widely read The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, the principal American exponent of Deism, called Christianity “a fable.”

Paine, the protégé of Benjamin Franklin, denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.”

Postulating a distant deity whom he called “Nature’s God” (a term also used in the Declaration of Independence), Paine declared in a “profession of faith”:”

“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and in endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

Thus, Deism inevitably subverted orthodox Christianity.

Persons influenced by the movement had little reason to read the Bible, to pray, to attend church, or to participate in such rites as baptism, Holy Communion, and the laying on of hands (confirmation) by bishops.

With the notable exceptions of Abigail Adamsand Dolley Madison, Deism seems to have had little effect on women. For example, Martha Washington, the daughters of Thomas Jefferson, and Elizabeth Kortright Monroe and her daughters seem to have held orthodox Christian beliefs.

But Deistic thought was immensely popular in colleges from the middle of the 18th into the 19th century.

Thus, it influenced many educated (as well as uneducated) males of the Revolutionary generation.

Although such men would generally continue their public affiliation with Christianity after college, they might inwardly hold unorthodox religious views. Depending on the extent to which Americans of Christian background were influenced by Deism, their religious beliefs would fall into three categories: non-Christian Deism, Christian Deism, and orthodox Christianity.

I’ll add Honest Abe for good measure:

UPDATED: JUL 8, 2019 | ORIGINAL: JUN 24, 2019

Was Abraham Lincoln an Atheist?

As a young man, Lincoln openly admitted to his lack of faith. As a politician, he spoke about God but refused to say he was a Christian.

Many think President Lincoln was a Deist. I accept that rather than Atheist.

•524 nfbw 249229 Vahnbf00524 to •90 Sahnbf00090

 

[alang1216]

That's not how I see it. I believe God supplies reality to every part at all times. We effectively exist in the mind of God.

Maybe, maybe not but that is faith, not science.

 

[alang1216]

What do you think Arthur Eddington was trying to say when in 1928 he wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time."

He sounds a lot like you so I'm sure you can explain him better than me. I'm pretty sure I don't agree with either of you.

 

[alang1216]

Couldn't you say that the potential for everything which exists today existed before space and time were created?

There was, by definition, the potential, in the past, for everything which exists today to exist. Not a very useful concept though.

 

[alang1216]

I think you are more interested in arguing against the God of the Bible than you are about discovering God.

Just because I don't believe "things" can be uncaused that doesn't mean I don't believe that existence - which is God - isn't eternal and uncaused because I do.

And that is a perfectly fine belief but it is not based on logic or science, it is based on faith. You arbitrarily picked what is caused and what is not caused as an act of faith since there is no evidence for either.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

As a Rational Theist where the God of Nature creates but does not seek acknowledgment, love or worship from its creations as we live through it; I see abortion as nether right or wrong.

We have no right to shame anyone who does it soon after finding themselves with an unwanted relationship with an unborn new human life.

DING’s desire to shame I suppose is just a Catholic habit that atheists do not aquire in nature

ding said: “Ending a human life through abortion is wrong. It should be punished as a misdemeanor. A small fine is not an unreasonable punishment” dvng.23.10.17 #11,521

ding said: “It is unreasonable to argue there should be no punishment for ending a human life.” dvng.23.10.17 #11,521

ding said: “The woman still gets to end her pregnancy. There is no issue with this solution. Being accountable for one's actions is a vital requirement for an orderly society” dvng.23.10.17 #11,521

 

[Natural Citizen]

It's always amazing to me to see your Meyers Briggs results. I mean, I don't think I've ever seen anyone with 100% thinking. It's very interesting.

It don't mean anything special. Heck. There's a lot of general morons, sociopaths, psychopaths and serial killers who are emotionless deep thinkers.

It doesn't mean one is smart or intellectual or anything.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I don't know if I really feel like this thread as much as I did yesterday. lol.

I will say that I don't like the term ''Big Bang,'' though. It insinuates something out of nothing, when that isn't necessarily the case. I like defining this period that is widely referenced as the Big Bang as that hot, dense phase prior to the universe appearing.

I started to touch on cosmic inflation last night before I got sleepy. Meaning the phase of the life of the universe before the so-called Big Bang.

But I dunno. There are so many other theories beyond that even. Branes, for instance.

While it's all interesting, I just don't care for those kinds of arguments being made from the perspective of establishing purpose rather than process. Once you start chasing the purpose ball around, that's where it gets all religious and all of the observational selection begin to drive dialogue.

Granted, this is the religion section. But still. Process is more my interest in it.

 

[buttercup]

Human constructs can be perfectly objective. In fact it's the whole premise of science. Removing subjectivity so you can get too objective truth.


There's nothing subjective about considering rape wrong. To give an example.

It objectively hurts another person and takes the control of their body away.

I can look at those objective facts as morally wrong without ever having to involve God.



You are a Christian. In that book, a book I suppose you adhere to. Raping a woman is NOT considered wrong. Neither is slavery.



The reason you, and I'm pretty sure I can speak to that, consider it wrong is because we and the church no longer consider those parts of the bible moral.

It was always wrong. Yet the Bible allowed it.


See you later.

You don't understand this stuff. At all. That is very clear.

But I'm just popping in here for a little bit, so I'll have to get back to this later. I have a meeting coming up in a little while, so…

 

[Donald H]

You don't understand this stuff. At all. That is very clear.

But I'm just popping in here for a little bit, so I'll have to get back to this later. I have a meeting coming up in a little while, so…

You're always popping in or popping out. Don't be concerned about missing something. You'll receive a notification.

I think the agenda you pursue has condemned you to a need to pop out.

 

[buttercup]

It don't mean anything special. Heck. There's a lot of general morons, sociopaths, pshychopaths and serial killers who are emotionless deep thinkers.

It doesn't mean one is smart or intellectual or anything.

I wasn't saying that it's good or bad.... just that it's amazing you got 100% on that. But I think you mentioned that that category had to do with making decisions, right? As opposed to feeling. Which would be a good thing, because too many people make decisions based on their emotions. I think there's an even better way, which actually could be a good topic for a new thread, but anyway… I won't be starting any threads today because I have a busy day today.

 

[buttercup]

You're always popping in or popping out. Don't be concerned about missing something. You'll receive a notification.

I think the agenda you pursue has condemned you to a need to pop out.

Not really. I was here for hours yesterday. And the reason I mentioned that is because I didn't want the person I was replying to to think that I just didn't want to answer his post or didn't have an answer for it. It's not that, but what we were talking about is kind of a heavy topic… has to do with philosophy, and it's not something that you can write a quick reply to.

 

[Donald H]

Not really. I was here for hours yesterday. And the reason I mentioned that is because I didn't want the person I was replying to to think that I just didn't want to answer his post or didn't have an answer for it. It's not that, but what we were talking about is kind of a heavy topic… has to do with philosophy, and it's not something that you can write a quick reply to.

Fine. It was just my perception that all or nearly all your messages end with you saying you have to pop out or you're too busy. I don't doubt you're busy. I just wanted you to know that you'll receive notifications so no need to apologize for leaving.

 

[ding]

I'll be very concise.

This is were you go off the deep end. You're perception of God as far as I can tell is indistinguishable from like you put it "the laws of nature" , and as such the concept is useless.

If I want to define God as, for instance gravity. What does that do for me?

You start from the conclusion. (God is real) and work backwards from there.. That's not a rational argument.



Quick about morality. It's a human artificial concept. A lion killing a Gazelle is not moral or immoral. It's simply is a natural process. The eventual outcome might be favorable to the species lion or gazelle, moral has nothing to do with it.

The same goes for humans. Wether we as a species ultimately survive will have nothing to do with wether or not we adhere to something like absolute morality, or fairness. It just won't. Neither is morality driven by a God concept. If it was religions wouldn't have to constantly reinterpret their dogma to fit humanistic morality as it exists today.

God is hard to define because God is a mystery to us. The closest I can come is to say God is consciousness. God is existence. God is every extant attribute of reality which encompasses every incorporeal attribute of existence. It's significantly better than anything you have come up with.

 

[ding]

Quick about morality. It's a human artificial concept.

Would you like to debate this in the bull ring with me. Because by your logic morals can be anything man says they are and I whole heartedly disagree with that ridiculous belief.

 

[ding]

Maybe, maybe not but that is faith, not science.

It's philosophy which is the only thing available to us outside of space and time. Science is useless outside of space and time. But we can use science for events inside of space and time which is what I have done and you haven't.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science is useless outside of space and time

So is your philospohy, though.